Evolution and Intelligent Design

[BluePriest]

So, what do you believe to be true? Evolution, An Intelligent designer (The Christian God, Or Some other being)
And Also, If you dont believe Evolution is true, but you dont believe it was some type of higher being, then what do you believe?

Please, back up your answers, Ill see where it goes before I give my 2 cents on anything detailed, for now, Ill just say that I dont think evolution has a good scientific backing, and nothing more.

[Kamietsu]

I believe in evolution, and maybe some type of intelligent design, sort of.

Evolution is proven, without a doubt, scientifically. Anyone who says different has some sort of lack of true information, and/or clouded with the truth they believe is religion. I am not saying religion is wrong, any religion, and I won't know for certain until I die, but evolution has been proven. People have observed changes in species, specimen, over time. I sincerely encourage everyone to read up on some Darwin. Darwin is not the devil, as some people like to assume. That's all I'm going to say, just read some Darwin and read about what he reall did, who he really was. You will see, without a doubt, that the religious media portrays him extremely terribly. Now, that said, I do not mean evolution from a common ancestor of apes a long time ago to form humans and present day apes. But those who thing humans evolved from apes, you are 100% wrong. Humans did not evolve from apes. What the evolutionary theory states is that a long time ago, apes and humans shared a common ancestor, and through random mutations, that common ancestor evolved into two completely different species. One of those species being apes, the other species being human.

I am not saying I believe that 100%, as there isn't enough information for me to believe that 100%, though I do believe that to an extent.

I honestly don't care where humans came from, that doesn't interest me, but I do not believe some mighty being just poofed us into existence. So yes, I believe evolution, mainly because it has been scientifically proven.

As for the intelligent designer thing. No I don't believe we were poofed into existence suddenly, I believe we evolved from something, a long time ago and evolved over time, but I semi-believe that the universe, that everything in existence has two possibilities.

1) Some sort of being suddenly burst the universe into existence, somehow, and then left it alone to grow.

2) Nothing exists, and because of the absolute nothingness, reality was born. I know that sounds bizarrely insane, and I don't expect anyone else to understand what I mean and I don't even know how to begin to explain it more.

And that's what I believe.

tl;dr

I believe in evolution, and those that do not should give some of their time and research it more, read up on it more. Especially read Darwin, Darwin is not the devil and is much better than religious media portrays him.

I do not believe humans were just suddenly thrust into existence, but I semi-believe the world, the universe as we know it did have a small amount of help in forming do to some higher being.

[BluePriest]

Have you given it exstensive research? Or just what you have learned in schools/colleges?
Yes, I do believe in Intelligent Design
No, I dont believe it should be taught in schools.
No, I dont in the theory of evolution.
No, I dont believe it should be taught in school as a fact, as a commonly accepted theory, I have no proble with.
No, It is not because of my religious beliefs.
Yes, It is because I dont believe it has efficient facts.

I believe you can not truely believe "Evolution is proven, without a doubt, scientifically." without having some type of faith in evolution.

First thing I have a problem with.
If it can be proven that any structure exists in the world, that can not be created by numerous successive modifications, then evolution will not be posssible. It is believed by some that darwin himself said that in different wording saying that "my theory would absolutely break down", however, there is much debate about this. I dont care if you believe he said it or not, its not important. What is important is that it is true that it is a limitation of evolution.

A substance such as this is considered an irreducibly complex structure. One Example, is a bacterial flagellum.

Im going to leave it at this for now, to see what anyone else has to say.

[tyranim]

i believe it doesnt matter. we are here, and we got here somehow. thats all we need to know. we dont need to know how or why, we just are and thats that (IMO)

[Eleazar]

Personally, I am some kind of Scientific-Creationist. I believe that the universe was created by a higher being, but I believe in science and evolution too. I believe in animal evolution, but don't believe humans evolved from something else. I think humans were created just as they are, but the other animals evolved.

A substance such as this is considered an irreducibly complex structure. One Example, is a bacterial flagellum.

As for this, I've seen some people (evolutionists) counter this argument by saying that complexity doesn't imply design. IMO the idea of this sentence is true, as I think this is not a sufficiently valid argument for creationism.

[Demagog]

A substance such as this is considered an irreducibly complex structure. One Example, is a bacterial flagellum.

As for this, I've seen some people (evolutionists) counter this argument by saying that complexity doesn't imply design. IMO the idea of this sentence is true, as I think this is not a sufficiently valid argument for creationism.

That's not really the point though. If evolution can't explain how any organism developed a flagellum, then the theory of evolution must be faulty. Either it is only partially true or there is actually something else going on.

