Why would god care?

Gravity is not a theory. it is a phenomenon. Scientists do not understand why gravity occurs, just that it does, and we see it happen always. We then apply laws to gravity.

Evolution? we have never, ever seen evolution of species. All evolution that has occurred in front of science has involved a change within a species, but no development of totally new species with new traits. And it seems unlikely that we would have seen such things anyway, given the number of generations required for some whole new organ to develop within a species. But it makes perfect sense that this same process can go on to lead to new species.

I believe in evolution, and I do not believe in God.

But evolution is still an unproven theory that makes a lot of sense and abides by occam's razor.

Evolution is not the only way, because an equally plausible way is that a creator created the world. There is no argument against this. there is only argument against various motives of said creator.

I dont care that there is no argument against a creator, I do not believe in it because it is supposing something totally unneccesary. But I cant deny people their belief in a creator. I can only deny their belief in a God of a certain sort, eg a benevolent god, or a god that designed the universe for Man, or for Souls to inhabit. All that is way off my scale.

But it is still perfectly reasonable to believe in a creator in general.

 

Perfectly reasonable and equally plausible when I can logically tear apart any attempt to define or explain a God?

No one person has probably witnessed evolution of a species because it is a process that takes thousands or millions of years. Mankind as a species has witnessed and even played a role in creating domesticated species. It is a process where a localized race of a particular species remain secluded from their relatives for thousands of years while subtle changes occur on their DNA and genome. After long enough seclusion the genes of this race are no longer compatible with their relative family and so begins a new species of animal.

What individual scientists have witnessed are mutations in DNA and even complete genes. animals are born with mutated or even missing genes all the time. All it takes is one mutation to become breed as common gene to start the evolution process. We have all the pieces, we know exactly how evolution works!

Now I dare you to define God or make any sense out of God whatsoever. If it's equally plausible you must be able to explain it as simply and logically as my two paragraphs above.

 

There is a big difference between creating breeds through domestication, and evolution.

Your 'simple' and 'logical' explaination does not actually explain the diversity of species, it only says the way that species change their traits. Evolutionary theory goes on to explain how this can lead to new species if a group breeding population seperates and the genetics concerning reproduction are insufficiently similar to interbreed. But once again, not shown experimentally, and cannot really be considered fully scientific

You cannot logically tear apart the argument of intelligent design? It is unfalsifiable, and basically could entail anything

 

Yes there is. It's called artificial selection and natural selections. Humans select traits in animals that are useful to us. This is fast track evolution because we can mate animals with others that have favorable traits. That is what domestication is.

Stonerbill, you contradict yourself a lot.

Dude you're ignorant. I introduce to you Al Einstein.

Space fabric is like a trampoline. Say the sun is in the middle on this huge trampoline fabric. It sinks or sags down the trampoline so that fabric or space is warped. Since there is no friction to slow anything down planets get caught in the bend that the more massive sun created. Thus traveling around the 'slope wall'...our planets are basically caught in this...this is how we experience gravity on earth. The same pull from the sun on Earth pulls us.

Gravity is really weak too.

The fact that there is zero evidence to suggest any claim of intelligent design makes it easy to tear apart.

 

1) The difference I was pointing out is that domestic breeds can interbreed. That is to say, they are the same species. They are all compatible, unlike two very different species like humans and gorillas, or dolphins to whales, or a cat to a dog.

2) the 'curved space time' example does not explain gravity. It is a model for understanding the effect of gravity. How, may I ask, can you 'explain' gravity by invoking a metaphor that itself implies gravity? What is this force that stretches spacetime around the sun like a trampoline?

Anyway, gravity is a different matter because it is constantly observable and testable at all points in time.

But there still remains the fact that our theories only go so far, at some point we just accept things to be a certain way, eg we accept that gravity is an attractive force extending from mass.

I accept that this is just the way our universe is - it has these properties.

But why do I think that? I think it just because it makes more sense to me. There is no proof that the universe just IS.

to many people, there is more than just 'how', there is 'why' to the universe as well as their own creations.

I believe 'why' should be kept to the human sphere alone, for it is a mechanism of social understanding. Used for understanding human productions alone and not on the natural world.

But until I can prove that, I cant tell people off for believing there must be a 'why' for it all.

And even when I could prove that,

This could just be the way that the world was created - in such a way that we can see so many theories very clearly.



Have you read the Origin of Species?

 

Ok, I can live with that. But if you think about the said anology...it makes perfect sense and is clearly understood.

No, but it's been on my to-read list for ever. How about you?

 

I wouldn't say equally plausible. I know that, in the end, something is either true or it's not, and plausibility becomes irrelevant (some philosopher said that the truth doesn't have to make sense, because it has the advantage of being true), but nevertheless, I think there is more reason to believe in evolution than a creator. That's not to say that anyone should stop believing in a creator.

