Theory of Evolution

Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more

koiji

-san
Kouhai
Well, thinking about religion. I discovered myself posting in the Christianity thread.. something about evolution. I looked around the Thoughtful Section and couldn't find anything on Evolution.. So here it is.

For starters, are you a believer? I am not. Religion plays a big part in this.. Believing in Evolution means denying the existence of Adam and Eve.. which is blasphemous.. And how could you ever believe that we, human beings, have evolved from.. animals.. Its.. crazy..

Also.. if you are/arent a believer.. why/why not?
As I said.. religion plays a big part in my opinion on evolution..
I personally dont know any Christian or Muslim or.. something else thats close to Islam or Christianity.. who believe in evolution. Christianity and Islam both believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.. There may be a Christian or Muslim who believes is.. but I dont know of any.. and.. believing in it.. goes against religious teachings.. I know many Atheists and Agnostics who believe in the theory of evolution.. What else is there to believe in (No offense.. )?
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE
For starters, are you a believer?

Evolution is a theory, not a belief (beucause you know, it's science, not a religion).
It's like believing in the Newtonian theory of gravity. What does that mean ?

A theory is a model used to explain some natural phenomena and to predict the result of some experiences. It can't be proven, but you must be able to unprove it by testing it. Evolution has yet to be unproven.

Moreover, evolution mechanisms play a major role in modern biology, so well... it works pretty fine.


QUOTE
For starters, are you a believer? I am not. Religion plays a big part in this.. Believing in Evolution means denying the existence of Adam and Eve.. which is blasphemous..

The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.
Most of the mainstream protestant churches have no problem with evolution.
So saying that evolution is blasphemous is just plainly wrong.

You should remember that not everyone is a fundamentalist believing in the litteral reading of the Holy Texts. Some believes some parts are parabole or allegory.


QUOTE And how could you ever believe that we, human beings, have evolved from.. animals.. Its.. crazy..

Crazy ? Not really.
Because we share most of our characteristics with other mammals, especially great primates. We're just better at language and abstract thinking (It doesn't mean we have a better brain by the way, the brain of a chimp is much more able to deal with quick stimuli than ours).
 

Sanity Panda

-chan
Kouhai
I'm a believer in evolution. In fact I'd go as far to claim that God created the universe with evolution in place. Since you are not a believer in evolution. Would you happen to be a believer in creationism in that case?
 

EggBeast

- deska`
Retired
I think I have 2 main points to cover, first dealing with evolution, and secondly dealing with evolution as it relates to religion.

Like Dalriada said, evolution is a scientific theory, just like our scientific theories of gravitation, magnetism, relativity, and many others. You need only believe in the scientific process to admit the validity of evolution (although, like everything in science, it is always open to scrutiny). It's incredible how many people don't even understand the basic concepts of evolution, which are so simple, so elegant, and readily observed, it's hard not to accept. If you "believe" that...

A: children inherit traits from their parents
B: living things that are good at surviving tend to survive

...then you believe in the theory of evolution. This next part might be a bit of a stretch for some, but if you "believe" that...

A: The world is millions upon millions of years old, as has been scientifically proven through countless experiments using an array of methods
B: crude, rudimentary microorganisms can form together from physical forces and exist in extreme conditions, as has been evidenced by such finding as the alien bacteria which have been found in meteors, or by the single-celled organisms found living in the driest, most remote deserts on earth

...then you have to admit that it's possible that life, and the diversity of life we now know, could have come about without any divine influence whatsoever. (unless you want to call the universe divine)

And Koji, you mentioned something along the lines of "if you believe in evolution, you believe men came from the primordial ooze, and therefore blaspheme against god". This isn't really the case, at least not to the extent that you claim. I know many Christians who believe in the theory of evolution, except with regards to human life. The main argument they raise is that only "micro-evolution" (a gradual change in a species) has been proven, and not "macro-evolution" (the gradual transition from one species to another distinct species), which would take millions of years to observe first-hand (although the fossil record does support the theory). Of course, any evolutionary biologist can tell you that macro-evolution and micro-evolution are the same thing, only on different time-frames. At any rate, it's almost ludicrous for an educated person not to accept the theory of evolution, if not all of its implications.

So I suppose it's evident by now that I am a big fan of the theory of evolution. It is simple, elegant, observable on both the smallest and grandest of scales, and responsible for the vast majority of advances in modern biological science. It's been quipped by some (though not by me), that those who deny evolution need to also deny the efficacy of modern medicine.

I am an atheist, but not because of the theory of evolution, and it's not the theory of evolution that should be the main weapon against religion. The two are not incongruous. I am an atheist simply because I don't believe in a god, and I stay away from conventional religion because I see very deep, very fundamental flaws and dangers with it. I was once very deeply religion, very strict-and-devout (my old bishop still says to this day I was one of the most righteous members he's known), but I just took a step back, looked at the very core of my belief, and ultimately realized that the only reason I held onto my beliefs was because they were indoctrinated in me since birth. Having left, I no longer feel the need to justify everything I learn by straining it through the filter of my faith, I could take things at face value, not having to question whether a violent film was "too wicked" or whether some music was "too suggestive". In fact, when I very first started watching anime, I really had to question myself whether or not I was being righteous by watching it (you know, lots of blood, short anime skirts, some language), but not so much anymore.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to turn the world atheist or anything, everyone has the right to their own beliefs, and I know that hardcore atheism isn't for everyone (although I do believe that it could become that way), I personally know quite a handful of people who couldn't even comprehend a secular life.

At any rate, no matter what your faith, all I say is that honesty, understanding, tolerance and respect are key aspects to any well-lived life.

