Org Mobile Site
Thread: Evolution v Creationism
Yeah it was coming eventually. 
So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.
So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.
I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.
So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys).
From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.
Now, I'll await the barrage...
So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.
So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.
I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.
So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys
). From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.
Now, I'll await the barrage...
Well, the fossils are really old and such, so we don't know everything. They have traced it back fairly well though, I believe this is one of the common ancestors for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakalipithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakalipithecus
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Yeah it was coming eventually.
So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.
So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I but my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.
I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.
So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys).
From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.
Now, I'll await the barrage...
A biology class would be very helpful in your comparison of evolution and creationism.Yeah it was coming eventually.
So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.
So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I but my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.
I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.
So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys
). From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.
Now, I'll await the barrage...
Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.
(I believe you are from the UK)
(I believe you are from the UK)
Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.
EDIT: Does anyone want me to post the conversation from the EB Tavern between Rhy and The Celtic Viking about this subject? There are no swears or anything.
EDIT: Does anyone want me to post the conversation from the EB Tavern between Rhy and The Celtic Viking about this subject? There are no swears or anything.
Originally Posted by JAG:
Rhyfelwyr View Post,
I have trouble spelling his name too Rhyfelwyr View Post,
Originally Posted by :
where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.
(I believe you are from the UK)
where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.
(I believe you are from the UK)
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.
Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.
I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.
Well it spilled somewhat into a mixture of both in the EB Tavern social group. Him and TCV went into arguing about the significance of humans sharing 98% of their DNA with apes etc...I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.
EDIT: Again, should I post the conversation from the EB Tavern, it could clear some things up about the origin of this thread.
If I remember correctly, one of the main evidences for ape -> human evolution is the similarity in our chromosome number and structure.
here is a quick link explaining the similarities
An example of this in the animal kingdom is the relationship between the wild Mongolian horse and modern domestic horse. Mongolian wild horses have 66 chromosomes and modern horses have only 64 chromosomes. Despite this, they are able to reproduce with each other due to their high degree of genetic similarity. http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/h...lski/index.htm
here is a quick link explaining the similarities
An example of this in the animal kingdom is the relationship between the wild Mongolian horse and modern domestic horse. Mongolian wild horses have 66 chromosomes and modern horses have only 64 chromosomes. Despite this, they are able to reproduce with each other due to their high degree of genetic similarity. http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/h...lski/index.htm
I believe in God, and believe the almighty could have created the whole shebang, whole-cloth, in 6 calendar days had God chosen to do so.
I do not believe that is the means God chose. "Let there be light," began the show and evolution has rolled onwards from there. Mysterious ways and all that.
I do not believe that is the means God chose. "Let there be light," began the show and evolution has rolled onwards from there. Mysterious ways and all that.
Thanks for those links folks, I'll give them a good read tomorrow.
Originally Posted by JAG:
Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.
(I believe you are from the UK)
I watched one of the episodes, but a lot of it was about how Darwin thought his children acted like monkeys, which just shows similarities not necessarily a direct connection. And then they started playing the flute to a worm which was just weird...Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.
(I believe you are from the UK)
Watch the one with Attenborough, brilliant. Literally one of the best informative programmes I have ever seen.
While I absoutely and ardently hold to evolution (one does not 'believe' the leading theory of the day, one 'believes' religious dogma, one holds to a theory), it is depressing to me the number of people who claim it as fact without 1) understanding that it is an untestable theory can never be accepted as fact (indicating a woeful ignorance of science) and for the record, to the tests we can currently construct, gravity and electromagnetism (where I make my living) are still theories as well and 2) understanding the mechanism of natural selection (indicating a woeful misunderstanding of the theory put forth by Charles Darwin, and the 'evolution' it has enjoyed over the past 1.5 centuries).
If I hear one more person talking about frogs & ducks growing webbed feet to swim, or humans growing a thumb, as proof of evolution, I'm going to scream.
We ALL need to learn how much we have to learn in this field.
For example, it would probably surprise most people to learn that fossil evidence strongly indicates evolution follows a quantum/logarithmic, not a linear time scale, as most theories would have predicted.
For me, that 'spark' that generates the sudden burst of RNA energy, that is the fine hand of the creator at work. (Before you all mistake my last statement, I understand solar flares and the affect of algae blooms absorbing free radicals better than most of you, my point is, why does it all happen exactly when it does... I do not believe in 'luck', just randomness or determinism.).
I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot.
If I hear one more person talking about frogs & ducks growing webbed feet to swim, or humans growing a thumb, as proof of evolution, I'm going to scream.
We ALL need to learn how much we have to learn in this field.
For example, it would probably surprise most people to learn that fossil evidence strongly indicates evolution follows a quantum/logarithmic, not a linear time scale, as most theories would have predicted.
For me, that 'spark' that generates the sudden burst of RNA energy, that is the fine hand of the creator at work. (Before you all mistake my last statement, I understand solar flares and the affect of algae blooms absorbing free radicals better than most of you, my point is, why does it all happen exactly when it does... I do not believe in 'luck', just randomness or determinism.).
I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot.
wheres Che?
In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact 
CBR
CBR
Originally Posted by CBR:
In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact
CBR
Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact
CBR
I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.
