Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[So]

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.

I'll be just fine. All I want from the afterlife is kleos.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's a very astute and intelligent observation, it's one of the reasons that I hesitated to jump into this thread. However depending on how you look at the matter creationism and evolution are actually on a similar debatable plane despite the fact that no scientific proof of a master creator or God exists. Belief of God is ultimately a matter of faith, spirituality is a matter of faith, however science does not necessarily dispute the theory of creationism. Also science does not necessarily prove beyond doubt that the theory of evolution is true. (I know some people will flame me for that statement, but if it were true there would be no need to throw terms like theory and hypothesis around. They would simply be stated as fact)

The beauty of a thread like this is that people who are open minded and willing to share their ideas instead of forcing them on others is that they can walk away learning something new. I think in the book of Proverbs there's an expression or verse that says something about that a wise man knows nothing. Which basically means that an intelligent man realizes that there is much to learn about life. I think if more people approached debates like this more would be accomplished and much could be learned.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
That's a very astute and intelligent observation, it's one of the reasons that I hesitated to jump into this thread. However depending on how you look at the matter creationism and evolution are actually on a similar debatable plane despite the fact that no scientific proof of a master creator or God exists. Belief of God is ultimately a matter of faith, spirituality is a matter of faith, however science does not necessarily dispute the theory of creationism.

How so? I can see how science and general faith in god can be compatible, but science seems to completely disprove any literal interpretation of creationism.

Also science does not necessarily prove beyond doubt that the theory of evolution is true. (I know some people will flame me for that statement, but if it were true there would be no need to throw terms like theory and hypothesis around. They would simply be stated as fact)

No, science does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is true. That's the scientific definition of "theory," and why I quoted it. A theory is an idea that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence available.

The beauty of a thread like this is that people who are open minded and willing to share their ideas instead of forcing them on others is that they can walk away learning something new. I think in the book of Proverbs there's an expression or verse that says something about that a wise man knows nothing. Which basically means that an intelligent man realizes that there is much to learn about life. I think if more people approached debates like this more would be accomplished and much could be learned.

True, but that is not just a biblical bit of wisdom. Socrates said it, and he may well (but not definitely) predate it. That said, you express a very valid sentiment.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: 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.

That's a very astute and intelligent observation, it's one of the reasons that I hesitated to jump into this thread. However depending on how you look at the matter creationism and evolution are actually on a similar debatable plane despite the fact that no scientific proof of a master creator or God exists. Belief of God is ultimately a matter of faith, spirituality is a matter of faith, however science does not necessarily dispute the theory of creationism. Also science does not necessarily prove beyond doubt that the theory of evolution is true. (I know some people will flame me for that statement, but if it were true there would be no need to throw terms like theory and hypothesis around. They would simply be stated as fact)

The beauty of a thread like this is that people who are open minded and willing to share their ideas instead of forcing them on others is that they can walk away learning something new. I think in the book of Proverbs there's an expression or verse that says something about that a wise man knows nothing. Which basically means that an intelligent man realizes that there is much to learn about life. I think if more people approached debates like this more would be accomplished and much could be learned.

Actually Socrates said that "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Yes I absolutely agree Natural selection is only a theory, althogh a well tested and supported theory. You are free to choose Creationism and ID as your model of life. Except they have no predictive ability. We can not apply ID to predict how populations will respond to varying selective pressures. We can not speculate on what defines life and how it coudl be created. By using religion as teh explanation for natural events, we are ending the dialgoe there. Religious explanations are nonfalsifiable because of the "faith" clause.

And I would like to go back to a previous analogy of the "connect the dots" game. Scientists view the dots, develop a theory, and connect the dots using that theory. Then they can tyr to predict how the rest of the picture will look like. Creationists look at the dots, shrug, and write God and end it at that.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: 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.

Good observation up until a point. As a christian I believe in the bible which was written (according to various sources) about 6000 years ago, there are many passages and verse that speak various forms of animal and plant life. So if you are a person who believes in the bible there are records that exist that go into detail about the natural world around us. However I do agree that it was'nt til recently that we have been able to more closely examine that life exists on the planet.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: 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.

I disagree, I definitely believe there is a case for identifying higher and lower form of life. Some of the elements I believe support this would be:

adaptability
intelligence
instinct


I believe higher forms of life can influence and change the world it exists in, where lower forms of life are simply resigned to just live in that world.

 

[tealk]

Originally posted by: So

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.

I'll be just fine. All I want from the afterlife is kleos.

KLEOS - glory, often implying fame and immortality (in the memory of others), achieved as a result of one's time (acts of excellence meriting honor).
If this is what Kleos is.....im sorry but your acts, and what you left behind....mean as much as how much crap your dog left behind....It's your personal relationship with Jesus and excepting him as your personal savior that gets you into heaven. Otherwise if you beleive in it or not, the other flipside will be your fate.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: 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

And without the tsetse fly, we wouldn't have a freakishly cool way of treating it!

