Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[So]

Originally posted by: inspire
How about the evolution camps sets out an example of evolution in humans in the last 5,000 years - I'm not expecting wings, I've just never encountered any such examples...

Humans have gotten taller.
Sickle cell anemia.
European immunity to the diseases they carried to the new world.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: oldman420
I believe that evolution is the more proper theory and is a provable one vs intelligent design which is unprovable as god isn't talking yet.

How can you say such awful, terrible things? Every one is entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, how can you be so intolerant! Science provides only one kind of truth, and we must present all points of view!

i agree. the problem occurs when fundies try to encourage creationism/ID in the science room. neither are science, and both discredit science. This is confusing to kids, and according to these threads, some adult ATers....

I have no problem with a separate "spirituality" class that addresses these issues. Simply put: ID/Creationism do not belong in a science discussion. I can't imagine this being more simple to understand...

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: inspire
How about the evolution camps sets out an example of evolution in humans in the last 5,000 years - I'm not expecting wings, I've just never encountered any such examples...

Humans have gotten taller.
Sickle cell anemia.
European immunity to the diseases they carried to the new world.

yep. a lot of other things are tough to pindown between evolution and simply better education/nutrition/general living conditions due to civlization

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: So
Nobody is running in fear (well, except yourself). You have shown a staggering level of willful ignorance, poor reasoning, and made a plethora of embarrassingly wrong claims in the thread. If completely ignoring reality makes you comfortable, I guess we can't stop you.

Say what you want, I still see no proof of evolution in this thread. Just a bunch of blind believers.

I agree with dirtboy here. His existence discredits natural selection. I wonder what Gould would have to say about this....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Strk
No modern scientific research has disproved evolution. Here's a good start amount of information you can enlighten yourself with..

Oh, and man evolved from an ape-like creature.

Please provide fossil records of this transition and please explain to me why there are no more of this ape-like creatures around. Certainly if evolution is a continuous form, there will be apes evolving right now and ape-like creatures evolving into man right now. Of course, nothing is doing this and ever has; science proves that. Let's see how you prove science wrong.

This proves that you have a 3rd-grade understanding of evutionary theory. Well, it looks like you've gone away now, not that it matters.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I kind agree with Dirtboy on this thread. I always wondered why (if evolution truly occured) are'nt we seeing various stages of it on a constant basis. If I'm not mistaken we have about 3000-4000 years of historical recordings from our ancestors and there has never been any mention or evidence of lifeforms that have evolved from one species into the next. There have been many examples of environmental adaptation but no solid examples of evolution in the sense of one type of life form changing into another.

Evolution doesn't work that way, really. Descendant populations are never a "new type of life form" different from the parent population. That's why it's a tree of life, not a ladder. Populations branch out to diverge from one another, but they're all connected to the same roots, and they're all part of the same tree.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I kind agree with Dirtboy on this thread. I always wondered why (if evolution truly occured) are'nt we seeing various stages of it on a constant basis. If I'm not mistaken we have about 3000-4000 years of historical recordings from our ancestors and there has never been any mention or evidence of lifeforms that have evolved from one species into the next. There have been many examples of environmental adaptation but no solid examples of evolution in the sense of one type of life form changing into another.

3000-4000 is NOT a lot of time. and environmental adaptation IS evolution. allopatric speciation is when a population because increasingly adapted to two different niches and eventually this one species birfucates into two.

Before we can continue this discussion I think we need to have a common agreement on how some of these terms are defined. So on that note, here's what I pulled from the net:

Adaptation

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adaptation

2: adjustment to environmental conditions: as a: adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b: modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ad/adaptati.html

in biology, has several meanings. It can mean the adjustment of living matter to environmental conditions and to other living things either in an organism?s lifetime (physiological adaptation) or in a population over many many generations (evolutionary adaptation). The word can also refer to a trait that is considered an adaptation. The ability to adapt is a fundamental property of life and constitutes a basic difference between living and nonliving matter.