...and thus ends my novel.
 

snorky2k

-san
Kouhai
In may be more fair to ask are you a believer in the theory of evolution or the theory of god. The theory of god is no more solid than the theory of evolution. Knowledge of the theory of evolution guides so many of our scientific and medical breakthroughs and many people who use prayer instead of medicine just let their children die. Not calling god a theory but calling evolution a theory is a direct jab.

Scientists work in public exchange of ideas constantly seeking verifiable evidence that their theories are correct sometimes making good money but the publishing and allowing for discussion help curb the greed.

Clerics allow no corrections to their unverifiable claims and often yield large incomes although they claim that they live in poverty. Also, the tendancy of child molestation by clerics is so high that if any other vocation such as plumbers had as many pedophiles as the clerics do, we would all still be using outhouses.

I sort of figured out that it was a scam when I was in kindergarten. When I asked my sunday school teacher if god was make believe just like santa claus, the easter bunner, and the tooth fairy, I was kicked out of church to protect the other chldren. I have been to other churches though. I remember how the preachers always mentioned how poor that they were and how hard that they worked for the flock. But, their kids had things that I was never rich enough for and they got to fly internationally to take the flock on tours of Europe, Israel, or wherever it was godly. I never even went to Mexico until I was in my thirties. Why should I work all week and give the preacher ten percent.

My family was still full of die hard believers after my aunt was raped in church by a minister. She was forced to give the child to a family that proved that they were devout, by making huge donations equal in price to three or four large Oldsmobile station wagons, over a period of two years. There are huge incentives for people to falsify facts in religion and no consequences for those who do.
 

monsta666

-the bee's knees
Kouhai
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 12 2008, 09:38 PM)Evolution is a theory, not a belief (beucause you know, it's science, not a religion).
Indeed many of the fundamentalists make a big thing about how evolution is a theory not a fact. A theory is a model to describe some natural phenomenon. Nothing is certain and is subject to change. If any new evidence comes to light the theory is altered or even abandoned. Over time the theory of gravity has changed somewhat. Just goes to show nothing is certain. So the same could apply to evolution. Saying that it is possible for Adam and Eve to exist alongside evolution. So nothing is cut and dry.


QUOTE (snorky2k @ Sep 12 2008, 10:47 PM)In may be more fair to ask are you a believer in the theory of evolution or the theory of god. The theory of god is no more solid than the theory of evolution.
I beg to differ. The theory of evolution is far easier to prove/disprove than the existence of god. How can one devise a scientific test to prove that god exists? Ultimately people have to show some faith when believing in god. The same does not apply to evolution. So it's not exactly even.


QUOTE (snorky2k)My family was still full of die hard believers after my aunt was raped in church by a minister. She was forced to give the child to a family that proved that they were devout, by making huge donations equal in price to three or four large Oldsmobile station wagons, over a period of two years. There are huge incentives for people to falsify facts in religion and no consequences for those who do.
I'm very sorry to hear that. You have my deepest condolences. It should be remembered that such people (as despicable as they are) make up a small minority. To say every cleric is like this would be a touch unfair. It is true some of them will take advantage of their position but a lot of people genuinely believe in what they preach and it is all done with good intentions.
 

Barbobot

-the Pirate King
Retired
I would definitely be what you call a "believer" of evolution. It creates the most logical explanation for how the organisms are today and how they are connected with organisms of the past.

It always annoys me how the pro-creationism people try to discredit evolution by saying that it's just a theory. These people need to realize the definition of theory in the scientific community. A theory isn't a conjecture, but a model to prove natural phenomena through observation and experimentation. And there are plenty of observations and experiments supporting the ideas of evolution. Gravity is a theory. Do they deny that? Do they not believe in the Cell Theory as well?
But, in my opinion, the most laughable thing of all is the Creationist Museum. If you haven't heard of it, it's a museum that, I think, is in Kentucky that teaches the natural history is a creationism view. Just search creationism museum on youtube to find videos of it.

Now I was raised roman catholic but I just refuse to believe the things in the bible when we have scientific facts that directly contradict almost everything said in it. I do believe in god, but I believe he set the whole universe into motion with the Big Bang and then took a hands off approach and watches the world develop. In which time life developed and evolved to the point that we are today.
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE
I beg to differ. The theory of evolution is far easier to prove/disprove than the existence of god. How can one devise a scientific test to prove that god exists? Ultimately people have to show some faith when believing in god. The same does not apply to evolution. So it's not exactly even.

Indeed, it shows that the existence of God is not a theory (since it can't be disproven), but a belief.

It would be far easier if all people debating religions and evolution could know the meaning of the words they use. Man, it would even be great if people denying the theory of evolution could know what the theory of evolution says (even if I must say some creationist theories are utmost funny. I remember a muslim website denying the existence of the stone age ; One of the picture was a antic spoon and the caption said "Spoons show that the people of the time had table manners.". I bursted into laugh).

--------------


QUOTE
Now I was raised roman catholic but I just refuse to believe the things in the bible when we have scientific facts that directly contradict almost everything said in it. I do believe in god, but I believe he set the whole universe into motion with the Big Bang and then took a hands off approach and watches the world develop. In which time life developed and evolved to the point that we are today.

As a catholic, you may find this text interesting (It's neither too long, nor too complicated for a papal speech).
 

darkdog

-dredg
Retired
QUOTE And how could you ever believe that we, human beings, have evolved from.. animals.. Its.. crazy..
when i read this, i immediatly thought that arguing about this doesn't seem to have a point. putting things on these terms makes it look like you want to say your opinion rather than listen to other people's.. which isn't a good way to start a discussion.

anyway, i'd say my opinion's quite close to EggBeast's -- close enough not to be worth repeating most of it. Anyway, i don't even wonder about that anymore: to me, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. I respect those who don't believe in it though, even though i honestly don't understand their reasons.
 

