Evolution

[Split]

Oh, come on...this thread is just a big hostile argument waiting to happen...
evolution is real

/thread

[Omega_Weltall]

i dont care what you all say, my faith in Raptor Jesus and Shiva stands

[MaximusLight]

I believe in evolution... AND in God
(it's true and I know that will screw with a lot of peoples minds :P)

Edit: and just to put a spin on it, I believe that evolution on a whole is a correct theory, but I'd say it's not always about just what lives to reproduce more and pass on it's genes more effectively.

For instance looking inside a eukaryotic cell, the mitochondria in animals and also chloroplasts in plants are actually thought to be an absorbed cell way back in evolutionary history. That noted, there is a symbiotic relationship in such eukaryotic cells. This, however, does not mean that the cells that originally absorbed or did not absorb them procreated any less effective because both prokaryotes and eukaryotes exist today. Therefore, it can be said that evolution happened, but it was not simply because they passed there genes on more effectively, otherwise the variations wouldn't be as common or as effective as they seem to be.

On a personal note this absorption of mitochondria seems to just make the cell more complex, chances of passing on genes, so it's like the method of the theory works, but it's simply our view on how the method being carried out that seems to be the question that comes up.

Metaphysics ends here.
----------------------------------------------


Long story short (and put simply):
It seems to me that evolutionary process happens, but it' not always in the harsh destructive, survival of the fittest way that we seem to think of.

[Sinue_v2]

Long story short (and put simply):
It seems to me that evolutionary process happens, but it' not always in the harsh destructive, survival of the fittest way that we seem to think of.

Too true. Indeed, what we're increasingly finding out is that the mechanisms for Evolution are much more diverse than what Darwin originally proposed via natural selection. It's become so diverse that some have even taken a second look at Lamarkism, although I still don't think there's any real evidence to support this claim. While Natural Selection does still seem to be the primary driver of evolution, other methods such as Gene Flow and Genetic Drift play a part in the diversity of life. Indeed, evolution seems to happen even irregardless of whether or not there are natural pressures acting on the population.

I don't think you can really point to the continued extraordinary survival of Prokaryotes in the face of Eukaryotic cells as a sign that something bigger is going on. It only means that both types of cells are highly adaptable and successful. Evolution happens regardless. Natural Selection is just a means of weeding out poor or detrimental mutations. It's perfectly plausible that a population can evolve into a separate species with is highly successful despite the continued success of the parent population.

And for the record, I believe in God or gods too. Albeit, I don't follow a religion. I have a more Deistic philosophy. I tend to keep the Physical and Metaphysical in two separate categories though. We cannot deny the evidence discovered and presented to us, and we must follow it to it's logical conclusions. However, the belief in god is simply that - a belief which requires no evidence (provided I keep it a personal belief and not a statement of fact which extends beyond myself). Though in the broadest sense of the word, I am a creationist, I have very different views. Most conventional creationists use their religious teachings to shape their view on science and the natural world. Contrary, I use science and the natural world to shape my views on god. I don't think Science can ever tell us anything positive about god, because by definition he/she/it exists outside of and beyond the physical realm - which is Science's only purview. I think Science CAN, however, better our understanding of such a being - not by positively confirming certain attributed aspects of god, but by falsifying blatantly incorrect assumptions about him.

[MaximusLight]

see above (saving space)

1st paragraph:

2nd paragraph: Oh I know, I just think it's an interesting thing to note since it doesn't follow the pattern most people think of.

3rd: S'all cool, my personal approach is to treat the two separately and let the physical figure out the physical, and the metaphysical figure out the metaphysical. I like your take on using science to better understand God. I have found that most spiritually well developed people simply don't have any issues with science (how it's used from time to time but not the science itself). As far as which one effects the other in terms of my views, I find that one will give inspiration or a different perspective to the other. Ultimately I do fall back on to my spirituality because due to experience science can't explain everything, there is a certain peace that comes from simply trusting in it (I am fairly typical in that way).