A better counter to that argument would be that somehow a bacteria (bacterium? don't know the singular) absorbed some DNA/RNA (not sure what makes up a flagellum), and it just happened to work as a flagellum. If you believe that somehow matter was able to turn into life, which probably has an extremely low probability, then it's easier to believe that a bacteria could absorb the exact DNA sequence needed for a flagellum because that probably has a higher probability. I don't know how that DNA could have come into existence in the first place though... possibly mitochondrial DNA (if bacteria can absorb and use that) or if life started as DNA/RNA sequences (I don't remember what part of life came first), then it could be that the DNA formed somehow like original DNA formed, and the bacteria could then absorb it.

Just guesses though.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

Have you given it exstensive research? Or just what you have learned in schools/colleges?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  In general, most people you interact with at a university are more educated than the average person.  What do you mean "just what you have learned in schools/college"?

No, I dont believe it should be taught in school as a fact, as a commonly accepted theory, I have no proble with.

This is a common error.  A theory is not the opposite of a fact.  In truth, calling evolution a theory makes it stronger than a fact, because a theory is a collection of facts that cohere into a consistent explanation.  That is to say, in the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, a theory is above a fact.  I don't mean to offend here, but I am somewhat wary of people who want to influence a science curriculum (i.e., saying what should be taught), but don't understand basic terminology.

First thing I have a problem with.
If it can be proven that any structure exists in the world, that can not be created by numerous successive modifications, then evolution will not be posssible. It is believed by some that darwin himself said that in different wording saying that "my theory would absolutely break down", however, there is much debate about this. I dont care if you believe he said it or not, its not important. What is important is that it is true that it is a limitation of evolution.

It's not "believed by some" that Darwin said that.  It's straight out of the Origin of Species.  He was completely honest about the limitations and implications of his theory.  Unlike Creationists, scientists can accept they are wrong at times and seek better answers.  He was merely pointing out potential problems that required further investigation.

A substance such as this is considered an irreducibly complex structure. One Example, is a bacterial flagellum.

Irreducible complexity was largely championed by Micheal Behe in the early 1990s and in his book Darwin's Black Box.  In the past 15 years or so since its publication, nearly all of its "challenges to science" have been answered by research.

[Demagog]

You wouldn't happen to know which challenges to science haven't been answered would you? In relation to the book you were referring to, of course.

[Chemist]

Evolution as taught by the textbooks.

1. Everyone carries DNA.

2. Children tend to resemble their parents - because they are a recombination of their genes.

3. Over a population you have a spectrum of each trait (like height) determined by genes.

4. In a certain environment a trait (or group of traits) may affect the chance of having descendants (for instance by affecting survival chance in early years of life).

5. So if certain traits are disadvantageous then the genes which cause them have a lower chance of being passed into the next generation.

6. The prevalence of those genes in the population decreases with time and the trait spectrum of the population shifts away from the trait in question.

Example: We have a population of deer living in a forest environment. Over millenniums a mountain range rises in the middle of the forest, dividing it in half. The mountains prevents rainfall from reaching the second half of the forest - which changes into a savanna/desert environment. The forest deer population have brown fur (a spectrum of different shades). Each shade of brown works equally well in the forest. In the desert, however, lighter shades are better than darker ones because they absorb less sunlight and allow for the deer to keep their body cool with more ease. So if +1% of darker fur toned deer die every generation compared to the lighter fur toned ones, then slowly but surely there are fewer dark fur deer (% wise) every generation. This makes the spectrum of the fur color slowly shift towards lighter colors. A few millenniums later the average forest deer will look just like their ancestors, whereas the average desert deer will have a much lighter fur color, as well as longer ears (by the same principle -ears radiate heat, so longer ears are an advantage over smaller ones in the desert). If populations from the same species live in sufficiently different environments for a few million years they may become so different themselves that they are no longer genetically compatible - that means they've split into two different species.

I absolutely can't see what's so disagreeable or hard to understand about this. Does anyone disagree with this? Then tell me which part of my (admittedly not-so stellar) explanation above bothers you so that I can clear things up.

[jmizzle7]

I absolutely can't see what's so disagreeable or hard to understand about this. Does anyone disagree with this? Then tell me which part of my (admittedly not-so stellar) explanation above bothers you so that I can clear things up.

Am I missing something here? You seem to be defending yourself from attacks that haven't even had a chance to materialize.

[Chemist]

I absolutely can't see what's so disagreeable or hard to understand about this. Does anyone disagree with this? Then tell me which part of my (admittedly not-so stellar) explanation above bothers you so that I can clear things up.

Am I missing something here? You seem to be defending yourself from attacks that haven't even had a chance to materialize.

If people disagree with evolution then they're likely to disagree with what I've written? (which is basically evolution in a nutshell)

[BluePriest]

Evolution as taught by the textbooks.

1. Everyone carries DNA.

2. Children tend to resemble their parents - because they are a recombination of their genes.

3. Over a population you have a spectrum of each trait (like height) determined by genes.

4. In a certain environment a trait (or group of traits) may affect the chance of having descendants (for instance by affecting survival chance in early years of life).

