Evolution or Creation?

[Zarkazm]

I am a physics major and I meant it in a scientific sense.

Not that you'd have to be a major to talk scientifically, or that majors always talk scientifically.

There's no conspiracy or agenda this time.

I suggested a lack of thought rather than deception. However, who would you conspire with? Oh wait, I assumed your words were supposed to make sense. You got me there.

 

[NiftyBoy]

err, what Renegade? You quote a section of my post that very clearly distinguishes what I'm talking about then say I'm changing definitions mid-conversation? Please indicate to me where this is happening:

Evolution can and has been proven. What has not been proven is that all the diversity of life today has evolved from simple organisms,

I even then provided a definition of evolution on the same page, which should've contextualised what I was talking about if one somehow construed I meant the theory of planetary evolution even though I said I didn't in the second sentence. I'm not getting where the confusion is :\ And why are we discussing such annoying minutiae instead of addressing what 90% of my post was in response to yours?

 

[Dus]

And no, it is not proven, because the changing of one species into another mutually-exclusive reproducable species has not been recorded.

Actually, there have been laboratory experiments that have proven the proces of speciation (speciation = when two populations of a species become seperated and eventualy become two species). A lot of these experiments were done with Drosophila (= fruitfly), because this species has a small generation span.
To quote just one article:
[quote='Laboratory experiments on speciation' by Rise and Hostert (1993)]
The data from experiments attempting to duplicate all or part of the speciation process collectively support the following conclusions: we have substantial experimental evidence for the evolution of strong reproductive isolation via pleiotropy/hitchhicking,.....[/quote]
There are tons more articles, most of them quoted in this one.....
For the non-biologists: reproductive isolation means the critters from two groups can't f*ck eachother anymore And this is basically how one species evolves into two

Sorry, couldn't resist to be a smartass
I'm a biologist, so I care about this stuff

 

[Renegade Retard]

err, what Renegade? You quote a section of my post that very clearly distinguishes what I'm talking about then say I'm changing definitions mid-conversation? Please indicate to me where this is happening:

I even then provided a definition of evolution on the same page, which should've contextualised what I was talking about if one somehow construed I meant the theory of planetary evolution even though I said I didn't in the second sentence. I'm not getting where the confusion is :\ And why are we discussing such annoying minutiae instead of addressing what 90% of my post was in response to yours?

I've already agreed that I misunderstood your intent, and apoligized for it. And yes, it's really unimportant.

Contextualize - I didn't realize that was a word and had to look it up. Thanks for broadening my vocabulary as I file that one away for further use.

 

[Renegade Retard]

Actually, there have been laboratory experiments that have proven the proces of speciation (speciation = when two populations of a species become seperated and eventualy become two species). A lot of these experiments were done with Drosophila (= fruitfly), because this species has a small generation span.
To quote just one article:

There are tons more articles, most of them quoted in this one.....
For the non-biologists: reproductive isolation means the critters from two groups can't f*ck eachother anymore And this is basically how one species evolves into two

Sorry, couldn't resist to be a smartass
I'm a biologist, so I care about this stuff

You are correct. The creation of new species has been proven and happens all the time. As has been pointed out, change or "evolution" within kind is absolutely possible. Anyone who argues against it doesn't know what he's talking about. However, they're still fruit flies, though various species of the fruit fly. You can't make a fruit fly change genus and become a housefly or gnat, much less a spider, lizard, or crustacian.

And yeah, weren't the Bio projects fun where you had to breed the mutated fruit flies? In one of my tests we had wingless flies. It was pretty funny. I enjoyed that project. That is, until some dufuss accidently let his flies out. We had things buzzing all over that lab, in our hair, etc.

 

[Synastren]

On a much simpler scale, if I dumped a bunch of flour, sugar, yeast, icing, etc into a big pile and applied the right temperature to it, it still would never turn into a chocolate cake, no matter how much time it woul take.

Because you forgot the chocolate, duh!

 

[Renegade Retard]

 

[shadow_dragon]

Creation creates and evolution adapts accordingly, it's a very well behaved creation in itself.



Heh heh!

 

[K]

well why was either options created?
Religion was created:
1. To explain all unexplainable occurances in a explainable uneducated comforting fasion.
2. To control the masses and keep those in power "in power"
3. Is nothing but a continuasly re-interperated iterpratation. who wrote the bible or any religious text? Man did. He wrote his "to whatever degre" biased viewpoint at the time to whatever suited the best common interest of the church "polliticly wise" . The details are thus inconsistant over time.
4. Piramid Sceme from that point on.

Evolution was created:
1. To explain all unexplainable occurances in a documented logical scientific fasion. Though not proven completely "hence missing link" This viewpoint has decades of facts and documentation suporting it on Many levels.
2. Un-biased testable and proveable standpoint. Remains unchainged due to the surmounting facts at hand.
3. Non-pollitcal. Search for truth!

I am for the most part going with evolution, The human being as an organism is just a lifeform built from something very small that has needed to adapt over and over and over, adding more and more complexity as time went on. Yet we are still not so complex. Our make up is about 25% identical to that of a bannana. This has been proven. All life on the planet has the same biological workings and makeup "Animal / vegitable / excluding mineral". So why would it be so ludicris to say we are decendants from one celled organisms.