And how about debating things other than monkeys/Adam&Eve? There are too little facts in that. Are there any people in here who are young-earth creationists?
And how about debating things other than monkeys/Adam&Eve? There are too little facts in that. Are there any people in here who are young-earth creationists?
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.
For a quick read:Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...act_in_science
There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.
CBR
Tempt me not satan! 
To understand this issue, people have to come to terms with the fact that we know very, very little. We don't have the truth. We will likely never know it. So, your options are to either come to terms with the fact that you'll never know the truth, or you can choose to listen to someone who claim they have it(ie., the religions with creation myths).
CBR: We call it a fact, but it's only a truth until we disprove it...
CBR: We call it a fact, but it's only a truth until we disprove it...
Inappropriate image removed
I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus:
I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.
You posted that already. I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.
Maybe I will bring some of the stuff from the EB Tavern. The Celtic Viking sure knows how to fly off the handle when it comes to this, of course I would never do such a thing!
Originally Posted by CBR:
For a quick read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...act_in_science
There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.
CBR
I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.For a quick read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...act_in_science
There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.
CBR
I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.
I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.
In all honesty, I don't really care if my ancestors were created by some supernatural creature or if I descend from monkeys.
I am here and now
I am here and now
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.
I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.
I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.
I think it has a lot to do with the political battleground between evolution and creationism.I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.
I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.
I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.
Some of the stuff I've been shown doesn't really prove anything, animals acting like carnal humans doesn't prove anything.
The stuff on the skeletons of the common ancestors is much more useful, I will look into that in more detail..
The stuff on the skeletons of the common ancestors is much more useful, I will look into that in more detail..
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot.
Actually, plenty of scientists believe that there is a role for a Creator in our universe, and your position sounds quite mainstream. When people refer to "creationism," they usually aren't talking about the notion that one accepts modern biology, geology and astronomy while reserving a role for a Maker. That's not really "creation science."I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot.
When I hear someone say that they believe in creationism, I usually check to see which manner of creationism they're talking about. Do they mean the Earth's age can be determined by tracing back the lineage of patriarchs described in the Bible? Or do they mean that they think God had a hand in shaping the universe? Big difference.
Originally Posted by CBR:
In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact
CBR
Only till they find an orangpendekIn science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact
CBR
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.
And yet there is no real difference between them. If we humans were different from any other species then one would expect us to be genetically unique and yet everything points towards us being related to apes and that the process seems no different from what has happened in nature over several hundred million years.I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.
If a god was indeed involved then it looks like he used a rib from a specimen in the Hominina subtribe in the creation of Adam.
I think that is still uncomfortable to some people though and I guess that is based mostly on their religious beliefs because scientifically it does not make much sense trying to put humans above evolution.
CBR
The thing is, we are clearly different from other species. I'm not saying this means we could not have evolved, but I think the differences are just too extreme to reconcile with evolution. Although on the other hand the scientific evidence apparently points otherwise.
But still, even Darwin had always thought that humans were unique from other species, until on his travels he came across some savage natives, which for him showed the link between humans and animals. Which is fine, sometimes when I look at people acting carnally I can see where Darwin is coming from.
But at the same time, we do things that animals do not. For example, we show restraint. It does not matter what % of our DNA they share, from gorillas to dogs to salmon they all act 100% on their desires/instincts. Gorillas jump about shreiking when they feel like it, animals mate when they feel like it, you get those birds that stuff their faces with maggots until they are too fat to fly and just die. But people are different, we act on much more than instinct. Of course its all a matter of degree. But then, how do you explain restraint in the evolutionary model? Human society is the polar opposite of the natural, wild life, and yet we are the only species which practice it. And this is not a matter of degree, you either live in such a society or you do not. Of course, some animals have their herds and whatnot, but even then they live purely base, instinctual lives. Us humans have always been doing the opposite, we are always coming up with ideologies which fight against this sort of existence. It doesn't have to be religious either, look at stoicism for example.
This is one thing which appears to seperate us from the animals, just as much from our 'close relatives' as much as any other creature.
But still, even Darwin had always thought that humans were unique from other species, until on his travels he came across some savage natives, which for him showed the link between humans and animals. Which is fine, sometimes when I look at people acting carnally I can see where Darwin is coming from.
But at the same time, we do things that animals do not. For example, we show restraint. It does not matter what % of our DNA they share, from gorillas to dogs to salmon they all act 100% on their desires/instincts. Gorillas jump about shreiking when they feel like it, animals mate when they feel like it, you get those birds that stuff their faces with maggots until they are too fat to fly and just die. But people are different, we act on much more than instinct. Of course its all a matter of degree. But then, how do you explain restraint in the evolutionary model? Human society is the polar opposite of the natural, wild life, and yet we are the only species which practice it. And this is not a matter of degree, you either live in such a society or you do not. Of course, some animals have their herds and whatnot, but even then they live purely base, instinctual lives. Us humans have always been doing the opposite, we are always coming up with ideologies which fight against this sort of existence. It doesn't have to be religious either, look at stoicism for example.
This is one thing which appears to seperate us from the animals, just as much from our 'close relatives' as much as any other creature.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO