Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Delreich]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Not a creationist term, its actually a scientific term.

It would help if you actually bothered to read the things you link to.

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").  Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation  in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.
[...]
The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.

If we apply Ockham's razor, it makes more sense that it wasn't random chance. What else it could be is up to debate.

Actually, "random chance" is the simplest explanation if the only alternative is "something else".

[Chemist]

no, their body adapted

And I do hope this was also part of the joke.

Now, Ive got a question, Is there a difference between a rabbit getting gradually bigger over the years, vs a rabbit growing wings over the year?
What about fur color changing over the years vs growing wings over the years?

Sure. And changing color is also very different from getting bigger. Edit: Wait. You're not talking about a single rabit here, are you? Are you sure you aren't mixing some of Lamarck's early ideas into this? Perhaps you should also put in tags for where a joke begins.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a difference between change within a species, and change through species. And there is definitely a change between change crossing the species boundary only, and change crossing the family boundary so that it is no longer considered to be part of that animal family.

Not really. The boundary isn't something that is crossed - it is something that is created. The division into species is an artificial one. When do you stop calling something species A and start calling it species B? No matter what point in time you choose the "first generation of species B" is still compatible with the "last generation of species A". Changes are always slow and transitions gradual. For that purpose you would select a benchmark in time and once the life form has changed enough you'd call it a new species. Division into species makes things easier to refer to, which is why it's done.

I could explain my beliefs in a very scientific way, however, the thing is, they are all just hypothesis as well, and you wouldnt be able to disprove them because of that.

If it was a hypothesis then it could be disproved since hypotheses can be tested. If they can correctly predict results of experiments in advance (in addition to being able to explain all experimental data so far available across disciplines) then we start calling them theories (at least in my mother tongue - I understand it's somewhat different in English?). The reason intelligent design won't ever be called a theory is because it can not predict anything. 

The whole point of this topic was [...] to critically think about evolution, [...]

We have now done that and concluded (I believe) that the concept makes absolute sense (no OMG a frog turned into a bird).

[...]all youve done is give me fairy tales on how something COULD have happend, or how it COULD happen[...]

Those would be simple explanations of the concept with examples and you haven't been able to do anything so far but agree that they make sense. Need evidence? -well if you can not find any evidence in support of evolution on the Internet then I am sorry for you, really. And unfortunately for you there is no such thing as evidence against evolution - there are merely a handful of things evolution has yet to explain (versus everything else it already has). Note that the theory of evolution can explain much more today then it could two hundred years ago or even twenty years ago. That's science. The evolutionary theory of today is still just an approximation of the correct answer, but scientists keep adding decimal places (figuratively). We'll have the complete, mistake free version some day. (And how are alternative theories coming along?)

[...]all youve done [...] and then misrepresent facts[...]

Where? I can't say everything I've written is correct, but that certainly doesn't mean I wrote something wrong on purpose.

[...]and try to discredit me[...]

I'm just pointing out flaws in your arguments. Any loss of credibility probably comes by itself from that. And speaking of trying to discredit someone look one quote above.

[...]scientific facts on how a bacterial flagellum was created.[...]

What exactly are you asking for here anyway? (And would it bring me a Nobel award for figuring it out?)

Now, once again, id like information on the bacterial flagellum please. If you are tired of hearing about it, then just say you cant explain it, and ill go to my next point. Thats simple enough.

I can't explain that . Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Doesn't mean creation didn't happen either. But I can (and did actually) explain the concept of evolution. I didn't come here to discuss abiogenesis with someone who may know even less about it than I do.

If you're tired of this discussion then don't feel obliged to continue. I came here to show evolution makes logical sense and think I have achieved that. Nobody has poked a hole in my description of the concept at least and you seem to understand it slightly better now.

[Demagog]

If we apply Ockham's razor, it makes more sense that it wasn't random chance. What else it could be is up to debate.

Actually, "random chance" is the simplest explanation if the only alternative is "something else".

See that doesn't make any sense considering how low of a probability random chance has of resulting in lifeforms of this complexity all on its own. I'm not saying random chance wasn't involved, I'm saying it wasn't the only thing involved. It doesn't have to be a supernatural being either. It could be some unknown natural cause that science could actually explain. If the current hypothesis is near impossible, isn't it logical to question the validity of that hypothesis?

[BluePriest]

@demagog, Im sorry, I went back and read your questions, I really dont know the answer to them. You bring up good points, and mine and chemists walls of exts probably overshadowed them, sorry.

@Delrich, it is a scientific term, and for the sake of avoiding any arguments about terminology, Ill say that you are technically right, And this is how I am going to refer to them from this point on, to avoid any confusion.

When I say natural selection, I mean just that. Change within a species.
When I say evolution, I mean change through different species.

To Avoid any further confusion, Darwins finches are a perfect example. They change for their enviroment, and when put back in their previous environment, they change back as well.

Origin of species and the common ancestor, going through changes into completely different species, is what I am talking about when i say evolution.

@ demagogs most recent post. I agree 100%, which is why I dont believe it should be taught as a fact.  The chance of it happening, is really the chance of the "fact" of evolution being true.

@everythign else. Why dont we, me included, try to have a very organized discussion and try to focus on a single thing at a time, this isnt meaning to discourage people from randomly posting, as I do encourage that, im saying the people actualy keeping track of this subject, let us try to focus on one thing, because right now we have about 1 1/2 pages of randomly spewed facts that would take forecer to put together/joke.

And no egos, myself included, in our posts. Please dont act like someones stupid because they believe something else than you.

I wont make any references to any posts that are related to this, or previous posts, and I encourage others to do the same (aside from making any last remark things to something I said, cause im sure someones diein to )

Things to discuss
The whole concept of irreducible complexity
Fossil Evidence
Origins of the Earth, and all other planets
Big bang theory (this specific origin theory)
Common ancestory
Creationist Point of Views on Origins
Any other subject anyone could think of.
Just brainstormin some quick things.

