Creationism, in context. - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #46 09-19-2012, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Evolution is a long, slow, gradual, process. Cataclysmic events are quick.

To me, that means that a full understanding of evolution requires a full understanding of whatever cataclysms may have interrupted the evolutionary process. Based on my amateur's understanding, living things are thought to evolve in response to their surroundings. If those surroundings are stable for a few thousand years (or whatever period), then altered by a cataclysm, then I would expect the evolutionary process to change directions.

Air&Road · #47 09-19-2012, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

To me, that means that a full understanding of evolution requires a full understanding of whatever cataclysms may have interrupted the evolutionary process. Based on my amateur's understanding, living things are thought to evolve in response to their surroundings. If those surroundings are stable for a few thousand years (or whatever period), then altered by a cataclysm, then I would expect the evolutionary process to change directions.

Yes, and it has!

tbomachines · #48 09-19-2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Evolution is a long, slow, gradual, process. Cataclysmic events are quick.

I don't see those two at odds - take dinosaurs for example. When that asteroid hit the earth, only the organisms capable of surviving such events (i.e. "the strong") survived and created offspring. This is still consistent with evolution and natural selection afaik.

elchivito · #49 09-19-2012, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

I don't see those two at odds - take dinosaurs for example. When that asteroid hit the earth, only the organisms capable of surviving such events (i.e. "the strong") survived and created offspring. This is still consistent with evolution and natural selection afaik.

Exactly.

davidmash · #50 09-19-2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

David,
If evolution fits the known facts so well, then why is there such a rise in "catoclysmology" (if that is a word). I refer to to search for cataclysmic events to explain certain aspects of our history. If evolution was so satisfactory, I doubt you would see that search.

Are you referring to the mass extinction of dinosaurs about 65 million years ago or the mass extinction about 200 million years ago that gave rise to dinosaurs?

Not sure what gave rise to anything but since the fossil records indicate a massive die off of certain species at a certain time the goal of science is to find out why. Indications are that it was a cataclysmic event.

Evolution of species as I read it, is a completely separate issue from any cataclysmic event. Evolution would/did occur regardless of any cataclysmic event. All the cataclysmic event did was change the path of evolution due to eradication of species. Just as if you were to roll a ball down a street, if it hits a bump, it will change direction but continue to roll.

Further, I do not think any one in the science community has indicate that evolution is good, bad efficient or anything else. Evolution is what it is. Species do evolve. That is observable and factually true. Certain bacteria and strains of virus have become immune to the older medicines. There are animals that are genetically related to others but due to their location (Galapagos Islands is a perfect example) are unique. A marine Iguana comes to mind.

Perhaps there are better ways for life to progress but this is what nature has figured out. Species evolve over time to survive in their environment or they perish. It is what it is.

davidmash · #51 09-19-2012, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

To me, that means that a full understanding of evolution requires a full understanding of whatever cataclysms may have interrupted the evolutionary process. Based on my amateur's understanding, living things are thought to evolve in response to their surroundings. If those surroundings are stable for a few thousand years (or whatever period), then altered by a cataclysm, then I would expect the evolutionary process to change directions.

You used two separate terms. I do not believe that any cataclysmic event interrupted anything. I believe it is more accurate to say that the cataclysmic event(s) altered the path of evolution.

Perhaps a small distinction of words but one with drastically different implications.

TX76513 · #52 09-19-2012, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

I wonder if he created marijuana the same day?

on Day 6 - then he rested

Honus · #53 09-19-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

You used two separate terms. I do not believe that any cataclysmic event interrupted anything. I believe it is more accurate to say that the cataclysmic event(s) altered the path of evolution.

Perhaps a small distinction of words but one with drastically different implications.

"Altered" is more accurate.

t walgamuth · #54 09-19-2012, 11:25 AM

Actually if you read further you will find that evolution can make (relatively) quick leaps when cataclysms occur.

If the astroid kills off all large land animals the toads and lizards that were buried in mud come out after thirty years when the climate allows them to survive and they have an exlplosion of growth (as a group) and fill "niches" which may have previously been filled by mammals (or visa versa).

Hence we have different forms of animals filling the same "niche" in different locals.

For example there is a marsupial animal in south america which is so similar to a squirrell that you would swear it is one until you find its little pouch. It eats nuts and everty thing.

White tail deer and Kangaroos are very similar in many ways too. (even color). Developed in separate continents but filling essentially the same niche.

SwampYankee · #55 09-19-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Actually if you read further you will find that evolution can make (relatively) quick leaps when cataclysms occur.

If the astroid kills off all large land animals the toads and lizards that were buried in mud come out after thirty years when the climate allows them to survive and they have an exlplosion of growth (as a group) and fill "niches" which may have previously been filled by mammals (or visa versa).

Hence we have different forms of animals filling the same "niche" in different locals.

For example there is a marsupial animal in south america which is so similar to a squirrell that you would swear it is one until you find its little pouch. It eats nuts and everty thing.

White tail deer and Kangaroos are very similar in many ways too. (even color). Developed in separate continents but filling essentially the same niche.

Kangaroos are much better boxers.

Ara T. · #56 09-19-2012, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyb

I like to look at the examples in nature that seem so UN-intelligently designed as to defy logic. Like, why do people have wisdom teeth? What's the point of having teeth that don't fit in your jawbone? (maybe god found dentists so endearing that he put a permanent employment clause in the human body). Why do whales have miniature hip and leg bones, but no legs? Why do cows need to regurgitate their food in order to eat?

The problem with creationism is that it starts with a premise and then you have to make the observations fit the premise. The theory (I guess in layman's terms one could call it "The law") of evolution is based on the principle of making the premise fit the observation. It's fine to study creationism in theology class, but anyone who thinks that there is any kind of scientific equivalency between evolution and creationism doesn't have an understanding of the most basic principles of the scientific process. People like that have no business dictating science curriculum decisions in the United States, and frankly, I place no small amount of blame on scientists for not being more outspoken about this issue.

Wisdom teeth not fitting in people's jaws is a relatively modern problem. This is because 100,000 years ago, people had much bigger/robust jaws and crania... as people have begun eating cooked and softer foods, no need for such massive biting power anymore.

MS Fowler · #57 09-19-2012, 05:18 PM

How did sex evolve?
Simple single cell organisms simply split and reproduce. Pretty simple, and all self-contained.

Sex as we know it requires 2 versions of each specie with different, but complimentary "equipment" none of which is useful to the organism until all the pieces are present. Of what use are testes or a penis without the connecting ductwork?

cmbdiesel · #58 09-19-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I do not believe I stated either. I simply questioned that ALL the evidence supports ANY theory or construct. There are problems with evolution whether you admit it or not. There are problems with creationism--most of them being the rabid supporters who over-state their case.

ALL is your word. Deliberate distortion of the opposing view. Not to mention over-stated....

cmbdiesel · #59 09-19-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

Kangaroos are much better boxers.

not always....

The boxing deer - YouTube

t walgamuth · #60 09-19-2012, 06:15 PM

Ouch!

Male deer in rut kill hunters in significant numbers every year.....usually using the horns though.

I was waiting for the deer in the clip to mount the hunter.