Allopatric Speciation

I could'nt find a definition for this term on Websters or Columbia's online encyclopedia website, however a search on google reveals:

From wikipedia

Allopatric speciation, also known as geographic speciation, occurs when populations physically isolated by an extrinsic barrier evolve intrinsic (genetic) reproductive isolation such that if the barrier between the populations breaks down, individuals of the two populations can no longer interbreed. Although there is some debate about the frequency of other types of speciation (such as sympatric speciation, parapatric speciation, and heteropatric speciation), all evolutionary biologists agree that allopatry is a common way that new species arise.

Evolution

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ev/evolutio.html

concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution (Merriam-Webster)

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

So to respond to your comment, based on those definitions I guess in some circles adaptation and evolution can be considered the same. However since I support the theory of intelligent design, creationism, etc.. I define the word adaptation in a different manner.

In regards to Allopatric Speciation I'm not intimately familar with that term or phrase so I can't give a valid response on that theory until I do some further research. However based on the Wikipedia entry on it I have to admit I'm very doubtful about theories of that sort, but in the spirit of enlightened conversation and debate I will spend some time reading about it before I arrive at a conclusive decision.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: oldman420
I believe that evolution is the more proper theory and is a provable one vs intelligent design which is unprovable as god isn't talking yet.

How can you say such awful, terrible things? Every one is entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, how can you be so intolerant! Science provides only one kind of truth, and we must present all points of view!

i agree. the problem occurs when fundies try to encourage creationism/ID in the science room. neither are science, and both discredit science. This is confusing to kids, and according to these threads, some adult ATers....

I have no problem with a separate "spirituality" class that addresses these issues. Simply put: ID/Creationism do not belong in a science discussion. I can't imagine this being more simple to understand...

I disagree with the premise that ID necessarily discredits science. ID/Creationism may belong more in a philosophy class - as long as evolution doesn't claim to explain the ultimate origin of life. Once that happens, and evolution crosses the boundary, then you get apples and oranges arguments like today.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Strk
No modern scientific research has disproved evolution. Here's a good start amount of information you can enlighten yourself with..

Oh, and man evolved from an ape-like creature.

Please provide fossil records of this transition and please explain to me why there are no more of this ape-like creatures around. Certainly if evolution is a continuous form, there will be apes evolving right now and ape-like creatures evolving into man right now. Of course, nothing is doing this and ever has; science proves that. Let's see how you prove science wrong.

This proves that you have a 3rd-grade understanding of evutionary theory. Well, it looks like you've gone away now, not that it matters.

yeah, honestly. that view assumes that mankind is the next step for all apes, rather than only for us. talk about painting a target around the arrow.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
<snip>
Before we can continue this discussion I think we need to have a common agreement on how some of these terms are defined. So on that note, here's what I pulled from the net:
<snip>

So to respond to your comment, based on those definitions I guess in some circles adaptation and evolution can be considered the same. However since I support the theory of intelligent design, creationism, etc.. I define the word adaptation in a different manner.

In regards to Allopatric Speciation I'm not intimately familar with that term or phrase so I can't give a valid response on that theory until I do some further research. However based on the Wikipedia entry on it I have to admit I'm very doubtful about theories of that sort, but in the spirit of enlightened conversation and debate I will spend some time reading about it before I arrive at a conclusive decision.

If we're going to be explicit about definitions:

Theory:

# a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hypothesis:

A testable scientific idea that can be proved right or wrong with experiments. A hypothesis is a formulation of a question that lends itself to a prediction. This prediction can be verified or falsified. A question can only be use as scientific hypothesis, if their is an experimental approach or observational study that can be designed to check the outcome of a prediction.
www.whatislife.com/glossary.htm

ID is neither a theory, nor is it a hypothesis. It is non scientific, and unverifiable.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I kind agree with Dirtboy on this thread. I always wondered why (if evolution truly occured) are'nt we seeing various stages of it on a constant basis. If I'm not mistaken we have about 3000-4000 years of historical recordings from our ancestors and there has never been any mention or evidence of lifeforms that have evolved from one species into the next. There have been many examples of environmental adaptation but no solid examples of evolution in the sense of one type of life form changing into another.

That is a common misconception about evolution. In the grand scheme of things 3000-4000 years isn't enough time for extremely obvious evidence to occur, such as humans growing wings or something. Check out the Wikipedia article on evolution and it'll explain it better than I can here.

