Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:37:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Once again, the difference is jumping species.
Once again, the difference between species isn't something magical, or even
obvious. It's (usually) merely a matter of reproductive capacity.
There are many, many examples of two species that are so similar that only
recently have scientists with all the tools at their disposal been able to
figure which are which. The fish doesn't have to suddenly sprout horns in
order to show speciation...and conversely, the fish _could_ sprout horns and
still not represent a new species.
> Chloresterol is good for you--oh wait, it isn't--oh wait it is, but only
> certain types. Science fudges many many things.
This isn't an example of fudge. Cholesterol is incompletely understood. (Like
evolution!) The understanding of cholesterol is constantly evolving. That's a
good thing, not a bad.
> > The Ceolacanth currently existing doesn't disprove evolution in any way.
> > Why would you say that?
>
> 'cause the very word 'evolution' infers change. Things don't change, which
> is contrary to the very concept of evolution.
Wrong. Evolution is a description of a certain kind of change. It's not
something that has to happen over any given time frame, nor under any specific
circumstances.
> If we were to take the base
> principles of evolution, that things must change, or adapt, as the world
> changes
But the world doesn't completely change. If a creature is "tuned" to survival
in a micro-climate and that micro-climate's location shifts over time, the
range of the creature may change over time with no need to adapt to changing
conditions. Further, that creature might "respond" to the changes in _both_
ways. Some population of the creature might move to follow the prefered
conditions, and another might spring forth from a newly arrived at tolerance to
the new conditions.
> --but wait--here's a fish that was supposedly extinct for millions of
> years swimming around. 'But', the evolutionists say, 'mayhaps some fishes
> stayed the same and others underwnent the change'. Well, that contradicts
> the evolutionary process, 'cause if change happens because it *has* to
> happen, and one thing didn't change, then none of the others would have had
> to change, either.
False. See above.
> But the distinctness of the species, how they are different and there's no
> 'fuzziness' between the species, is just too specific to be the product of
> randomness.
First, evolution is note a random process. But that's just an aside. The
differences between the three species discussed: humans, chimps, and dolphins,
are fairly divergent. There appears fairly little "fuzziness" because of the
huge time frame since we last shared a common ancestor.
> If evolution, in its purest sense, is the adaptability of
> creatures to the niches they are in, then there whould be 'gray' creatures,
> caught between niches, for niches are not cut and dry--niches gradually
> change from zone to zone.
If I understand what you are saying, you're asserting that there would be
species evolved that are more broadly adapted than these niche-organisms. I
agree. You're talking to one of them.
> And don't make the mistake of saying that evolution is science. Science is
> based on what can be shown today--evolution happened a long time ago.
You keep saying that. Show me. Prove to me that science can't deal with
historical evidence.
> To say that the universe is limited to what we measure with
> the 5 senses (with or without the mechanisms of humankind) is
> reductionistic.
What do you mean?
> To perceive something outside the physical realm takes
> faith.
How does it work? How do you perceive the unperceivable?
> And don't try to teach evolution as science.
If it were not a valid product of science, I'd agree with you. But it is.
> Science, either biology,
> chemistry, and physics in high school, doesn't have to have *either* theory
> taught at all for the children to succeed in these classes.
That's completely dependent on how you define succeed. As a teacher, I'd say
that it's important to get the basic fundamental theories in place early on
since much of the scientific body of knowledge stems from those. I think that
for anyone to understand any of the genuinely important biological ideas in a
reasonable contextual framework, they have to be working from the root
principals.
And areas of knowledge interact.
> My
> understanding of a weight falling 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't need either theory.
But an understanding of gravity and other physical concepts might help to
hypothesize about the evolution of avian organisms. These areas are all
interrelated.
> Saying that 2H2 + O2 = H20 + energy certainly doesn't need it,
But for a modestly compelte understanding of reproductive biology (which
certainly edges against evolution), chemical equations are needed. These areas
are all interrelated.
> and the concept of photosynthesis certainly doesn't need either.
Except to understand the history of photosynthesis as it relates to population
dynamics, changes in ecology, and matters of efficiency.
> High school is no
> place for either of these theories to be taught.
Because evolution, as a groundwork theory should both have been covered years
earlier. My son is almost eight and understands the basic idea.
> When you're off at university, and you're quite settled into your own little
> worldview and you're comfortable there, and you have the option of taking a
> Creationist or an Evolutionist course, then by all means, go ahead.
Why wait? I find this stance: a) insulting to the intellect of kids, b) not
representitive of my university experience, and c) shockingly short-sighted.
My children have access to all knowledge at all ages. I know that I'm
somewhat extreme on this, but you seem to be the opposite. Wow.
> > If compassion helps to have your offspring survive to the point where they
> > can reproduce, then yes, it does have a place.
>
> No it doesnt for it goes againt the very nature of the survival of the
> fittest. Compassion is opposite that idea.
I'm not even sure where to start. You seem to only imagine hyenas tearing the
throats out of sickly gazelles. Fitness is defined merely as the ability to
reproduce. It has nothing to do with fighting prowess -- except as one
possible approach to fitness. Any trait (of which compassion is one) that
helps an organism bring the next generation to child-bearing age is an
ingredient in fitness.
> > > Love--again does not fit into evolution. Sure some can live without it but
> > > they're missing something.
> >
> > I rather imagine that love helped us get where we are, so I don't see how
> > that is inconsistent with evolution.
>
> Again, love is what it is--pretty much undefinable--but evolution would have
> the 'alpha' people fighting over who gets to procreate--nothing to do with
> love at all.
Again, you are wrong for the same reason. If love gets the job done, then
evolution has a place for it.
Imagine two identical organisms, but one eats her babies and the other falls in
love with them and nurtures them to adolesence. They each have fifteen babies.
In the first case, zero survive and the species disappears from the earth. In
the second, predators of various sizes get 1/3 of them but ten of her babes
thrive. Her ten babies have a hundred who have a thousand who have ten
thousand. Get it?
Now imagine that instead, the trait we're looking at is a propensity to band
together in social groups. Or for one out of ten to be non-reproductive so
that they can help defend the kids of the other nine. Evolution has room for
an infinity of fitness strategies.
"Survival of the fittest" really means "progenation of those most efficient."
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Once again, the difference is jumping species. Whether it's 2 years or 2 thousand years, or 2 million years, a fish is still a fish. Sure, it adapted over the course of those millions of years to climate changes, grew a new fin to help it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