Patrick5087

-san
Kouhai
because we do exactly as animals do, we eat, drink, extrude waste, kill, build and generally modify the envroment around us.

So are we animals yes.

Until the day I see Lions in mass laying next to sheep and the same with alligators, i think we came from chaos.
 

dezixn

-chi
Kouhai
I just don't see why so many people thing this argument is 2 sided.
I mean there are middle grounds, such as the ones discussed here previously.
Believing evolution doesn't make you blasphemous, and believing in a god/faith/religion doesn't make your a religious nut.

Personally I'm all for...

Evolution is real.
But God did it, just like everything else.

God is a smart, well, god, I'm sure he could pull it off.
I'm also thinking that he doesn't want us to simply be sheep and never learn and grow, otherwise why would we be so smart (well most of us anyways
)

Just my 2 cents while I'm chilling in hurricane Ike
 

synchk

-dono
Kouhai
Hi guys
, i found something interesting regarding this topic and would like to share it here
. i myself personally deny the theory. and i’ve found a book that explains something about this theory and deny it. it can be found and be downloaded for free here entitled: Why Darwinism is incompatible with the Quran. (if you guys interested to read the details).

here’s some of the interesting points that i understand and able to point it out (beware, this gonna be a very LONG POST XD i really mean it!

hope you guys take some time to read it, i've separate it into many paragraphs and subtopics to ease reading and understanding). good luck in reading it
, dont die just read my post
... or rather, dont read it XD

This book’s purpose is mainly to criticize those muslim evolutionist, but I think all you guys (which include non-muslim also) can take something (if you want) from it. Two facts discussed in this book: First, that Darwinism is a theory that lacks any scientific foundation, and second, that its real target is religion.

Materialists believe that blind coincidence caused the universe to shape itself and life to come about by gradually evolving from nonliving substances. In other words, all living things in the world emerged as the result of natural influences and chance.

QUOTE (Qur'an @ 17: 36)Do not pursue what you have no knowledge of. Hearing, sight and hearts will all be questioned.

Intoduction:
Basically, there’s different opinions and concepts on this theory.
- The first one is completely agree with the theory and think that it is a scientifically proven fact.
- The second one is people who are disagreeing with the theory and deny it.
- The third one is just like dezixn-san, view this theory as scientific fact and look for a "middle way" between it and belief in God; between the theory of evolution and religious belief by maintaining that this account operates under God's control.
- And there’s also who are not bothered about the theory of evolution's claims, as they are not particularly interested in it XD.

The fact of creation stands in opposition to the theory of evolution + Chance Conflicts with the Truth of Creation

In the quran, Allah reveals how He created universe from nothing:
QUOTE (Qur'an @ 2:117)The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, 'Be!' and it is.Those who deny creation claimed that humanity and the universe were not created (things in the world emerged as the result of natural influences and chance). And their greatest support came in the nineteenth century, thanks to Darwin's theory. By the way;

Darwinists Encourage the Creation-by-Evolution View

Evolutionists do not believe in god, and they actually oppose the fact of creation. So they think that their theory will become more acceptable if they remain silent about the religious evolutionists' idea that God created living things through evolution; so that evolution will become more acceptable and belief in creation will weaken.

Rejecting Evolution does not Mean Rejecting Science

According to evolutionists, the first living cell emerged due to chemical reactions in inanimate matter and the chance effects of natural events; life emerged as the result of chance, by unconscious mechanism. In other words, life on Earth came about without a Creator and by itself from inanimate substances. Such a claim rejects the existence of a Creator right from the start, and thus cannot be accepted by any Muslim.

So far, there’s no researcher or scientist able to “produce” even the smallest building block of life, the protein. Since they’ve failed to bring out a living organism even using technology and science knowledge available, it is illogical to claim that blind chance could have succeeded.

For example, evolutionist claim that eye made up from 40 different parts, came out by chance. Yet they unable to explain it how. In fact, it is impossible that blind chance can “created” such magnificent and complex structure. There is an extraordinarily complex and flawlessly planned organization between all of these components.

Evolutionists' claim that life formed by itself by chance from inanimate substances is as irrational and illogical as claiming that America's Statue of Liberty was formed by the coincidental coming together of sand and rocks when lightning struck the sea.
QUOTE (Qur’an @ 6:116)If you obeyed most of those on Earth, they would guide you away from Allah's Way. They follow nothing but conjecture. They are only guessing

Natural Selection and Mutations Have No Power to Cause Evolution

The modern theory of evolution – also known as neo-Darwinism, the updated version of Darwin's original theory that takes into account recent discoveries in genetics – proposes two such mechanisms: natural selection and mutation.

In this case, for example, rabbits who live with thread of predators, only live if they can adapt to the condition and survive; pass their features onto next generation. However, there’s no new feature emerges here. The rabbit does not turn into new species or even acquiring new characteristic. Thus one cant say that natural selection causes evolution.

Then, the second one; evolution by mutation. Of course mutations cause by rare random error and may give rise to change, yet such things are always destructive. For example, give a radiation wave to a turtle wont make them into ninja turtle, but the turtle become defect or die instead XD. Or as random earthquake destroys a city instead of developing it, chance mutations lead to sickness, deformity, and handicaps in living things.

Fossil Research Proves Creation

Look at fish’s example. The evolutionists claims that fish evolved from invertebrates (such as starfish). If this were the case, should fossil of transitional forms must have existed to allow gradual evolution.