I will say this, IMO, evolution is an interpretation of the facts that we do know and nothing more. Some people may choose to interpret them different ways however.

[JETZAL]

I agree with blue priest there isn't enough proof for evolution OR the big bang "the universe happened during an explosion of molecules" hello where'd the molecules come from???????????   
PLEASE REPLY

[BluePriest]

Would anyone here bet me that after the 100,000th try, they could guess the order of a deck after I shuffle it? And I reshuffle it each time a guess is made? How about if I gave you 10 Billion years to guess. Then do you think you could do it? You still probably wouldnt be able to. Heres why.

Even though you have 10billion years to guess, each time you guess you have just as good a chance to get it right as you did the first time. Your chances dont magically go up due to time. The same happens with evolution. Just because theres more time, it doesnt man that theres a better chance of it happening each individual time.

Relying on something as small as this chance is well... not really the brightest idea in my opinion. Heres the thing, I do not believe some type of intelligent design theory should be taught as a fact either, however, teaching something that has such a small chance of happening, i believe to be ridiculous to teach as a fact.

When it comes down to it, we shouldnt be taught that somethign did happen, when we really dont know it did. Especially when we know theres a very very very good chance that it didnt happen the way we think.

Life coming to be almost had to come from some type of superior being. Whether that be the God of christians, of muslims, of whatever it may be. Maybe just some God that started things off, and then left. However, teaching this as fact, and saying that it is a fact, is ridiculous.

Yes, i belive things change. ll Dogs whether its a chow or a lab, all came from a dog of some sort. Wolves might have as well, or they may have had thier own species. Do I believe that a Cat is related to a dog, or a dog to a bird? No. I really dont.

Heres the thing. If you believe in evolution, but you dont believe that we all came from a common ancestor, then that means there was AT LEAST 2 cells in the beginning, which means this event that had to happen for life to staet, had to happen 2 times.

Now, if we do manage to create a cell, which I doubt will ever happen, but if we do manage to create life in labs, then heres the thing. That was a controlled environment, and you were an intelligent being creating it. The beginning of earth wouldnt have had any plants on it, no way to sustain life. There wouldnt have been any oxygen. Nothing. Trees are alive. Plants are alive. An early cell wouldnt have had any way to live, even if it was a plant cell. 

[JETZAL]

Would anyone here bet me that after the 100,000th try, they could guess the order of a deck after I shuffle it? And I reshuffle it each time a guess is made? How about if I gave you 10 Billion years to guess. Then do you think you could do it? You still probably wouldnt be able to. Heres why.

Even though you have 10billion years to guess, each time you guess you have just as good a chance to get it right as you did the first time. Your chances dont magically go up due to time. The same happens with evolution. Just because theres more time, it doesnt man that theres a better chance of it happening each individual time.

Relying on something as small as this chance is well... not really the brightest idea in my opinion. Heres the thing, I do not believe some type of intelligent design theory should be taught as a fact either, however, teaching something that has such a small chance of happening, i believe to be ridiculous to teach as a fact.

When it comes down to it, we shouldnt be taught that somethign did happen, when we really dont know it did. Especially when we know theres a very very very good chance that it didnt happen the way we think.

Life coming to be almost had to come from some type of superior being. Whether that be the God of christians, of muslims, of whatever it may be. Maybe just some God that started things off, and then left. However, teaching this as fact, and saying that it is a fact, is ridiculous.

Yes, i belive things change. ll Dogs whether its a chow or a lab, all came from a dog of some sort. Wolves might have as well, or they may have had thier own species. Do I believe that a Cat is related to a dog, or a dog to a bird? No. I really dont.

Heres the thing. If you believe in evolution, but you dont believe that we all came from a common ancestor, then that means there was AT LEAST 2 cells in the beginning, which means this event that had to happen for life to staet, had to happen 2 times.

Now, if we do manage to create a cell, which I doubt will ever happen, but if we do manage to create life in labs, then heres the thing. That was a controlled environment, and you were an intelligent being creating it. The beginning of earth wouldnt have had any plants on it, no way to sustain life. There wouldnt have been any oxygen. Nothing. Trees are alive. Plants are alive. An early cell wouldnt have had any way to live, even if it was a plant cell.

People just read this its a very compelling argument and it makes a lot of sense if you ask the part about the lab thing is very logical. I really do hate it when people teach evolution as fact when theres not much proof. If you think about the idea of big bang you'll see just how flaud it is!   

[airframe]

I won't go deep into this topic, but I'll just throw this as an idea. From what I understand, given infinite time even things that are unlikely to happen are bound to happen at some point.

[JETZAL]

I won't go deep into this topic, but I'll just throw this as an idea. From what I understand, given infinite time even things that are unlikely to happen are bound to happen at some point.

Yes perhaps but we don't know that. and according to evolutionists the universe is about 10 billion years old that's not infinite!

[Thalas]

I don't care about these question. I don't even know why there is gravity, why is in atom have 3 -on(electron, proton, neutron), if time exist.

[Kael Hate]

In regards to the Original Question, I believe in both.

Before the begining there was a state of fact that put all things into place and then let it go. That formulation in place sets all things from evolution to spontaneous emergence. If one had Omnipresence and Omniscience they would see this in all places across all time within the definition that time is measurement of all existence regardless of it being infinite or finite.

This Intelligence is even before the fact of God and defines all actions that ever have or ever will occur. If you were Shinto you might accept that this intelligence is the first act of contemplation by the state of nothing.

[PuppyChow]

I believe in evolution, but whos to say that God (or any god) didn't manipulate evolution?