Oh, and here's another case of evolution, although it's a backfire that sucks for us

 

[RedArmy]

Threads like these need to DIAF. :thumbsdown:

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: 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.

I disagree, I definitely believe there is a case for identifying higher and lower form of life. Some of the elements I believe support this would be:

adaptability
intelligence
instinct


I believe higher forms of life can influence and change the world it exists in, where lower forms of life are simply resigned to just live in that world.

But you're merely creating definitions that put humans on top. And humans are not the most adapted to every niche. We are not the fastest, strongest, fiercest. Our adaptation is our intelligence, something other animals have varying degrees of as well. Instinct? What kind of instinct. Humans can be quite retarded. You put a human out in the woods and lets see how long his instincts last him. Adaptability? Adapted to what? Organisms are adapted to different niches. I wonder how long a human will survive in a hot sulfer spring or a deep sea thermal vent? If you want to look at over all adaptibility, bacteria are by far the most well adapted to exist in a wide range of niches.

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Evolution is a broad topic, but, yes, it is a proven fact. Its mechanisms are what are theory.

You can't win this argument by straw man challenges against average joes on the internet. The only way you can get any high ground here is to defend your opinion. Frankly, if you opinion is that Intelligent Design is the way of things, I'd like to see you try. ID is as scientific as Scientology and is only barely hanging on to its religious upbringing.

My view is that you are wrong. I ask you to prove this scientific fact. So far, my questions have gone unanswered. Now you all are all running in fear out of desperation, so you keep trying to turn the tables.

There are what, 5+ of you, and one of me. Yet, all your scientific facts you can't explain where all the 55 million years of bones went and why the population of the Earth is way out of line with your claims.

ROFLMFAO dirtboy
your logic is so funny you talk as if you have won some moral contest and are victoriously standing upon the bodies of you slain opponents.
despite many answers to your questions you remain steadfast I got to hand it to you you stick by your convictions no matter what facts and logic may show.
way to go you ARE a real winner

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: 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.

I disagree, I definitely believe there is a case for identifying higher and lower form of life. Some of the elements I believe support this would be:

adaptability
intelligence
instinct


I believe higher forms of life can influence and change the world it exists in, where lower forms of life are simply resigned to just live in that world.

Nevertheless, evolution does not specifically select for those factors, whether or not you have defined them. There is no point in mulling the concept of 'higher' life over, it is patently clear that cases where intelligence is selected for is...rare, at most.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: So
How so? I can see how science and general faith in god can be compatible, but science seems to completely disprove any literal interpretation of creationism.

Really? How so?

From page 2, ignored since.

To clarify:

Belief based systems of knowledge acquisition IGNORE all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Empirical based systems of knowledge acquisition EMBRACE and search for all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Look up diametrical opposition in the dictionary, this is it.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: 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

And without the tsetse fly, we wouldn't have a freakishly cool way of treating it!

Oh, and here's another case of evolution, although it's a backfire that sucks for us

yeah, you know a disease is badass when the cure is:
A: called "arsenic in antifreeze"
B: corrodes plastic
C: kills 10% of the patients

and yeah, MDR TB is a HUGe problem for a large of the part due poor patient followup and inadequate amount of medicine. This could potentially be a major global epidemic if it isn't well contained

 

[So]

Originally posted by: tealk

Originally posted by: So

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.

I'll be just fine. All I want from the afterlife is kleos.

KLEOS - glory, often implying fame and immortality (in the memory of others), achieved as a result of one's time (acts of excellence meriting honor).
If this is what Kleos is.....im sorry but your acts, and what you left behind....mean as much as how much crap your dog left behind....It's your personal relationship with Jesus and excepting him as your personal savior that gets you into heaven. Otherwise if you beleive in it or not, the other flipside will be your fate.

Yes, kleos. Since I expect to be rotting in the cold, cold ground for a few trillion years, I'd like there to be something that lives on past me. So it's either kleos or transferring my brain into a computer and hoping that we don't have power outages for a while.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
That's a very astute and intelligent observation, it's one of the reasons that I hesitated to jump into this thread. However depending on how you look at the matter creationism and evolution are actually on a similar debatable plane despite the fact that no scientific proof of a master creator or God exists. Belief of God is ultimately a matter of faith, spirituality is a matter of faith, however science does not necessarily dispute the theory of creationism. Also science does not necessarily prove beyond doubt that the theory of evolution is true. (I know some people will flame me for that statement, but if it were true there would be no need to throw terms like theory and hypothesis around. They would simply be stated as fact)

Please go take at least ONE science and bio course before talking about either and/or both. Your ignorance on both is quite astounding.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: 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"

That's a very debateable viewpoint which is why there is more than one defintion for those terms. Also using your different wording here

"Change from being less adapted to more adapted or possibly, changing from one niche to another"

Would'nt a lot of those so called change or adaptation we see in humans come from intelliegence, research and investigation. The reason we are'nt currently plagued with things like leprosy, polio, yellow fever and other life threatening illnesses and situations is'nt necessarily from evolving it's more from the sharing and application of intelligent research. Also to the poster who mentioned the fact that people are taller is the product of evolution, would'nt a more plausible explanation come from the fact that taller people are more attractive on some level which means that the opposite sex is more inclined to reproduce with someone who has those characteristics?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: tealk

Originally posted by: So

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.