To think that a fish just born from a starfish is even illogical XD. We should be able to find those fossil who have both fish and invertebrates charact. no fossil of any transitional form has ever been found. So this denying gradual evolution.

Not one fossil of any transitional forms posited by evolutionists has ever been found. Throughout history, fish have always existed as fish, birds as birds, and human beings as human beings.

the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations, instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

Evolution made by god?

There’s also think that evolutionary creation maintain that Allah (or other god – depends on your belief) uses mutations to change a living thing's genetic data, or Allah first created primitive creatures and then employs natural selection to turn them into more complex form. Of course Allah can employ evolution if He had willed. But the quran never contains sign of evolution and the claim of the stage-by-stage emergence of species.
QUOTE (Qur'an @ 6:73)Allah creates everything, in the form and at the time that He chooses, without the use of any model and out of nothing He created the heavens and Earth with truth. The day He says "Be!" it is. His speech is Truth...
QUOTE (Qur'an @ 16: 40)Our Word to a thing when We will it is just to say to it "Be!" and it is.
QUOTE (Qur'an @ 40:68)He gives life and causes to die. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is.

This is how Allah reveals the creation of living things:

QUOTE (Qur'an @ 24:45)Allah created every animal from water. Some of them go on their bellies, some of them on two legs, and some on four. Allah creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things This verse explain that animals (reptiles, birds and mammals) created from water. They were not created “out of each other” but “from water”. In other words, they were formed separately from a common material Allah shaped.

Science also made it clear that this common material was water, as basic component every living body (for eg: 70% for mammals). An accepted fact that nothing can live without water.

While in the quran, Allah reveals that man was created in a miraculous manner. To create the first human being, Allah shaped clay, and then breathed a soul into it:
QUOTE (Qur'an @ 38:71-72)Your Lord said to the angels, "I am going to create a human being out of clay. When I have formed him and breathed My Spirit into him, fall down in prostration to him!
QUOTE (Qur'an @ 23:12)We created man from the purest kind of clay
QUOTE (Qur'an @ 37:11)Ask them for a ruling: Are they stronger in structure or other things that We have created? We created them from sticky clayIt can be seen here that man was not created from an ape or other living species, as evolutionists would have us believe, but from clay, a lifeless substance. There is no "natural evolutionary process" at work here, but rather Allah's miraculous and direct creation.
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE Hi guys 
, i found something interesting regarding this topic and would like to share it here
. i myself personally deny the theory. and i’ve found a book that explains something about this theory and deny it. it can be found and be downloaded for free here entitled: Why Darwinism is incompatible with the Quran. (if you guys interested to read the details).

Yes ! That's the idiotic website I was speaking in my previous post !
This guy is maybe a renowned muslim scholar, but he doesn't know shit about the theory of evolution (or about sciences in general).

Well, I'll answer anyway.


QUOTE
Materialists believe that blind coincidence caused the universe to shape itself and life to come about by gradually evolving from nonliving substances. In other words, all living things in the world emerged as the result of natural influences and chance.

Stay on topic please, materialism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (see the RCC. They are not really materialist).


QUOTE
The fact of creation stands in opposition to the theory of evolution + Chance Conflicts with the Truth of Creation ph34r.gif

Stay on topic please. The creation of the world or the creation of life have nothing to do with the theory of evolution (You're looking for theories about abiogenesis here).


QUOTE Evolutionists do not believe in god, and they actually oppose the fact of creation. So they think that their theory will become more acceptable if they remain silent about the religious evolutionists' idea that God created living things through evolution; so that evolution will become more acceptable and belief in creation will weaken.

On topic, but plainy wrong, see the catholic and most of the protestant churches.


QUOTE According to evolutionists, the first living cell emerged due to chemical reactions in inanimate matter and the chance effects of natural events; life emerged as the result of chance, by unconscious mechanism. In other words, life on Earth came about without a Creator and by itself from inanimate substances. Such a claim rejects the existence of a Creator right from the start, and thus cannot be accepted by any Muslim.

On topic, but plainly wrong, the theory of evolution says nothing about apparition of life.


QUOTE
For example, evolutionist claim that eye made up from 40 different parts, came out by chance. Yet they unable to explain it how. In fact, it is impossible that blind chance can “created” such magnificent and complex structure. There is an extraordinarily complex and flawlessly planned organization between all of these components.


So flawless there's a pretty big blindspot in it.
Besides, you're speaking here about the human eye, aren't you (the falcon eye is even better if you want my opinion. Too bad, it's so big that the falcon doesn't have room for a lot of brain in its head). But if you look at simpler living creatures, you'll see that eyes can be very crude organs, and that's there's a evolution between a bunch of photosensible cells and the human eye.


QUOTE
In this case, for example, rabbits who live with thread of predators, only live if they can adapt to the condition and survive; pass their features onto next generation. However, there’s no new feature emerges here. The rabbit does not turn into new species or even acquiring new characteristic. Thus one cant say that natural selection causes evolution.

Every cattle farmer, dog breeder or even vegetables farmer would deny that selection doesn't lead to evolution.
Because those farmers breed some animals to emphasize some caracteristics (that's why some stallions are so expensive. Even buying some of its sperm can be expensive). How do you thing we have so many breeds of dog ?

Of course, it's artificial selection, aiming at some chosen characteristics instead of adaption to the environement, but the evolution is still here.


QUOTE Then, the second one; evolution by mutation. Of course mutations cause by rare random error and may give rise to change, yet such things are always destructive. For example, give a radiation wave to a turtle wont make them into ninja turtle, but the turtle become defect or die instead XD. Or as random earthquake destroys a city instead of developing it, chance mutations lead to sickness, deformity, and handicaps in living things.