It's unfair to compare the two. I think you are driving at the same point, that creationism is not falsifiable - it has built into it mechanisms which allow the believer never to have to deal with it being proven or disproven. A theory, to qualify as a theory, has to be falsifiable; that is to say, it must be possible for it to be proved wrong in order for anyone to bother to prove it right.

This is why the whole subjectivism thing winds me up, because it mirrors the Cartesian "Great Deceiver" - the idea that our every sense could be fooled, that we might know nothing of the world which we inhabit. But it's pointless to speculate: we could decide that we've now discovered the world as it really is, and still be equally wrong, equally deceived. (Why does Neo just accept the world outside The Matrix as being real, after all? Just because it's a bit crappy, he assumes it must be the real one, right?)

So because we can't prove or disprove whether we are being tricked into experiencing the world differently, it isn't a sound theory. We would never be able to gather evidence in favour or against it, because all of that evidence could just as easily be discounted by the premise being proposed.

This is why there's no sense in arguing against a creationist. They have, within their belief, the capacity to discount any evidence that would indicate that that belief is wrong. They can be presented with irrefutable evidence that the Earth is bloody old, and tell you that either God or Satan just made it look that way to trick you or something. That's why creationism isn't a theory - you either believe it or you don't.

Can I just mention something at this point? I was just watching QI, and as a casual remark, Stephen Fry mentioned that one of the main things that we use to define organisms as belonging to different species is the fact that they cannot produce offspring together.

Now, I'm not claiming any real knowledge of biology here, but that's cyclic logic, surely? I mean, if we use the fact of being able to produce offspring or not as our criteria for defining species, it's kinda crazy to suggest that that proves anything. Why shouldn't organisms interbreeding within their own species be seen as evidence of evolution, when the species divide is artificially added in by man?

 

The species divide represents the way that traits can evolve because if all creatures could interbreed, then the mutations required to catalyse new traits generations to come, would just be diluted out. The fact that a species is defined by being able to breed is essential for evolution - because only within a species can a trait be passed. And evolution is based on the passing of traits. So species represent limited populations within which traits can spread.

As for creationists, they tend to believe in the bible. there is plenty of reasons to not believe in the bible. But this thread is not about that. It is about intelligent design. Creationism is one whacked out account of intelligent design, particularly because the God of the bible is so unintelligent. People should not take creationism into account when seriously considering intelligent design. But I think we can still consider the implications if the universe was designed. Because so many people base their belief in a God on the basis that they cant concieve evolution. So instead of just sayign that they are dumb, I think it would be better to seriously consider exactly what order is in this world and what that would imply about the creator and how we should relate to he/she/it. For one, we can see that teh creator made the universe to be self sufficient - the design of the universe does not correlate at all with the concept of a god that is looking down on us and judging us. Hence this thread.

And the origin of species really is a good read. I dont like books and I did read this one for a course I did on the history of evolutionary theory, but nevertheless I recommend it to everyone who is adamant about evolution. There are some questions that he raises that have still not been answered today. But on the most part, you can see why it sold out on the first day of publication --> it is written more clearly than any other scientific/economic text that I have come across.

and what a plethora of examples!

 

I'm having trouble expressing what I'm trying to say here, I think.

Our criteria for being of the same species is that organisms can mate and produce offspring, and our criteria for things being of different species is that they can't. This is how we decide what things are classified different species from each other.

Because of this, the fact that organisms can mate within a species doesn't really prove anything, because the species classifications are artificial, and based on that fact. I'm not sure if they're based on any other criteria, but if they're not, we're essentially saying that how we happen to define a species prevents use from witnessing evolution. If two species could interbreed and procreate, we would reclassify them to be one species, because they would then fit into our definition of what is and isn't a species. Now, we might not do this now, but who's to say we haven't been doing it for centuries? If we've set the species boundaries ourselves based on the ability of organisms to procreate, the fact that things cannot procreate between the species we have defined in this way doesn't really prove/evidence anything about evolution, except that we've not been paying attention for long enough to witness significant changes in these "subspecies".

I can't think of a way to explain this that makes it any clearer. I hope the above makes sense. The science of it might be bollocks but I know my logic is right. It's almost like saying "I am because I am".

 

In a similar way as with evolution, I feel like people often look at these things from the wrong end. The universe seems like it's impeccably designed, because it hasn't collapsed and killed us all yet. But that's because, if it had collapsed and killed us, we wouldn't be around to make that observation. In other words, the universe seems like it's tailor-made for us, because we have effectively been tailor-made by it. Its physical laws apply to us because we apply to them; if we didn't, again, we wouldn't be around to comment on how crappy and poorly designed they were.

At the risk of whipping out the same quote every time this comes up:

The above is plainly ridiculous, but it illustrates how ridiculous it is to imagine that the universe has been designed for us just because we happen to be able to live in it.