I beleive the origin of man and the existance of spirit/soul are two different questions "that oftenly get wrongly grouped together in the same sentence". Where we came from holds not so much on what we are now. I am for the most part a Budist. I beleive you can choose to be reincarnated or you can stay comfortably in the primortial pool of what ever you want to call it. I see no need to give one man or god the credit. All relligions as a whole are guidelines to live a comfortable exsistance, with a bunch of supernatural crap added in to control people. "be good to thy neighbor, Dont kill,steal,cheat"
It should not be a unanimus true answer. It should be up to the individual to seek thier own truth and to create their own "heaven" on earth while they are alive. For no one knows what happens after that. Make the best of what you have today.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

Here is what John 5:7-8 says.



According to the writings of Erasmus, over 5000 Greek manuscripts left out the section in red there (The Latin Vulgate, howver, included it). He took a lot of flak for it and said if one greek manuscrip could be provided that included the section, he would include it in his manuscript. One was found and it was added, as he said it would be. So over 5000 manuscripts were "tossed" in favor of one, basically (and as a side note, these verses are pretty much the basis of the idea of Trinity).

You mean 1 John 5:7-8.

I'm not sure what your point is but my NIV Bible does not include the red text in the body of the verse but does reference a footnote saying it was only found in later manuscripts.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

yes and I realize that. I should have specified that it is really only ound in the KJV...but my point was that it's proof that man translated the bible, not God

 

[Cat Fuzz]

yes and I realize that. I should have specified that it is really only ound in the KJV...but my point was that it's proof that man translated the bible, not God

How else would God present the Bible to us? He could just make an instruction manual for life appear on the ground, but the he'd have to make a copy appear right in front of every persons eyes in order for there to be no doubt that it wasn't faked and written by man.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The point is that it could have been translated incorrectly.

 

[Nereid]

I'd have to go with evolution. I'm not going to expand further.

 

[Sam_The_Man]

How else would God present the Bible to us? He could just make an instruction manual for life appear on the ground, but the he'd have to make a copy appear right in front of every persons eyes in order for there to be no doubt that it wasn't faked and written by man.

Why not? The guy's omnipotent, right?

 

[Dus]

However, they're still fruit flies, though various species of the fruit fly. You can't make a fruit fly change genus and become a housefly or gnat, much less a spider, lizard, or crustacian.

It would take me forever to explain to you the process of speciation and everything it does and all the prove that there is. Hell, it took my teachers 16 weeks, 3 hours a day to explain to me the little I know about speciation now.
I'll say this though: I never said you could turn a fly into a lizard or a crustacian etc. This is not the idea of speciation, the whole idea is that you can produce NEW species with the process of speciation, not already existing ones.
With the proces of speciation you can produce 2 species where you first had one. Those 2 can produce another 2 each, etc etc etc. What you get then is a tree of species, with your original species at the bottom. In the case of a fruit fly, all of this would happen within the box we call a 'genus'.
The whole classification of species, genus, family, order, etc. is something man thought up to explain the biodiversity in the world. Using this man made system to try to disprove a natural occuring process is an elementary mistake.
What I tried to show with my example is that the process of speciation can and does occur. And if we can produce 2 new species in a lab, it's not hard to imagine that nature could produce millions of species by the same process over millions of years. If we would continue producing new species of fruitflies in the lab, everytime taking the new species of the previous experiment, and we would continue this for a hundred years or something, we would probably get a species of fly that is so different fromthe original fruit fly that we would have no choice to give it it's own genus. That's how classification works in respect to speciation.

This has turned out to be more text then I intended, but I've been studying taxonomy and biodiversity for 5 1/2 years now and I just can't stand when somebody makes that elementary mistake that we learned to avoid: using taxonomy to disprove speciation. No offense intended to anyone...

I've got a lot more to say about this subject, but that would just bore you allt ot death
So, in conclusion:
I''m not saying speciation has all the answers, nor that it has been unmistakenly proven that all species we see today evolved from one species or anything. I'm just saying that it has been proven that speciation does occur and therefor it can be considered one of the theories that explain the biodiversity we see today.
I just happen to believe this is the most correct theory.

P.S. If anyone wants to continue discussing this, let's do it over PM or something

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Correct me if I'm worng...but at this time, isn't speciation and "evolution" in general all man-made?

 

[Sam_The_Man]

Correct me if I'm worng...but at this time, isn't speciation and "evolution" in general all man-made?

What would you prefer? That we wait a few million years and then come back and see if anything's changed?

We've only been around for a few thousand years, and we only came up with the idea of evolution about a hundred years ago, so the only alternative to 'man-made' experiments is, well, looking at skeletons.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

Why not? The guy's omnipotent, right?

Since he's all powerful he could talk to everyone on Earth. In fact he could make a sort of innate pre-recorded messege for when you reached a certain age...'hi this is God, you may remember me from such events as the creation of the Earth or Soddom and Gomorrah. I'm just here to mention I exist, oh and btw, i'm now injecting a guide to life into your brain'.

Religion is a (generally) lovely and comforting thought, but looks far to much like a self-re enforcing delusion to me.

 

[shadow_dragon]

Phoenix, i think th idea is that your meant to make your own decision. hat whole freedom of choice thing that we're meant to have, hence why we don't get omni potent voices in our heads!