I agree that 3000-4000 years is'nt a lot of time, but I bring it up because it seems that even in that brief amount of history there would be some form of noticeable change in the animal, plant and even human evolutionary cycle that would have been pehaps witnessed and recorded. There are millions of different lifeforms (excluding bacterial, etc..) on the planet, which would mean at any given moment one of these lifeforms should be in some stage of evolutionary change, even taking into account the length of time these changes could theoretically take some of them should be easily observed and verified.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I kind agree with Dirtboy on this thread. I always wondered why (if evolution truly occured) are'nt we seeing various stages of it on a constant basis. If I'm not mistaken we have about 3000-4000 years of historical recordings from our ancestors and there has never been any mention or evidence of lifeforms that have evolved from one species into the next. There have been many examples of environmental adaptation but no solid examples of evolution in the sense of one type of life form changing into another.

That is a common misconception about evolution. In the grand scheme of things 3000-4000 years isn't enough time for extremely obvious evidence to occur, such as humans growing wings or something. Check out the Wikipedia article on evolution and it'll explain it better than I can here.

Do you mind posting a few key sentences or paragraphs from that source? I don't mind reading information that I find contradictory to my beliefs but just for the sake of time, it would be much easier if I could read information like that posted within the thread.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: inspire
How about the evolution camps sets out an example of evolution in humans in the last 5,000 years - I'm not expecting wings, I've just never encountered any such examples...

Humans have gotten taller.
Sickle cell anemia.
European immunity to the diseases they carried to the new world.

That's true but are those true examples of biological evolution or examples of adaptation to the environment. Again I will post 2 definitions of evolution and I don't think those examples meet the criteria of evolving.

Evolution


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ev/evolutio.html

concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution (Merriam-Webster)

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to those 2 sources evolving would mean one organism changing into another (usually) higher form of life.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I kind agree with Dirtboy on this thread. I always wondered why (if evolution truly occured) are'nt we seeing various stages of it on a constant basis. If I'm not mistaken we have about 3000-4000 years of historical recordings from our ancestors and there has never been any mention or evidence of lifeforms that have evolved from one species into the next. There have been many examples of environmental adaptation but no solid examples of evolution in the sense of one type of life form changing into another.

Evolution doesn't work that way, really. Descendant populations are never a "new type of life form" different from the parent population. That's why it's a tree of life, not a ladder. Populations branch out to diverge from one another, but they're all connected to the same roots, and they're all part of the same tree.

See that's what makes these debates kind of hard to get through. It seems there are several different schools of thought on what evolution truly is. Is it life forms changing into something new? Is it life forms adapting to their environment? Is it a combination of the two? It's really hard to debate the matter when there are so many points of view on what evolution truly is.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: inspire
How about the evolution camps sets out an example of evolution in humans in the last 5,000 years - I'm not expecting wings, I've just never encountered any such examples...

Humans have gotten taller.
Sickle cell anemia.
European immunity to the diseases they carried to the new world.

That's true but are those true examples of biological evolution or examples of adaptation to the environment. Again I will post 2 definitions of evolution and I don't think those examples meet the criteria of evolving.

Evolution


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ev/evolutio.html

concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution (Merriam-Webster)

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to those 2 sources evolving would mean one organism changing into another (usually) higher form of life.

There is no such thing as HIGHER or LOWER forms of life, only "better adapted" and "worse adapted" evolution is simply the process of life adapting to its environment. Over a short time these changes are virtually nonexistent, but over millions to billions of years (and a similar number of generations) the changes add up, leading to speciation, as well as simple change.

There is no doubt that humans genetically adapting to selective pressures meets all reasonable definitions of evolution.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

See that's what makes these debates kind of hard to get through. It seems there are several different schools of thought on what evolution truly is. Is it life forms changing into something new? Is it life forms adapting to their environment? Is it a combination of the two? It's really hard to debate the matter when there are so many points of view on what evolution truly is.

