The Thinking Mans Thread - Evolution Schmevolution. No Offence to the Ladies.

[MooseBreath]

Sorry mate, replied to you before I realised we are basically in agreement. Not meaning to direct any dispute towards you - I should have checked. I apologise.

As for evolution...it's the strongest theory with the most evidence as to how humans came to be that we have right now, but that's not to say there may not be a discovery in the future that alters our view of that.

I do however take issue with those who would attempt to discredit the evidence for evolution based on the idea that we don't really know how life BEGAN on this planet (abiogenesis). They are two completely different spheres of influence.

By the same token you must also take issue with those who attempt to use evolution to deny the existence of a 'god', then?

[Uncle Phil]

To be clear, when I say 'evolution' or 'evolutionists', I'm meaning the sort that claim that animals can change into other brand new animals - and not just variations of an existing or pre-existing variant.

As far as I'm concerned, evolution doesn't deal with an origin of life as evolution comes into play only once life has occurred, be it from space, deep sea vents or a Kreator.

What I'm interested in is why you think one animal can't arise from another when things such as avatisms suggest otherwise, a whale or snake with legs for example is clearly a different creature to the one without. Or Ciclid fish speciation in the African great lakes.

A lot of people always want to see intermediates of two species, but in really all species are intermediates. The line between variation and speciation can be wafer thin, you don't get one animal giving rise to a completely different one in a generation as a child will always resemble it parents, these dramatic changes only become noticeable after a very long time. Like someones face doesn't seem to change from one day to the next, but go back 15 years and there is a vast difference. Unless you're Bruce Forsyth.

[Zingari]

Sorry mate, replied to you before I realised we are basically in agreement. Not meaning to direct any dispute towards you - I should have checked. I apologise.

As for evolution...it's the strongest theory with the most evidence as to how humans came to be that we have right now, but that's not to say there may not be a discovery in the future that alters our view of that.

I do however take issue with those who would attempt to discredit the evidence for evolution based on the idea that we don't really know how life BEGAN on this planet (abiogenesis). They are two completely different spheres of influence.

OK so leaving aside the beginnings of "life".

Do you believe that ultimately every living creature (and all the vegetation to sustain it) evolved naturally by mutations etc right through from simple single celled lifeforms , through all the lower life form stages to fish . reptile . amphibians, birds etc etc until we got to be humans ?

This of course means we ultimately evolved from single celled life form .

Or are you saying evolution is just about humans evolving from ape like creatures?

[Kitchandro]

I don't see any legitimate reason for not believing in evolution, but equally science can not yet explain the origins of the universe, so I don't see any legitimate reason to rule out a 'creator' either. I think all established religions are mumbo jumbo obviously, but the existence of evolution does nothing to disprove that there may be a 'god' of some kind.

That's what I was thinking. One doesn't necessarily disprove the other.

[Zingari]

That's what I was thinking. One doesn't necessarily disprove the other.

quite so

[Kitchandro]

I'm fairly sure you don't need to be a "christian" , but you would need to believe in a creator , so you'd need a belief in some sort of god i suppose.

Thanks for clearing it up

I do think it's important not to confuse organised religion with any belief in a creator, higher power or 'god'.

[The Doctor]

And fair play to that guy, but he had his arm with him. Going back to the inception of the universe is a bit more difficult.

I see what you're saying but I'm not sure why anyone would want to spend a load of time thinking about it. When you're talking about things like that, the likelihood of us ever finding out during this life is minute. And even if we did, the information may well be useless to us.

I mean, where would you start? Invent a time machine maybe (even that is mind boggling). But then what?

Same reason why Darwin spent years exploring the globe and examining animals, or why Mendel spent so long breeding his plants, or why Hubble used his life on examining space - some of us see gaps in our knowledge as a challenge to be conquered.

Time-travel would be an iffy one, afaik the general thought is that it'd be like telephones - we'd not be able to go back before the first time machine (and let's be honest, if you had a time machine you'd go back and find out what dinosaurs tasted like).

As for your other question - I'm not too familiar with the Torah or Quran, and even less so with the Vedic scripts or the guru garanth sahib (apologies if I've spelt that wrong Dr TheSingh) and other non-abrahamic scriptures but if they've a section like genesis then yes.

[leicsmac]

By the same token you must also take issue with those who attempt to use evolution to deny the existence of a 'god', then?

In point of fact I do, Moose. The act of evolution does not preclude a God - they could get involved, tinker with the system and we would view it just as chance or nature - because if we all knew the will of a God we would all be Gods wouldn't we?

