Evolution vs. Creationism

^ the pattern I see here though - not just in Rob - is that evidence supporting evolution is presented and the reaction is "oh, another Dawkins video - you really are a Dawkins freak". How about some comment on the topics that are presented in the videos?

If someone is not convinced that evolution by natural selection could have produced us and all the other forms of life on this planet, These Dawkins videos and books are simply the best way that I know to learn about why people like myself are convinced of it. They are detailed, they are flawlessly presented (better than I could ever present the evidence).

If, in that situation, people refuse to watch them or comment on superficialities rather than the actual evidence, then that is what I call "immune to reason" or "refusing to look at the evidence".

I'll gladly look at any evidence presented that falsifies evolution ... so far, none has been found.

Epignosis wrote: Doesn't agree with Mike = immune to reason

Refuses to look at evidence = immune to reason

That's what I was saying.

Dean wrote: I think most of us know the rudiments of the origins of the Universe and Live on Earth from a Creationist and Evolutionist point of view, but does anyone know the Intelligent Design version?

ID is kind of nebulous.

Essentially, ID basically holds that some features of life are too complex to have evolved. Thus, an intelligent designer created that feature. (I'm sure you know this but I was just introducing the concept.)

While ID as a philosophy is a form of creationism, ID as a movement is disguised Christian Creationism. The Discovery Institute, the think tank behind ID, wants to use ID as a "wedge" to introduce Christian Creationism into the science classroom. There are several evidences for this: 1) The "wedge" document was leaked and 2) A textbook the Discovery Institute pushed, Of Pandas and People, was originally a creationist textbook but they replaced every instance of "creationism" with "intelligent design" after the US Supreme Court declared creationism in the classroom was unconstitutional.

ID is nebulous in the sense that creationism is: everyone has their own beliefs.

For instance, Michael Behe, a biochemist and associate of the Discovery Institute, pretty much agrees with modern evolutionary thinking with the exception of some features he feels are too complex and he calls these irreducibly complex. By that, he means that if you have some complex feature and you remove a part of that feature and it no longer functions, it could not have evolved. (His argument doesn't work at all, but whatever.)

As far as I have seen, intelligent design concerns itself primarily with evolution. When it comes to cosmology, ID proponents sometimes utilize the fine-tuned universe arguments and also claim that life violates entropy. So from that, it seems they attack cosmology as an indirect way to attack evolution.

Basically, intelligent design as a movement is a total lie and a joke. Excuse the strong language, but it really is. Creationism is one thing, but trying to disguise your agenda and blatantly lie to people is another.

I just briefly went through the wiki article on intelligent design and it is very detailed, well sourced, and is completely accurate with what I know of the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design


Edited by Kestrel - December 05 2009 at 03:58

The evolution of sex is definitely complex. As far as I know, scientists are still unsure as to how it involved although there are a few theories. Sex does promote greater genetic diversity, but I have a feeling that isn't what actually caused sex to occur... that is just what keeps it around.

Edited by Kestrel - December 04 2009 at 21:51

^ Nah, it wasn't like that at all.

Kestrel wrote: Whoa, a lot has happened since I last posted. Epignosis, I find the way you interpret the Bible interesting. It's certainly not completely literal, but not entirely allegorical either. It makes me think of some kind of originalism when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution, although I don't know if that analogy is entirely accurate. I actually don't think it is one I've encountered before and if I have, the person didn't really make it explicit (the generic cherry-picking Christian).  Epignosis wrote: And no offense to Dean or some of you others- I genuinely appreciate the time you took to respond- but I am not convinced by any of the explanations given with respect to the phenomenon of two genders.  Two extremely complex reproductive systems developing simultaneously over millions of years, and yet still functioning enough to keep the species viably reproducing is just too much for me to accept.  I'm sorry. I have honestly never heard this before two days ago when my friend said he encountered someone giving the same argument as you. Normally claims I see against evolution revolve around the complexity of the eye, brain, bacterial flagellum, etc.  Have you done any research on this yourself? It's definitely a complex question - sexual reproduction can have a lot of mechanisms involved. So what problem do you see in it... Is it the fact that sexes exist at all and sex determination? Ovaries/testes? Penis/vagina or cloaca? All of it?

If you are interested in seeing reading my spectacular failure to convince Rob (of anything  ... other than chucking poo ) - it's here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=56485&PID=3386607#3386607 (continues on next page too)

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ then you might consider my advice, get the book by Dawkins and read it ... then you'll know what we're arguing about here.

Nah...I'd rather just ignore the book and raise another argument.  That's how things work around here, isn't it?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Negoba wrote: There now exist species that can do both which solves your problem. No it doesn't.  There is no "reason" (bad choice of word, I know, but I'm going with it) for organisms to evolve sexual reproductive organs, at least not one I can discern.  That we have asexual organisms that flourish today makes me wonder why two different sexes evolved.  It certainly isn't a more efficient way of reproducing, nor is it safer, nor does it help to ensure the survival of a species against the environment or predators. Then organisms, according to evolution as I understand it, would also have to evolve sex traits that would attract them to the opposite sex for breeding to happen. If this didn't happen overnight, at what point did it happen, and how? It seems like you should have been paying more attention to what your biology professor was saying than to whether he spit during talking.

My point was that he was a crappy professor...he was unprofessional as well, but I don't feel the need to go into that.


Edited by Epignosis - December 04 2009 at 16:42

Population forces, migration, and genetic reassortment are much more important than mutations in the diversity we see.

Negoba wrote: Juggling the genetic code in as many ways as possible allows for greater diversity of individuals. Greater diversity allows for greater chance for better fit with various environments.   Sexual reproduction started as a very simple process of genetic transfer long before there was anything we would call an "organ."   You're right that sexual reproduction is more energetically demanding than asexual reproduction. But all things that are more complex do. Especially in unicellular and simple multi-cellular lifeforms, the number of duplications (and potential for variation) is enormous. They get over the fact that 90% of the varieties being fatal by shere numbers.

I understand about genetic diversity, and I can also somewhat understand the simple process of genetic transfer...I just don't see any impetus for not one but two separate, extremely complex sexual systems that would not work (or work well) incomplete.  And surely one or two mutations couldn't do the trick.

But as I've said, this ain't my field.