Having blue eyes is the result of a mutation that took place some 6-10, 000 years ago, according the University of Copenhague.
And I find blue eyes are quite cute, nothing destructive here.


QUOTE
Fossil Research Proves Creation blink.gif

Not one fossil of any transitional forms posited by evolutionists has ever been found. Throughout history, fish have always existed as fish, birds as birds, and human beings as human beings.

the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations, instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.


If human beings has always existed as human being, why don't we find human fossils in the older strata ?
It clearly mean that fossil research disproves creation blink.gif

Besides, the Archaeopteryx seems pretty transitional.
Or the mudskipper, this fish almost looks like a lizard.

The rest of the message is muslim mythology, so I won't comment.
 

Konohamaru

-chan
Kouhai
Evolution as a fact - different species evolving from a common ancestor - is something which you cannot miss unless you close your eyes to nature and your mind to entire scientific domains, with most compelling explanations and scientific evidence galore.

The theory of evolution - which explains how evolution took place - has come up with mechanisms such as mutations and natural selection. But those are not the only mechanisms - those are the simplest - which Charles Darwin was able to figure out some 150 years ago. Other mechanisms have been proposed since then. For instance punctuated equilibriums such as explained by Stephen Jay Gould.

It is a highly imperfect theory, like all man-devised scientific theories. If you talk to any weathered scientist - he or she will tell you of some incertitudes, some unsolved problems - even some incoherence, that still remains unexplained in his / her field of knowledge.
In evolution theory, the origin of life is a point of incertitude. It is not as thoroughly explained as, say, the emergence of the modern horse.
But hey, - just give the scientists time - just 200 years ago, birds flying in the sky and ducks floating on water were poorly understood phenomena !! Now we're building the 787 dreamliner and town-sized transatlantic cruise ships.

Creationist theories - on the other hand - are not known to explained any law of nature - or to help inventors produce any useful patent.


QUOTE (synchk)First, that Darwinism is a theory that lacks any scientific foundation, and second, that its real target is religion.
Your 'first' is a big fat lie - animal biology, botanics, anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, nuclear physics - all have come up with hard evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Just explore through talkorigins.org

Your 'second' is a ridiculous, childish, conspiracy accusation

Check this video : 'Inherit the Wind' scene

Supporting the theory of evolution is entirely compatible with being a religious person. And with believing that man is the creation of God. It is just incompatible with saying that God (or Allah - same person) was stupid enough to create man - provide him with such an inquisitive mind - and expect him not to discover natural facts as basic as the evolution of species.



QUOTE Materialists believe that blind coincidence caused the universe to shape itself and life to come about by gradually evolving from nonliving substances. In other words, all living things in the world emerged as the result of natural influences and chance.

Yes - the diversity of life on Earth comes from random mutations. But proponents of creationism have a hard time fathoming the concept described by the words - randomness, aleatory, heuristics, hazard, chance.

All these words say roughly the same thing : there are mechanisms in the physical world, which are too complex to figure out. Therefore, when doing an experiment - it is difficult to say for sure what the outcome will be. BUT ! For some simple experiments - coin tossing, die rolling, - and an increasing number of scientific fields - meteorology etc. - it is easy to predict SOME information about the outcome from the initial conditions and physical constraints of the experiment !
For instance - for coins or dice - not the outcome of one experiment - but an average of outcomes over a series of identical experiments !
That is the way human beings have managed to cope with the problem of physical world complexity : by doing mathematical averages over space and time.

And here comes the difficult part :
Coincidence and chance are things that do not happen in the world. These words describe just the way humans interpret what really happens in the world.

And this view is not incompatible with the idea that God knows and sees all that happens in the world EXACTLY the way it happens.

Should you meet your friend at the bookshop "by chance" - there is in fact no random occurrence in this event. It has been triggered by natural factors - some of which you can figure out (it can be that you both like books, that you were both off work/school that day, that you live in the same neighbourhood, that the bookseller is a really well supplied one etc.) and some of which you have no knowledge of ( the two separate chains of events that made one of you enter the bookshop before the other got out). By saying "chance" you choose to silence your (obvious) acknowledgement of the 1st type of factors and emphasize your surprise to the 2nd type.

Now back to the origin of life. Since God has created all of the material world - with the laws governing the evolution of fluids, solids, those describing the chemical reactions, the assembling of atoms into molecules and molecules into proteins, Earth and its gravity, the Sun and its light and since he made use of an infinite time to create life
- why would He not allow living beings to proceed from inanimate matter ?
This seems all the more plausible that those living beings are - during all their existence - subjected to the same laws of physics, chemistry, gravitational mechanics as the matter they proceed from !
(at least their corporeal component
)


QUOTE In other words, life on Earth came about without a Creator and by itself from inanimate substances. Such a claim rejects the existence of a Creator right from the start, and thus cannot be accepted by any Muslim.

I am not a Muslim nor a Christian, but if science chose to remain silent on the subject of the Creator, it is from pure humbleness. Scientific method does not allow scientists to acquire knowledge of the spiritual world. It is a question of principle. Being humble and wise about the reach of one's knowledge is a principle in all religions. Science an religion are not incompatible.


QUOTE So far, there’s no researcher or scientist able to “produce” even the smallest building block of life, the protein. Since they’ve failed to bring out a living organism even using technology and science knowledge available, it is illogical to claim that blind chance could have succeeded.

Again a very foolish, inconsistent statement

The domains of the material world that we can understand through our science or master through our technology are a very small fraction of what happens in the world. If that which HAPPENS but we cannot understand is called "chance", it is simply because the word remained in the familiar language since the time of our ancestors, who were a lot more in the dark than we are today. If you wish to call it "Creator's design" you are free to do so. Just know it is the vast majority of things.