5. So if certain traits are disadvantageous then the genes which cause them have a lower chance of being passed into the next generation.

6. The prevalence of those genes in the population decreases with time and the trait spectrum of the population shifts away from the trait in question.

Example: We have a population of deer living in a forest environment. Over millenniums a mountain range rises in the middle of the forest, dividing it in half. The mountains prevents rainfall from reaching the second half of the forest - which changes into a savanna/desert environment. The forest deer population have brown fur (a spectrum of different shades). Each shade of brown works equally well in the forest. In the desert, however, lighter shades are better than darker ones because they absorb less sunlight and allow for the deer to keep their body cool with more ease. So if +1% of darker fur toned deer die every generation compared to the lighter fur toned ones, then slowly but surely there are fewer dark fur deer (% wise) every generation. This makes the spectrum of the fur color slowly shift towards lighter colors. A few millenniums later the average forest deer will look just like their ancestors, whereas the average desert deer will have a much lighter fur color, as well as longer ears (by the same principle -ears radiate heat, so longer ears are an advantage over smaller ones in the desert). If populations from the same species live in sufficiently different environments for a few million years they may become so different themselves that they are no longer genetically compatible - that means they've split into two different species.

I absolutely can't see what's so disagreeable or hard to understand about this. Does anyone disagree with this? Then tell me which part of my (admittedly not-so stellar) explanation above bothers you so that I can clear things up.

I have no problem with what you said here. Everything there is completely true. That is all micro evolution however, natural selection which is proven time and time again. The thing is, with that, they loose genetic information, they dont gain new genetic information which is what is necessary for evolution. Micro Evolution (also known as Natural Selection), is what you showed here.  Im talking about Macro-Evolution Im talkign about a Bacteria turning into a frog. A Tree, and a monkey being related through a common ancestor/

Im no good with the quote system, so these quotes are
Posted by: PhuzzY LogiKPosted on: Today at 05:03:42 AM
Insert Quote

Quote from: BluePriest on Today at 02:12:43 AM
Have you given it exstensive research? Or just what you have learned in schools/colleges?

___________
I'm not sure what you mean here.  In general, most people you interact with at a university are more educated than the average person.  What do you mean "just what you have learned in schools/college"?

Have you looked at it critically? Not many universities actually take a critical look at evolution, and want people to look at it critically, seeing if they can find any fault in it, nor do the majority of universities show things that are critical of evolution unless it is something they can easily explain.

Quote from: BluePriest on Today at 02:12:43 AM
No, I dont believe it should be taught in school as a fact, as a commonly accepted theory, I have no proble with.
____________

This is a common error.  A theory is not the opposite of a fact.  In truth, calling evolution a theory makes it stronger than a fact, because a theory is a collection of facts that cohere into a consistent explanation.  That is to say, in the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, a theory is above a fact.  I don't mean to offend here, but I am somewhat wary of people who want to influence a science curriculum (i.e., saying what should be taught), but don't understand basic terminology.

Very sorry, I hope people can get the understanding im trying to put across. That is my main goal.I dont want to influence the scientific curriculum, if I did I would have put it on a college forum, not some website where I play one of my favorite internet games /joke

Quote from: BluePriest on Today at 02:12:43 AM
First thing I have a problem with.
If it can be proven that any structure exists in the world, that can not be created by numerous successive modifications, then evolution will not be posssible. It is believed by some that darwin himself said that in different wording saying that "my theory would absolutely break down", however, there is much debate about this. I dont care if you believe he said it or not, its not important. What is important is that it is true that it is a limitation of evolution.
____________

It's not "believed by some" that Darwin said that.  It's straight out of the Origin of Species.  He was completely honest about the limitations and implications of his theory.  Unlike Creationists, scientists can accept they are wrong at times and seek better answers.  He was merely pointing out potential problems that required further investigation.

Actually, after tons of study on the debate of evolution and intelligent design, I found a large community who say this was never said. Otherwise I wouldnt have even posted it.

Quote from: BluePriest on Today at 02:12:43 AM
A substance such as this is considered an irreducibly complex structure. One Example, is a bacterial flagellum.
______________

Irreducible complexity was largely championed by Micheal Behe in the early 1990s and in his book Darwin's Black Box.  In the past 15 years or so since its publication, nearly all of its "challenges to science" have been answered by research.

Not hardly. Saying they have been answered doesnt answer them. As I mentioned before, Ill just stick with the bacterial flagellum for now. Its the one I understand the most. Im aware that some people use co-option to just explain it away, however, the majority (and when I say majority, i mean all the examples Ive seen) dont actually answer how it could have been formed. They just say it is possible somehoww, but they have no clue how.

I dont really like the watchmakers argument, this is a sorta twist on it, If we can look at something, and intelligently not figure out how it was put together, then how could we believe and an unintelligent non guiding force put it together with no knowledge of how it would work once it became assembled? The bacterial Flagellum is the perfect example of this.