I'm firmly agnostic in that I believe it's perfectly possible that there is a God out there who either doesn't interact at all with all of this or does so in a way that is indistinguishable to us. Or there isn't one. I honestly don't know as I've not seen evidence either way...and it's likely I will never do.

So yeah, I think using evolution as a proof either for or against the existence of a God is equally daft.

My main problem is with organised religion - which IMO is a monolithic entity built on words written by humans that has been abused by power-mongers for millenia. I have no problem with there possibly being a God out there.

[Zingari]

In point of fact I do, Moose. The act of evolution does not preclude a God - they could get involved, tinker with the system and we would view it just as chance or nature - because if we all knew the will of a God we would all be Gods wouldn't we?

I'm firmly agnostic in that I believe it's perfectly possible that there is a God out there who either doesn't interact at all with all of this or does so in a way that is indistinguishable to us. Or there isn't one. I honestly don't know as I've not seen evidence either way...and it's likely I will never do.

So yeah, I think using evolution as a proof either for or against the existence of a God is equally daft.

My main problem is with organised religion - which IMO is a monolithic entity built on words written by humans that has been abused by power-mongers for millenia. I have no problem with there possibly being a God out there.

then it's not about "natural selection" . it's about design ,

[leicsmac]

OK so leaving aside the beginnings of "life".

Do you believe that ultimately every living creature (and all the vegetation to sustain it) evolved naturally by mutations etc right through from simple single celled lifeforms , through all the lower life form stages to fish . reptile . amphibians, birds etc etc until we got to be humans ?

This of course means we ultimately evolved from single celled life form .

Or are you saying evolution is just about humans evolving from ape like creatures?

Evolution is about the whole damn thing, from start to finish, from single-celled organisms to humans and beyond. Given it has been around 3.5 billion years since life first arrived on this planet, that's a pretty decent length of time for change to occur. And as I mentioned in my post above - if someone was fiddling with the system, then it would in all likelihood just look like nature to us.

[leicsmac]

then it's not about "natural selection" . it's about design ,

Yep...but if the two are indistinguishable from each other (as so far they appear to be), then what's the argument?

[whoareyaaa]

Good grief, I repeat myself so often on this particular question on here I may as well save a copy to cut and paste in future.

As a cosmologist, this is my take, lifted wholesale from a previous post:

'What happened before the Big Bang is temporally irrelevant to us anyway.

Our concept of time (chronology being a totally human construct, by the way) began with that first expansion event, and so to try and theorise what happened 'before' is irrelevant as there WAS no 'before' - not in the way we comprehend, anyway - and it's impossible to interact with or observe any evidence for it in any way. All we have is a reasonable idea of what happened from about 10^-40 seconds after the Big Bang, and many physicists are spending their careers pushing that time envelope further and further. But we'll never get to the event itself, much less 'before' it...as there was no 'before'.

And this goes the same for the event that 'caused' the Big Bang too. Could have been anything, but it's actually not possible to find out or to comprehend.

It's similar to the reasonably verifiable fact that the Universe is actually far bigger that what we can see, due to the speed of expansion at the start of the Big Bang being faster than light (speed of light is related to one of the fundamental universal constants that was established JUST after the Big Bang, and these same laws are still broken today through black holes). We have a good idea it's out there, but we'll never be able to observe or interact with it as the light it possesses will never reach us (moving away from us at a relative speed faster than light). Hence, it's not really relevant to us - it's just something to note.'

The Big bang theory suggests that everything was one big accident nothing planned it just happened, you only need to look at a human being to know that it is impossible for us and everything around us to be one big accident.

[The Doctor]

I think the doc is very passionate about his subject and sometimes comes across in the way that looks like he's attacking or slagging off other posters , but i'm fairly sure it's just enthusiasm to get his points across .

It's not my subject, my primary port of call lies in chemistry (or more precisely organic chemistry), evolutionary biology is just something I read in my spare time for fun (in the process of rereading origin of species at the moment). As for your other post - the whys and the how's are a key part of the scientific answer due to the way science works.

[MooseBreath]

then it's not about "natural selection" . it's about design ,

The process of evolution is about natural selection, the creation of evolution may have been design

[leicsmac]

The Big bang theory suggests that everything was one big accident nothing planned it just happened, you only need to look at a human being to know that it is impossible for us and everything around us to be one big accident.