QUOTE For example, evolutionist claim that eye made up from 40 different parts, came out by chance. Yet they unable to explain it how. In fact, it is impossible that blind chance can “created” such magnificent and complex structure. There is an extraordinarily complex and flawlessly planned organization between all of these components.

About the "flawlessly planned" part some people may disagree. It depends on what criteria you judge.
Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=related
(if you are patient enough to sit through the corny title
)
I like the fellow that says : if God has designed the human eye just as it is, He would be considered a poor engineer. Implied : you have to look at the whole process of evolution, which created the eye as a functional instrument of the human body - to see the genius of God.

About natural selection

QUOTE In this case, for example, rabbits who live with thread of predators, only live if they can adapt to the condition and survive; pass their features onto next generation. However, there’s no new feature emerges here. The rabbit does not turn into new species or even acquiring new characteristic. Thus one cant say that natural selection causes evolution.

My, that's the worst explanation I've ever read of natural selection
. You have to be able reason on multiple time scales to understand natural selection. There are several populations of rabbits and several populations of rabbit predators. If one population of rabbit predators becomes more specialised (and thus effective) at catching rabbits - then the populations of rabbits will all diminish. Those rabbits which are the most vulnerable(say a rabbit race that for some reason goes out at night to find its food) to that predator (say a night owl) will decline more than the other populations .
On the contrary, another rabbit population that feeds upon the same plants, but harvests them in daytime might increase in numbers, because of less competition.

That is on a time scale of several hundred years at least. You have to look at more factors and longer periods to understand why some species become naturally extinct and how others naturally survive an become predominant.

Not to mention that nowadays these phenomena may be very difficult to observe, ever since man has become a universal predator and competitor for all wild species on Earth.

About mutations

QUOTE Of course mutations cause by rare random error and may give rise to change, yet such things are always destructive. For example, give a radiation wave to a turtle wont make them into ninja turtle, but the turtle become defect or die instead XD. Or as random earthquake destroys a city instead of developing it, chance mutations lead to sickness, deformity, and handicaps in living things.

Again ! Again, a simplistic description of a very very complex natural fact. Living beings are subject to mutations all of the time. Our cells contain enzymes that repair most of the mutations. However some minor, benign mutations are left unfixed - that's why we have different eye colour, hair colour, complexion, blood groups, predisposition/immunity to diseases etc.
It's these minor mutations that get transmitted genetically and form an increasing pool of diversity - from which natural selection picks the most fitted individuals for survival.

Of course: critical exposure to radioactivity of concentrated X-rays create major mutations - in huge numbers - in a living being, that affect its health and viability. Many other factors trigger malign mutations. Cancers are a badly known family of diseases which express themselves as undesired mutations, that divert the resources of the body and direct them against life.

Bottom line : there are 'good' and 'bad' mutations. And the living body can support a certain quantity of mutations. Past that limit, it's an accident: the body is defected and dies. Accidents are sudden violent events that we have no time to adapt to. Just like a world champion at apnoea may still choke and die if you put his head in a bucket of water while he's still asleep. That is violence.


QUOTE Evolution made by god?

[...]Of course Allah can employ evolution if He had willed. But the quran never contains sign of evolution and the claim of the stage-by-stage emergence of species.

Well, without any disrespect meant for the holy book of Islam, it may be that Allah (through His prophet Mohammed) chose to lay down in the Quran the laws and principles of a moral life for man, thus addressing spiritual matters. And he left the principles of material life on Earth up for discovery by man, through the experience of their earthly minds and bodies.
It would have made little sense for God to write in the holy book :"Toddlers : you will at first run on your fours all day, because your muscles are not strong or disciplined enough to allow you to keep your balance upright." Maybe evolution just is as obvious to God as Earth gravity is to us.


QUOTE This is how Allah reveals the creation of living things:
This verse explain that animals (reptiles, birds and mammals) created from water. They were not created “out of each other” but “from water”. In other words, they were formed separately from a common material Allah shaped.

That is your interpretation of what Allah said in this verse. It may be that He did not bother with a mere informative message here. It seems more plausible that He emphasized water as the common material for all living beings in order for men to notice how important it is to preserve Earth's resources in order to respect His other creations. Therefore the verse contains a command !
 

synchk

-dono
Kouhai
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 13 2008, 10:41 AM)The rest of the message is muslim mythology, so I won't comment.Don’t mind
, since this book is mainly to criticize muslim evolutionist, so I just include those muslim mythology and text from muslim’s holy text.

p/s: I also wont comment much regarding those RCC things and hows the catholic and protestant churches / other religion perspective, because I knowledge is very limited in that area XD


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 13 2008, 10:41 AM)the creation of the world or the creation of life have nothing to do with the theory of evolution (You're looking for theories about abiogenesis here
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 13 2008, 10:41 AM)On topic, but plainly wrong, the theory of evolution says nothing about apparition of life.Or maybe its called spontangenous generation if im not mistaken. Well, based on this source & others as well tell that theory of evolution does include apparition of life. evolutionary theory have 7 distinct & interrelated phases, in the following order.
QUOTE (that source)- Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.
- Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
- Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.
- Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.
- Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).
- Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.
- Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
and what we’re focus now is probably macro- & micro- evolution. or if maybe darwin’s theory only include micro- and macro-.