Changing into something 'new' is adapting to the environment. It isn't a combination of the two, because the 'two' are different phraseologies for the same thing.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

I agree that 3000-4000 years is'nt a lot of time, but I bring it up because it seems that even in that brief amount of history there would be some form of noticeable change in the animal, plant and even human evolutionary cycle that would have been pehaps witnessed and recorded. There are millions of different lifeforms (excluding bacterial, etc..) on the planet, which would mean at any given moment one of these lifeforms should be in some stage of evolutionary change, even taking into account the length of time these changes could theoretically take some of them should be easily observed and verified.

considering our ability to accurately describe and disseminate information about the natural world has only been around 100 to 200 years, and that we have yet to catalog all the species alive today (let alone those 5000 years ago), i wouldn't find it surprising at all that we have little more than a snapshot, and a blurry one at that, of the natural world.

in other words, those lifeforms in some state of evolutionary change are out there, it's that the evidence collected thus far isn't good enough for some people. obviously, the finches on gallapagos were enough for some.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: inspire
How about the evolution camps sets out an example of evolution in humans in the last 5,000 years - I'm not expecting wings, I've just never encountered any such examples...

Humans have gotten taller.
Sickle cell anemia.
European immunity to the diseases they carried to the new world.

That's true but are those true examples of biological evolution or examples of adaptation to the environment. Again I will post 2 definitions of evolution and I don't think those examples meet the criteria of evolving.

Evolution


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ev/evolutio.html

concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution (Merriam-Webster)

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to those 2 sources evolving would mean one organism changing into another (usually) higher form of life.

Changing into a different form of life is just specialized adaptation to a specific niche. Antibacerial resistance is an adaptation and it is also evolution. "Gradual continuous change from previous forms." Worded differently: "Change from being less adapted to more adapted or possibly, changing from one niche to another"

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Arkitech


See that's what makes these debates kind of hard to get through. It seems there are several different schools of thought on what evolution truly is. Is it life forms changing into something new? Is it life forms adapting to their environment? Is it a combination of the two? It's really hard to debate the matter when there are so many points of view on what evolution truly is.

no, it's only people who don't want to accept the facts presented to them showing evolution dithering and pigeonholing evidence by claiming it doesn't show what it's purported to show by bending the definitions to suit their political/religious agendas.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: inspire
How about the evolution camps sets out an example of evolution in humans in the last 5,000 years - I'm not expecting wings, I've just never encountered any such examples...

Humans have gotten taller.
Sickle cell anemia.
European immunity to the diseases they carried to the new world.

That's true but are those true examples of biological evolution or examples of adaptation to the environment. Again I will post 2 definitions of evolution and I don't think those examples meet the criteria of evolving.

Evolution


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ev/evolutio.html

concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution (Merriam-Webster)

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to those 2 sources evolving would mean one organism changing into another (usually) higher form of life.

According to the Marriam-Webster definition that you posted, it clearly states "race or species", in addition to mentioning modifications in successive generations (which would indicate change in a given species over time).

 

[Mo0o]

I'm hesistant to argue evolution with anyone who's never heard of allopatric speciation before

 

[ElFenix]

something you've got to realize is that speciation is a result of evolution, but not the only result. isolated populations of people higher latitudes developed characteristics to help them survive in the generally darker, cooler climate, while isolated populations near the equator developed characteristics to help them survive in the sunnier, warmer climate. it's why east africans are good marathon runners.

 

[tealk]

God made everything, me, you, dirt, fish, dogs,etc. All is done by his awsome glory. Imagine what heaven will be like, for those of you who beleive and will go for eternity.

I pray for the rest.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
something you've got to realize is that speciation is a result of evolution, but not the only result. isolated populations of people higher latitudes developed characteristics to help them survive in the generally darker, cooler climate, while isolated populations near the equator developed characteristics to help them survive in the sunnier, warmer climate. it's why east africans are good marathon runners.

They've done studies of people living in nepal and shown that their hearts are actually larger then average

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: tealk
God made everything, me, you, dirt, fish, dogs,etc. All is done by his awsome glory. Imagine what heaven will be like, for those of you who beleive and will go for eternity.

I pray for the rest.

God also made the tsetse fly, smallpox and locusts, those arent so awesome.

although props for making the panther, without it i wouldn't have this awesome cologne