On the contrary, it's perfectly possible. 3.5 billion years (when most big organisms don't make it past 30 years of age and often have a generation within 5-10, and single or smaller multi-celled organisms can have thousands of generations in 1 year) is a VERY long time for chance to come up with us from a single cell.

As I said before, it's possible there is a hidden hand in there somewhere, but it would probably be indistinguishable from natural events.

[The Doctor]

The Big bang theory suggests that everything was one big accident nothing planned it just happened, you only need to look at a human being to know that it is impossible for us and everything around us to be one big accident.

Right, I'm on my mobbly at the moment so I'll leave leicsmac to walk you through it but - massive oversimplification of the big bang theory, it works off the notion than matter and anti-matter aren't keen on each other (well, more accurately electrons and positrons - think putting a few billion magnets together, they'll repeal each other quite violently). If you want an explanation on it and have a spare hour I recommend watching this

:

[Zingari]

Evolution is about the whole damn thing, from start to finish, from single-celled organisms to humans and beyond. Given it has been around 3.5 billion years since life first arrived on this planet, that's a pretty decent length of time for change to occur. And as I mentioned in my post above - if someone was fiddling with the system, then it would in all likelihood just look like nature to us.

Yes but that's the whole problem.

It isn't about evolution occurring , it's all about whether or not someone or something is tampering with it along the way.

in the same way cars didn't just evolve naturally , they were subject to constant revision.( ie a designer)

So evolutionary theory in this sense is not a complete answer only part of the answer

[Charl91]

I don't believe that there is a God/Person/Things who created life. However, I wouldn't categorically deny that one exists; you have to accept that it may be a possibility, no matter how small the possibility of it being true, simply because we don't have enough evidence to the contrary.

That being said, I believe the big bang/evolution theory has a lot more evidence behind it, so I will go with that one.

[Zingari]

The process of evolution is about natural selection, the creation of evolution may have been design

Yes it could , but equally if there is some sort of designer , why not keep him/ her itself busy at all the stages ?

it's a bloomin mystery an no mistake

[Charl91]

Yes it could , but equally if there is some sort of designer , why not keep him/ her itself busy at all the stages ?

Maybe they're dead?

[leicsmac]

Yes but that's the whole problem.

It isn't about evolution occurring , it's all about whether or not someone or something is tampering with it along the way.

in the same way cars didn't just evolve naturally , they were subject to constant revision.( ie a designer)

So evolutionary theory in this sense is not a complete answer only part of the answer

Yeah, I have said exactly that during the course of this discussion. It is perfectly possible that tampering is occuring.

But my point is that such tampering would probably not be identifiable as a deity to us, and therefore would appear to be entirely natural.

So in essence evolution and 'intelligent design' would appear to be exactly the same thing.

Yes it could , but equally if there is some sort of designer , why not keep him/ her itself busy at all the stages ?

it's a bloomin mystery an no mistake

Who knows? Perhaps He set it off and now thinks it's the ultimate Reality TV, and therefore is just watching with the snacks right now.

[Zingari]

Yeah, I have said exactly that during the course of this discussion. It is perfectly possible that tampering is occuring.

But my point is that such tampering would probably not be identifiable as a deity to us, and therefore would appear to be entirely natural.

So in essence evolution and 'intelligent design' would appear to be exactly the same thing.

Who knows? Perhaps He set it off and now thinks it's the ultimate Reality TV, and therefore is just watching with the snacks right now.

But your posts and reasoning are quite different to the Docs . He insists that evolution precludes the need for a god

(or intelligent designer) .So it seems evolutionists do not sing from the same hymn sheet after all .

[leicsmac]

But your posts and reasoning are quite different to the Docs . He insists that evolution precludes the need for a god

(or intelligent designer) .So it seems evolutionists do not sing from the same hymn sheet after all .

Yep, on this he and I disagree. though it's something of an abstract point in that he says that "evolution definitely happens without a god", and I say that "it could happen with or without a God but we'll never be able to distinguish it so it doesn't make any difference either way."

[whoareyaaa]

Maybe they're dead?

Im sure the 'Designer' wouldn't be one person, more a civilization.

[The Doctor]

But your posts and reasoning are quite different to the Docs . He insists that evolution precludes the need for a god

(or intelligent designer) .So it seems evolutionists do not sing from the same hymn sheet after all .

Not sure how you've got that from my posts - I see no reason to include a god into evolution, with no evidence of a god it's unscientific, not to mention evolution is explainable without invoking the supernatural.

A god could have been tinkering I admit, but I see no reason to take that over a naturalistic explanation given the absence of evidence that such a being exists.