 

The key issue with species is that: although we have managed to domesticate animals in many shapes and colours, they are still the same species, and thus if released into the wild, they would all interbreed and loose all of their traits.

In order for evolution to occur, traits must spread to all members of a species, for otherwise the other members of the species lacking those traits would dilute the traits out.

Species defined by breeding populations is a necessary part of the argument for evolution, not an arbitrary definition we have placed

 

I don't see how it is. It seems to suggest that the mating of two organisms within a species is not significant of evolution. People are arguing that we've never seen two different species have offspring, and we've defined species such that this would be impossible - as soon as they had offspring, they wouldn't be different species anymore by our definition.

I think we probably are on the same page here. I'm not arguing for or against evolution, just against an argument made against it - the one that would have us believe that "within-species" evolution somehow doesn't count.

 

Like the populations of Australia. Your standing on an evolutionary evidential goldmine!

 

Personally, I think the notion that this God who watches over us and judges with a HUMAN based conciousness is a long shot in itself.

 

The argument I think you are adressing is the one where Domestication apparently proves evolution. This is not the case because domestication has never generated new species, only new breeds. However, we have millions of species in the history of the earth. Thus, the process occuring during domestication only entails one part of the evolutionary account - that through breeding, specific traits can be emphasised and others can recede. The other part of the evolutionary account - whereby these genetic changes can occur across a whole species in such a way that a whole new organ develops.. this is where difficulties arise.

two species would never mate and have functioning children, obviously. since we have defined species by inbreedability, this is an apriori necessity.

It is necessary for evolution because traits can only be developed in closed breeding circles. This breeding circle needs to have some unique environmental predicament. It is this unique environmental pressure, plus the closed breeding circle, which allows certain traits to flourish. If the breeding circle was opened, then the traits would dilute throughout the species. Only if the whohle species was contained under the same environmental pressure would traits develop in a certain trend. Otherwise, you have different environmental pressures causing differnt directions of natural selection in a breed, and the members of this breed come together and share their different adaptations, resulting in neither adaptation being passed on, realistically,

 

OK, using this terminology, I think I can make my point.

I am saying that one cannot use the fact that organisms cannot breed outside species as evidence for or against evolution, because we set the species based solely on that breeding. What is the difference between a breed and a species? Only one, to my knowledge, the "apriori necessity".

But if we throw that out, why is a new breed, stemming from congress of two different breeds, any less remarkable from an evolutionary standpoint than a new species stemming from two different species?

Our method of classification is what prevents two species from producing offspring. If we chose to label two breeds as two different species, they would not cease to be able to breed.

This is what I'm saying: our labels don't mean anything. The only thing that really prevents two species from mating is the fact that we would have to then reclassify them as different breeds of the same species, since they would defy our definitions otherwise.

That's what I'm trying to say, anyway. I'm not saying that we're wrong to classify organisms as such. I'm just saying that two organisms being so named doesn't evidence anything.

If we say that breeds and species aren't significantly different, then why isn't the offspring of two breeds remarkable? It seems like expecting too much of evolution to expect radically different organisms to mate, but subtly different ones do. The only reason to imagine very different ones would is out of a desire to either speed-up or mentally "reverse" the process, to see things evolve back into their ancestors.

 

I think I see your point but it seems to be making assumptions about species and breed beyond what they mean.
Without going into the ecology of evolution, It is hard to show why closed breeding populations are a key requirement for evolution to produce the variety of species we have today.

But now i see your point a bit better i think: why should we measure the progress of evolution by the number of different species, if they are just 'breeds that cannot mate together'? why is it important to look at the variety of the world at the moment in terms of what can breed with what?

is that the point you are getting at or is it different?

 

Why would no adaptations be passed along in a large race vs small. there is always competition within a race and best traits are passed on. Evolution makes the largest strides in periods of great hardship, when 99% of a race gets wiped out and only a a few with a specific trait (gene) survive. Any particular secluded race may go through thousands of cycles between growth and hardship over thousands of even millions of years before they have evolved enough that their genes are incompatible with their nearest relative and thus are a new species.

I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about this. Science knows and has proven all biological mechanisms involved in evolution. It doesn't matter that an individual scientist can't personally witness a 10 million year process, we have all the proof, we have witnessed the mechanisms. Anyone claiming evolution is loose, weak or bogus simply doesn't have the capacity to understand the vast numbers and time involved or is just ignorant to the facts of the matter.

 

Its quite frustrating to keep hearing this.

I dont understand how so many people can be adamant that science has proven evolution. Where has this been shown? Its just not true. Even when studying it at highschool and university.. they talk about the critisisms of evolution seriously.

Where are you people whitnessing this 'proof' of evolution?

 

everything changes over time...is that not proof? (I'm not atheist)

personally I think humans are devolving.