I'll be just fine. All I want from the afterlife is kleos.

KLEOS - glory, often implying fame and immortality (in the memory of others), achieved as a result of one's time (acts of excellence meriting honor).
If this is what Kleos is.....im sorry but your acts, and what you left behind....mean as much as how much crap your dog left behind....It's your personal relationship with Jesus and excepting him as your personal savior that gets you into heaven. Otherwise if you beleive in it or not, the other flipside will be your fate.

Maybe jesus can teach you some grammar as well. What's interesting is that you're so convinced that Christianity is the way to go while in other parts of the world Jews, Muslims and Hindus all believe they have the right plan. What's interesting is that for some reason being a good person is not the most important part of getting into heaven. All you need is blind obdience and submission before Jesus/God. According to Christianity, as long as Hitler repented before he died he will be in Heaven. Yet someone like Ghandi will surely roast in hell

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: 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.

I have to say you're wrong here. I started doing a lot of research on creationism and evolution about 15-20 years ago and the definitions and terms used back then have without a doubt morphed and changed over the years. If you like I can pull out some of those old sources I have and give you specific examples. However if you want that info I would prefer to do it in a new thread as this one is really getting bogged down.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Also to the poster who mentioned the fact that people are taller is the product of evolution, would'nt a more plausible explanation come from the fact that taller people are more attractive on some level which means that the opposite sex is more inclined to reproduce with someone who has those characteristics?

Exactly! This is natural selection Sexual selection is 100% recognized as a factor in evolution.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: 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"

That's a very debateable viewpoint which is why there is more than one defintion for those terms. Also using your different wording here

"Change from being less adapted to more adapted or possibly, changing from one niche to another"

Would'nt a lot of those so called change or adaptation we see in humans come from intelliegence, research and investigation. The reason we are'nt currently plagued with things like leprosy, polio, yellow fever and other life threatening illnesses and situations is'nt necessarily from evolving it's more from the sharing and application of intelligent research. Also to the poster who mentioned the fact that people are taller is the product of evolution, would'nt a more plausible explanation come from the fact that taller people are more attractive on some level which means that the opposite sex is more inclined to reproduce with someone who has those characteristics?

Whoever said you should take an intro bio course was right on the money. Please look up sexual selection.

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: oldman420
Now now lets try to keep the flames to a minimum, surely we are all adult enough to civilly discus this somewhat heated topic.

I don't think you've read the scads of evolution vs religion threads on here before....

you are correct my bad

 

[Arkitech]

This is impossible, I wish I could respond to all of the posts here. But obviously those who support evolution in this thread far out weigh those believe in creation and I lack the time to reply to each and every post in a well thought out and intelligent manner. I will say that I appreciate those of you who actually support their statements with information they have acquired instead of just resorting to juvenile retorts. I will definitely return to this thread over the next few days and try to provide some more responses if this thread is'nt closed by then.

In the meantime if some of you don't mind, please provide a few links to articles on evolutionary theory so that I can print out a few to read in my spare time. If possible link to concise articles, its hard to find the time to read through 40 lengthy articles. I will also do some research and put up a few links to articles of where science supports creationism.

I'll be back later this afternoon.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
This is impossible, I wish I could respond to all of the posts here. But obviously those who support evolution in this thread far out weigh those believe in creation and I lack the time to reply to each and every post in a well thought out and intelligent manner. I will say that I appreciate those of you who actually support their statements with information they have acquired instead of just resorting to juvenile retorts. I will definitely return to this thread over the next few days and try to provide some more responses if this thread is closed by then.

In the meantime if some of you don't mind, please provide a few links to articles on evolutionary theory so that I can print out a few to read in my spare time. If possible link to concise articles, its hard to find the time to read through 40 lengthy articles of. I will also do some research and put a few links to articles of where science supports creationism.

I'll be back later this afternoon.

"Intellectual Design" has already been proven to be a farce in a courtroom setting. I don't see why people even argue about it anymore.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
This is impossible, I wish I could respond to all of the posts here. But obviously those who support evolution in this thread far out weigh those believe in creation and I lack the time to reply to each and every post in a well thought out and intelligent manner. I will say that I appreciate those of you who actually support their statements with information they have acquired instead of just resorting to juvenile retorts. I will definitely return to this thread over the next few days and try to provide some more responses if this thread is'nt closed by then.

In the meantime if some of you don't mind, please provide a few links to articles on evolutionary theory so that I can print out a few to read in my spare time. If possible link to concise articles, its hard to find the time to read through 40 lengthy articles. I will also do some research and put up a few links to articles of where science supports creationism.

I'll be back later this afternoon.

Well, to start, http://www.talkorigins.org/ might be worth your time.