Evolution vs. Creationism

^ that's not *entirely* accurate. Indeed any fixed sequence of events is just as likely as any other "version" of that sequence, provided that each variation of the elements of the sequence has the same probability. But if the creation of life (or the preparation of the "scene") required several crucial steps that had to happen in a certain sequence and each of those steps was unlikely, the whole process would simply be highly improbable to have happened "by chance". But, given the time frame, why not? We can also take into account that there must be billions of planets that also had a chance to develop life. Maybe it is so extremely unlikely that it only occurred on Earth - or only on a dozen planets in the universe.

The event that I'm talking about is the creation of the first bio-chemical "entity" that was able to replicate itself. It would probably have contained RNA or a predecessor of it, for all we know today, and it would not have looked like a living thing at all - maybe indeed just a molecule that was able, in the right environment, to multiply. Multiplication in this case probably means that the molecule served as a catalyst for certain chemical reactions that resulted - probably through chain reactions - in the formation of other instances of the same molecule. This multiplication process wouldn't have been flawless and perfect, and of course instances of the molecule could have been altered by chemicals or radiation, leading to slightly different versions. And, during a very long time, it might have evolved into a version that during replication not only copied itself, but also created byproducts in the process that were able to help with the replication - for example enzymes (proteins). From that point on (a combination of RNA/DNA and proteins) natural selection (plus a few other RNA/DNA related mechanisms like genetic drift) did the rest. 


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - November 29 2009 at 03:27

Kestrel wrote: The word "proof" is being thrown around too much in this thread.

Proof only counts in bread and booze.

Never heard of Dawkins, anyone out there know Velikovsky?


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 28 2009 at 19:23

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Kestrel wrote: Also, a minor beef with the poll choices, there is more to evolution than natural selection! Someone said that the theory has gone pretty much unchanged since the days of Darwin; this is most definitely false! Darwin completely screwed up heredity and it wasn't until the 1930s that Darwin's evolution and Mendel's genetics were synthesized. Ideas like genetic drift (another major force in evolution alongside natural selection) and the neutral theory have been added to the theory since. (Unfortunately, Dawkins doesn't think genetic drift is that big of a deal...) Edit: Not to toot my own horn, but I consider myself well-versed in evolution, so if anyone has any questions, I would be more than happy to try to answer them. I don't think that genetic drift is all too relevant in a thread that mostly boils down to scientific theory vs. religious belief. But I'll happily admit that I'm not too versed on biology or chemistry ... BTW: From what I could read about genetic drift, it appears to be driven by chance ... certainly not something that would hint towards a divine creator/designer/architect.

That is true; no need to make it more complicated than it needs to be. I just find it unfortunate that evolution = natural selection in most people's minds, including Dawkins (almost). The theory of evolution is much more interesting and complex than just natural selection (and that's what I really find interesting about it).

Actually, I have yet to read the Greatest Show on Earth but I read that Dawkins avoided drift (and chance in general) because he wanted to avoid the complaint by creationists about evolution being random, etc. People just have a fear of chance and randomness. :/

Again, I didn't mean to toot my own horn (which is something I dislike a lot) and don't want to presume I more than anyone else here, I just want to hoepfully teach someone something. :)

There are quite a few videos of this kind available on his channel, but this series is really summing it up nicely, particularly the third part where he elaborates on the creation of life scenario involving extraterrestial super-human beings.

I don't know anything. And quite frankly, it doesn't affect me. Our beginnings are of uncertain nature, but we all know we'll end a pile of ashes and dust... I've stopped wasting my time trying to figure out if god exists long ago...

... But if you ask me in a bright day, I'll say I accept evolution as fact and creationism (the pure kind) as a sign of enlarged ventricles in the brain...

I'm going to go with who knows? and in the end it doesn't really matter.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Wait a minute...people disagree about something Dawkins supposedly said? Dawkins can't possibly be correct about anything then!  If you re-watch that interview you'll notice that Stein does a voice-over commentaries over the parts where Dawkins clarifies his comments (Dawkins always clarifies any point he makes). I don't think any of us disagree with what Dawkins said, but I do disagree with Steins editting of the interview. sh*te, Dean- it was a http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke Also, I can't re-watch the interview because I didn't watch the damn thing in the first place.  So there. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke's on you. I need to quit drinking another beer. I've had a humour bypass today.

Yeah, KKK threads will do that to ya. 

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Wait a minute...people disagree about something Dawkins supposedly said? Dawkins can't possibly be correct about anything then!  If you re-watch that interview you'll notice that Stein does a voice-over commentaries over the parts where Dawkins clarifies his comments (Dawkins always clarifies any point he makes). I don't think any of us disagree with what Dawkins said, but I do disagree with Steins editting of the interview.

sh*te, Dean- it was a http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke

Also, I can't re-watch the interview because I didn't watch the damn thing in the first place. 

So there.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke's on you.

I need to quit drinking another beer.

A Person wrote: Being a catholic I believe in creationism, but I don't take the story of creation literally. Besides, how could something like evolution be explained back then? It's like going back in time and trying to get people to use antibiotics.

Wait a minute...people disagree about something Dawkins supposedly said?

Dawkins can't possibly be correct about anything then!