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 13 2008, 10:41 AM)So flawless there's a pretty big blindspot in it.
Besides, you're speaking here about the human eye, aren't you (the falcon eye is even better if you want my opinion. Too bad, it's so big that the falcon doesn't have room for a lot of brain in its head). But if you look at simpler living creatures, you'll see that eyes can be very crude organs, and that's there's a evolution between a bunch of photosensible cells and the human eyeI’d more think that blind spot is limitation, instead of flaw. Falcon have a better eye because as a hunter, it need good eye-sight and it live/eat based on hunting instinct. Falcons flying so it should have better eye as to live in its niche. So this is a balance of falcons cant think like human being, but with that advantage it can live till now. Octopus even doesn’t have any blind spot because it needs to adapt to its nature. And what human being already have (organ, mind, functions) here is already good enough, better than any living organism ever existed.


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 13 2008, 10:41 AM)How do you thing we have so many breeds of dog ? Of course, it's artificial selection, aiming at some chosen characteristics instead of adaption to the environement, but the evolution is still here.Yeah, there’re so many breads of dogs, cats, frogs and birds. But the characteristic doenst change the whole animal into another species / genus / order /etc. there might be some have cross-linked/shared charact, like wolves which touted as the ancestor of dogs , but that animal is not existed by evolution; I mean evolution doest change wolf into dog, but dogs exist/created as a variation of wolf (or something). Same with the all different types of fish, shellfish, prawns, frogs, and even bacteria.


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 13 2008, 10:41 AM)Having blue eyes is the result of a mutation that took place some 6-10, 000 years ago, according the University of Copenhague.
And I find blue eyes are quite cute, nothing destructive here.I think that also might explain why people have different colours of hair. Since the hair colour also have something to do with melanin pigmentation. And mutation can sometime cause genetic variation. Some of the genes might be altered, but not as change the number of chromosomes and DNA till resulting new generation of eye. The dominant gene just turned off, not changing the whole function or structure. and mostly mutation cause defect more than improve. with that very low %, mutation cant be the main idea of evolution. if so, we're the 1% (just an example) who live through trial & error random mutation. be glad that we alive
.


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 13 2008, 10:41 AM)If human beings has always existed as human being, why don't we find human fossils in the older strata ?
It clearly mean that fossil research disproves creationI think human still don’t exist at that time, maybe human can’t even exit in that condition (eg extreme cold or something). That’s why. We also cant find cats fossil along side t-rex’s timeline. Which mean that human is created at later timeline.


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Sep 13 2008, 10:41 AM)Besides, the Archaeopteryx seems pretty transitional. Or the mudskipper, this fish almost looks like a lizard.Um yeah, for me, I think it seems transitional because to adapt to both nature/habitat (for mudskipper) or timeline (for archaeopteryx) -> because of climate change. Archae-san exist not due to evolution from previous organism, but changes made from previous creature to adapt to that current climate. but that just my idea.

p/s: and ah konohamaru-san, just read your post. thats why i dont respond in this post. um... maybe later.. =_= XD
 

EggBeast

- deska`
Retired
QUOTE (synchk's source)- Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.
- Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
- Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.
- Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.
- Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).
- Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.
- Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
Ok, I just had to comment on this part. Darwin's theory of evolution encompasses only the "macro" and "micro" evolution you speak of. And again, they are the same thing, "macro" evolution just takes place over a much longer period of time. All those other "evolutionary" theories you speak of range from sheer philosophy to a sad misunderstanding of astronomy. So, here are my comments on those, just for clarification...

-Cosmic Evolution- In this day and age, the thought that the matter of the universe came from nothing is purely philosophical. All that can be known from science (or from human thought in general) so far is that there was, about 14 billion years ago, an unimaginably dense collection of "matter" (I put that in quotes, because it was exactly is very much unknown [although in a few months, we may find out, courtesy of the new Cern particle collider! w00t!] ). There is no absolute way to ascertain what things could possibly have been like before this.

-Stellar Evolution- Ok, this step is very much out of place. Things didn't go from Big Bang to stars instantaneously. Here's a quick overview: there is a very big bang, due to slight density irregularities, matter starts collecting in clumps throughout the universe. These form massive, rotating clouds of gas, and due to some very basic Newtonian physics (I'm not going into too much detail here), black holes and stars begin forming in the center of these huge clouds (which fused all those elements we love so much), and around these stars, asteroids and planets begin forming at varying distances from the start due to differing densities, and bam! You've got solar systems.

"Chemical" and "Planetary" evolution are already taken care of...

-Organic Evolution- There is much evidence of this phenomenon. We've found living bacteria on asteroids, we've seen bacteria living in active lava flows. And beyond that, there are specialized scientists actively working on the creation and engineering of synthetic lifeforms. They've thus far only made genomes, but the creation of single-cell organisms is definitely on the horizon of their research. In the end, I personally am not sure if the process where inorganic material becomes, to some degree, organic, but I know very much that all the evidence we have seen points towards that possibility. And hell, we're about to create an entirely synthetic lifeform, proving that living material can indeed come from non-living matter.

I realize that these ideas vary from the actual topic of Darwinian evolution, but I just wanted to clarify that those "different phases of evolution" do not apply to this topic at all, as they are mostly astronomical, and I wanted to clarify that big bang theory does NOT rely upon incredible improbabilities to explain our universe. Your "sources" are very misleading, and do not support their claims with substantive argument.

If you want to "disprove" evolutionary theory, you've got to argue with scientific argument, not logic based on flawed assumptions.
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE
p/s: I also wont comment much regarding those RCC things and hows the catholic and protestant churches / other religion perspective, because I knowledge is very limited in that area XD

It would be good then that you don't make blanket statements about religion not being compatible with the theory of evolution, since some flavour of religion are.


