Evolution vs. Creationism

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ That's a relief, since it's not such a big help in explaining how evolution could have achieved complex forms of life like humans - is it? It can explain how some branches of the tree of life became extinct or others were favored, but it doesn't explain how those that were favored continued their evolution. To explain that, you need natural selection. EDIT: Actually such a cataclysmic event could even be seen as an (extreme) case of natural selection - if the term was used in a slightly broader sense.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Such details are IMO more suited for people who have already accepted the key element to for example understanding how - through evolution - a bird could have evolved from a reptile. Which is a well documented example, and a number of intermediates have been found. To explain this process, natural selection is much more important than genetic drift (in my humble laypeople opinion).

Mr ProgFreak wrote: That's where you're wrong IMO. Remove natural selection and it all collapses like a house of cards. Do you really think that life could have evolved with only "random selection"? I am saying that details like genetic drift play a minor role compared to natural selection. And if you disagree - fine, but please don't make it appear like that would have anything to do with scientific consensus. Name one respected biologist who would agree with you that genetic drift is such an important factor in evolution that you can't possibly leave it out of a discussion with laypeople (or Creationists, which is about the same thing ;-)).

Because I'm dumb enough to think math is the only inarguable thing that exists....that's only partly a joke.

Though I am a firm  believer in evolution, I do not think that the simple mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is the only thing behind it. Jean has already pointed out that mutation is far from being random at all. Evolutionists usually all are quick to point out that evolution is not teleogenic at all. This is, however, not really true. Take the evolution of the eye: Once an organ that was capable of detecting light in whatever primitive matter it was almost inevitable that we would arrive at something like the modern eye. It is no coincidence that the eye of the octopus and the eye of us human beings are so similar, though they definitely developed independently. There is a limited number of options to increase its functionality. You may say "well, ok, but there is no spirit behind it", but how does one actually detect a spirit? How do you detect the spirit in a human being? Is it not true that you deduct the spirit of the person sitting on the other side of the table by its actions? The strange thing is that modern science does everything to deny such a spirit, no matter how much it appears to be there. For me this is just as close-minded as sticking word by word to what has been written in some holy book centuries ago. I see no contradiction in believing in science and in some kind of deity, and neither do may leading scientists, though most are not "relgious" in the common sense. But ask ANY scienctist, and they will tell you they feel a kind of awe at how the world is structured, an awe which is very close to a religious feeling. Scientists are usually not believers in any of the old religions, at least not in the literal sense. Perhaps what we need is a religion for the scientific age.

BaldFriede wrote: Though I am a firm  believer in evolution, I do not think that the simple mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is the only thing behind it. Jean has already pointed out that mutation is far from being random at all. Evolutionists usually all are quick to point out that evolution is not teleogenic at all. This is, however, not really true. Take the evolution of the eye: Once an organ that was capable of detecting light in whatever primitive matter it was almost inevitable that we would arrive at something like the modern eye. It is no coincidence that the eye of the octopus and the eye of us human beings are so similar, though they definitely developed independently. There is a limited number of options to increase its functionality. You may say "well, ok, but there is no spirit behind it", but how does one actually detect a spirit? How do you detect the spirit in a human being? Is it not true that you deduct the spirit of the person sitting on the other side of the table by its actions? The strange thing is that modern science does everything to deny such a spirit, no matter how much it appears to be there. For me this is just as close-minded as sticking word by word to what has been written in some holy book centuries ago. I see no contradiction in believing in science and in some kind of deity, and neither do may leading scientists, though most are not "relgious" in the common sense. But ask ANY scienctist, and they will tell you they feel a kind of awe at how the world is structured, an awe which is very close to a religious feeling. Scientists are usually not believers in any of the old religions, at least not in the literal sense. Perhaps what we need is a religion for the scientific age.

Did you read Dawkins book - especially the chapter about intelligent design?

The major argument against a designer "guiding evolution on its way" is that when you look closely at most of the most ingenious achievements of evolution, you see that they are usually textbook examples of bad design. The human eye, since you mention it, is a good example, with the retina placed facing inward, and the nerves on the inside of the eyeball, so that the light has to pass through the nerves in order to reach the receptor cells.

Again, for natural selection to work, you have to have diversity. Natural selection, again, produces diversity slowly or even decreases it.

If you are going to be able to meaningfully defend your position, you have to understand it as deeply as you can. You also need to clearly know the gaps so that you're ready when someone questions them.

Intelligent design is a subset of the teleological argument which basically says that the Universe is too complex to have happened by "natural" processes. Then a conclusion is made that the cause must be a designer.

Maybe we should keep the biology stuff on this thread and the more religious stuff on the Theist / Agnostic / Atheist thread.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Though I am a firm  believer in evolution, I do not think that the simple mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is the only thing behind it. Jean has already pointed out that mutation is far from being random at all. Evolutionists usually all are quick to point out that evolution is not teleogenic at all. This is, however, not really true. Take the evolution of the eye: Once an organ that was capable of detecting light in whatever primitive matter it was almost inevitable that we would arrive at something like the modern eye. It is no coincidence that the eye of the octopus and the eye of us human beings are so similar, though they definitely developed independently. There is a limited number of options to increase its functionality. You may say "well, ok, but there is no spirit behind it", but how does one actually detect a spirit? How do you detect the spirit in a human being? Is it not true that you deduct the spirit of the person sitting on the other side of the table by its actions? The strange thing is that modern science does everything to deny such a spirit, no matter how much it appears to be there. For me this is just as close-minded as sticking word by word to what has been written in some holy book centuries ago. I see no contradiction in believing in science and in some kind of deity, and neither do may leading scientists, though most are not "relgious" in the common sense. But ask ANY scienctist, and they will tell you they feel a kind of awe at how the world is structured, an awe which is very close to a religious feeling. Scientists are usually not believers in any of the old religions, at least not in the literal sense. Perhaps what we need is a religion for the scientific age. Did you read Dawkins book - especially the chapter about intelligent design? The major argument against a designer "guiding evolution on its way" is that when you look closely at most of the most ingenious achievements of evolution, you see that they are usually textbook examples of bad design. The human eye, since you mention it, is a good example, with the retina placed facing inward, and the nerves on the inside of the eyeball, so that the light has to pass through the nerves in order to reach the receptor cells. I have mentioned this before (man these multiple threads on the same subject are getting confusing...) but this design flaw in the human eye is corrected in the octopus eye. But even then the octopus eye is still not the pinnacle of eye evolution, the eye of the mantis shrimp is even "better".

Careful though with those words - "corrected" and "design flaw" could play into the hands of Creationists.