[Zarode]

I don't know how, but we are here and now, and need to shape our future. Looking at the past too much is bad, and can cause more problems then needed, but not knowing your history can lead to outcomes that have come before.


I take this into account for creationism/evolution. It'd be nice to know, but I honestly don't care. We're here, and we are now. It'd be nice to keep our focus on that.

[Sinue_v2]

1st paragraph:

2nd paragraph: Oh I know, I just think it's an interesting thing to note since it doesn't follow the pattern most people think of.

A lot of people don't understand evolution, even the people who accept it based on the evidence. There's a perponderance of people who seem to think that Evolution is a process of increasing complexity in a species. Though they may not outright say it, they tend to come off with the attitude that evolution makes species better, stronger, faster, more intelligent, etc. This isn't the case. There's plenty of cases of evolution taking away clearly advantageous adaptations which are no longer necessary, or reverting a species to a simpler and less complex form. Some have taken to call this De-Evolution, but really, there's no such thing. There is just evolution. It does not arbitrarily make creatures "better", only better suited to their environments.

I like your take on using science to better understand God. I have found that most spiritually well developed people simply don't have any issues with science (how it's used from time to time but not the science itself).

To be honest, it's not really "MY" view... sort of. I've always kinda felt this way, but I've never found the words to articulate it into a coherent statement quite the way Paine did when he wrote...

"The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God." ~ Thomas Paine

Zarode:

I take this into account for creationism/evolution. It'd be nice to know, but I honestly don't care. We're here, and we are now. It'd be nice to keep our focus on that.

But you can't really deny the benefits which the practical application of evolutionary theory has had on our society. It's become the backbone of modern biology, and even beyond that - the understanding and application of the principals lain down by Evolutionary theory is transforming the world we live in. For instance, while still in it's infancy, Evolutionary Algorithms can assist (and may one day replace) human designed products. This is starting to spark a different debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution - not over religion, but over whether or not we can keep up with evolution designed products. If the algorithms become too robust, we may start to see new applications of technology that we will have to reverse engineer our own products just to understand how it fully works! To say nothing of the artistry and romanticism that goes along with invention and design that many don't want to see automated. There are yearly competitions held for the best application of Evolutionary Algorithms called the "Humies".

http://www.sigevo.org/gecco-2008/competitions.html

[MaximusLight]

@ Sinue: I'm a biology minor, don't worry I know.

And: Defining personal beliefs specifically doesn't work so well, I get it.

@ Zarode: It's fun to muse over though, so long as it doesn't interfere with the task at hand.

[Seority]

Creation+Science

God made the world.
God gave it laws.
God made science.
Days = period of time.
7 different things God did.
On the final day he rested.
He's not doing anything anymore.
He's letting us spin round and round as everything that happens he as already planned for.

Is it possible to create this world without a God? Yes, but it's still not proven. Is it possible to have God create evolution? Yes, but there is no proof of God either. So I say, believe in both, or neither.

[Randomness]

Evolution as a process is irrefutable, all you have to do is look at drug-resistant bacteria to see it. There you have an example of how a random mutation allowed an organism to thrive in a hostile environment (antibiotics).

The real debate is the touchy issue of humanity's origins, which is problematic for plenty of non-scientific reasons (unless your a psychologist, sociologist, etc.).

Whether evolution resulted in humanity is a moot point when we know that evolution as a process works.

Also, I absolutely hate seeing the argument that a theory is wrong because the odds are astronomically against it. Based on astronomical observations, the odds that the Sun has planets around it are very very low. It has 9. (Brought up before some jerks in white coats decided Pluto wasn't a planet after all, because they made a new definition that de-planetized it on a technicality)

Given any event that has a non-zero probability of occurring, that event will eventually occur given sufficient trials. How many galaxies in the universe have stars? How many stars have planets? How many planets might have seen life form? The answer is... enough. (The number of planets in the universe simply can't be estimated, because it is literally impossible to see the whole universe - due to expansion, some parts are moving away from us (relatively) faster than light)