Evolution vs. Creationism

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...

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.

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. :)

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

^ 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

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ 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.

  okay, I was addressing Kele's comment that creationists complain about the random chance element of evolution. I gave simplified examples of random events not being governed by chance, the probability of the last coin turning up heads is exactly the same as the probability first coin turning up heads. A complex molecule such as RNA (and DNA) is a chain of smaller less complex molecules composed of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon, formation of those simpler molecules is a chemical reaction equivalent to the flipping of a coin, their combination into RNA is no different to achieving ten "heads" in a row. Again - that's in (non-fear inducing) simplistic terms, the formation of molecules of simple nucleic acids is more "difficult" than just putting Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen in a bowl and giving it a damn good stir.  

Edited by Dean - November 29 2009 at 05:27

Seriously, I think that creationist theory is something like cruel joke. First I laughed, but then I was worried that some people actually can think about it as a fact. Evolution is simply everywhere around us, in human's life, in nature, so why man (another animal, just intelligent one) should be exception. 

Sorry, could not resist.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ 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.    okay, I was addressing Kele's comment that creationists complain about the random chance element of evolution. I gave simplified examples of random events not being governed by chance, the probability of the last coin turning up heads is exactly the same as the probability first coin turning up heads. A complex molecule such as RNA (and DNA) is a chain of smaller less complex molecules composed of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon, formation of those simpler molecules is a chemical reaction equivalent to the flipping of a coin, their combination into RNA is no different to achieving ten "heads" in a row. Again - that's in (non-fear inducing) simplistic terms, the formation of molecules of simple nucleic acids is more "difficult" than just putting Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen in a bowl and giving it a damn good stir.   However, I agree with what you have said, yet abiogenesis requiring a specific sequence of low-probability events to occur does not imply that chance is the overriding factor. Several stages in that sequence may be a logical consequence of preceding steps and that many of those events could be interdependent, providing feedback and feedforward paths that result in a closed-loop system (or at least one of many possible closed, open and partially closed loops, only one of which is required to result in a self regulating system). While it may appear as chance governing the initial conditions, the resultant cyclic behaviour is anything but and through self-regulation maintains and replicates those initial conditions and thus propogates through self-replication. The chemistry behind the initial conditions is not random, it is predictable and repeatable, as is the physics (quantum or otherwise).   My point is that regardless of how improbable this is given then vast number of initial conditions that result in failure, the existence of RNA and DNA indicates that the initial conditions resulting in success (a sequence of ten heads) did occur.

I agree. I think. Haha.

I don't think we currently know enough about abiogenesis to say if it's based on chance or not. I think there is a possibility that given Earth's conditions, life itself may be inevitable. Miller-Urey's experiment (which had the false initial conditions, I believe) and subsequent experiments have shown that chemicals like amino acids are commonly produced in an early Earth. Perhaps some replicating chemical is equally as likely. *shrug*

Also, wouldn't it be more accurate to call such processes probabilistic, rather than random?


Edited by Kestrel - November 30 2009 at 17:43

^ With a name like ''The Truth'', I would expect something at least half-way logical to come from you. Have I assumed too much?

Well, I didn't read the whole thread because you are using too much technical and quemical knowledge that I don't understand, at least in english... well, what I have to say is that I refuse to believe that we are only a lucky step, followed by other lucky step followed again by other lucky step... I think evolution is a little more complicated that just natural selection process, and BTW, I believe we are special because we havee porpuse, meaning... we don't come here to mess around -funny, i'ts just what we're doing right now- but I believe in the existence of a perfect essence who guide us... so, I believe in evolution guided by a holy hand...