QUOTE Or maybe its called spontangenous generation if im not mistaken. Well, based on this source & others as well tell that theory of evolution does include apparition of life. evolutionary theory have 7 distinct & interrelated phases, in the following order.
and what we’re focus now is probably macro- & micro- evolution. or if maybe darwin’s theory only include micro- and macro-.

The thing to remember is that the theory of evolution need reproduction. It's the basis of the theory. So micro- and macro-evolution are on topic (and are indeed the same thing, as Eggbeast said).
Cosmic evolution isn't at all, except if you can find daddy-planet, mommy-planet and child-planet.


It doesn't mean that stars and planets don't change, but it has nothing to do with Darwin.

For the same reason, the apparition of life isn't covered by the theory of evolution. Because reproduction comes after the creation of life, not before.


QUOTE
And what human being already have (organ, mind, functions) here is already good enough, better than any living organism ever existed.

As I said, the chimp brain beats ours very easily when dealing with quick stimuli. And you'll find countless examples where animals are better than human beings (languages and abstract thinking being the two main areas where we beat everyone else easily).
You'll say that humans don't need to be so quick, because of their brains ? Fine, it's completely compatible with the theory of evolution.


QUOTE
Um yeah, for me, I think it seems transitional because to adapt to both nature/habitat (for mudskipper) or timeline (for archaeopteryx) -> because of climate change. Archae-san exist not due to evolution from previous organism, but changes made from previous creature to adapt to that current climate. but that just my idea.

Man, you're not darwinist, but lamarckist !
It has been proven wrong. You don't pass the charateristics you gained after birth to your offspring.
 

monsta666

-the bee's knees
Kouhai
Some people are disputing whether there is any scientific backing on macro evolution, I can assure there is some. Saying that it maybe useful to know how macro-evolution works.

Macro-evolution or speciation (I only knew it from the latter term) is the process where one species diverges to form two species. To understand this process fully it is important to understand the definition of a species. For two animals to belong to the same species they must be able to reproduce AND produce fertile offspring. For example a donkey and a horse are two different species. They can reproduce with each other but it's offspring (mules) are sterile so they will still be classed as different species.

Anyway there are two main ways for new species to form. The first method is called allopatric speciation and occurs when the population of a species is split up (usually by some geographical factors). Over a period time these two populations are exposed to different selective pressures causing them to change. When enough changes occur the two populations can no longer reproduce with each other even if they meet up.

The other form of speciation is called sympatric speciation. This form of speciation is more heavily disputed. To be perfectly honest it is more relevant to plants and involves errors in the reproduction cycle. It gets quite technical so I'll spare the details suffice to say the offspring does not contain the same number of chromosomes as it's parents.

QUOTE (konohamaru @ Sep 14 2008, 12:47 AM)there are 'good' and 'bad' mutations. And the living body can support a certain quantity of mutations. Past that limit, it's an accident: the body is defected and dies. Accidents are sudden violent events that we have no time to adapt to. Just like a world champion at apnoea may still choke and die if you put his head in a bucket of water while he's still asleep. That is violence.
It's not even that simple. There are good, bad and neutral mutations. Bad mutations will harm the animal's chances for survival (cancer/genetic diseases) while neutral mutations have no effect (eye colour). As for good mutations those are reserved for mutations that actually enhance the animal's chance of survival (better eyesight/intelligence etc). It should be noted that most mutations are actually detrimental to the organism. After all mutations are not supposed to happen. That is why many animals have safe guards against mutations cells have a self destruct feature when genes are damaged the immune system destroys damaged cell etc.

The thing is humans are bit different to other animals as they are not under a lot of selective pressures. So if evolution exists you will not really see it in humans. Saying that there are some cases where IT IS occurring. For example in Africa there is high prevalence of people carrying the sickle cell gene. This gene is normally bad but one feature it has is it makes people more resistant to malaria. As malaria is common place in many of places in Africa anything that makes people resistant to it will be an advantage. Is this a case of evolution at work? It's difficult to tell but it certainly is interesting.
 

Dalriada

-dono
Sempai
QUOTE (synchk @ Sep 13 2008, 06:00 PM) p/s: I also wont comment much regarding those RCC things and hows the catholic and protestant churches / other religion perspective, because I knowledge is very limited in that area XD
To illustrate my words with some news, this article has been publish today by the Torygraph :



QUOTE The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".

...

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

-----------------------------

And from the Vatican



QUOTE VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

...


He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

 

Gustav1976

-sama
Retired
would have to say that there is a difference between belief and religion.
On the whole I would agree with the theory of evolution but I would have to qualify it by saying that it is the most probable method mankind was created but it doesn't explain EVERYTHING. Also to say the christianity or Islam precludes evolution is to talk nonsense imo. Unless a person can claim to know implicitly the thoughts of anyone besides themself then who is to say that God or any other entity did not use evolution as the mechanism.
Also you would, as a Christian have to acknowledge that the Bible is NOT the word of God only man's interpretation of the acts of God and also it was not formally written down for many centuries and mankind being as it is imperfect, the events may have changed through the centuries due to mistellings or interpretation.eg. Do you remember what your mother or father told you as a story when you were very little? word for word? without any mistakes? Now consider that this will have been done for centuries. Also remember that even when it was written down there was a big debate at the time about what would be put into the formal version of the Bible and what would be left out.eg. In the original version of gensis Eve was NOT the first woman, that was in fact Lilith who rebelled against God and Adam and was cast out of Eden and God then made a replacement in the form of Eve.
In any event, the Bible is at best man's interpration of memories of works of God not the definitive word of God him/herself. However Darwins theory of evolution is not perfect either. In truth it is unlikely we will ever know for sure what happened we can only make caclulated guesses based on what we know and we will never know 100% what happened.
 
Top