How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Rían]

I'd like to respond to that, but I'm just out of gas right now ...

I'll make my last post for the day here with a saying that I like - "The universe was created out of the laughter of the Trinity"

[Curubethion]

Just curious...atheistic evolutionists say that the first life was bacteria, evolving into fish, right? And then the fish evolved into land animals, right?
Well then why did plants come about? I can see no benefit as per Natural Selection for a creature to unevolve sentinence and root itself in one place. What benefit would an animal get by eventually turning into a mushroom? (not to use hyperbole, but...)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Just curious...atheistic evolutionists say that the first life was bacteria, evolving into fish, right? And then the fish evolved into land animals, right?
Well then why did plants come about? I can see no benefit as per Natural Selection for a creature to unevolve sentinence and root itself in one place. What benefit would an animal get by eventually turning into a mushroom? (not to use hyperbole, but...)

You have jumped a few hundred million years, and also a few stages.

One important thing to note is that evolution isn't linear. I think of it as a tree. At the bottom - single-celled organisms (I don't think they were only bacteria.) Branching off, small multi-celled organisms (like plankton, I think). Millions of years later, branching off again from the different multi-celled organisms, would be rudimentary fish and I believe, plants.

One thing evolution does not do is bacteria -> magical evolving in one generation -> fish.

Basically, evolution doesn't go A -> B -> C.
It kind of goes
A -> B and C;
B -> D;
C -> E, F, and G;
etc etc

IIRC, 99% (or maybe it was 95%) of species that have ever existed are now extinct. There have been 5 mass-extinction events, though they are not responsible for all extinctions.

Animals and mushrooms have a common ancestor way back when, but one did not evolve into the other. That is why they are in different Kingdoms (the highest order of taxonomy [classification of organisms]).

Similairly, fish didn't evolve into plants. They too have a common ancestor way back when. As to why it would be benificial to be a plant, well, just think of it! You get to just sit there and absorb nutrients! You don't have to swim around all day trying to get food - an excercise which doesn't always get you a dinner.
Being rooted in one place has its disadvantages too, but all the plant species alive today have found the benefits are greater than the costs. (The ones that found otherwise went extinct.)

I hope I'm doing an adequate job of explaining Evolution. I love this theory, I don't want to mangle it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Just curious...atheistic evolutionists say that the first life was bacteria, evolving into fish, right? And then the fish evolved into land animals, right?
Well then why did plants come about? I can see no benefit as per Natural Selection for a creature to unevolve sentinence and root itself in one place. What benefit would an animal get by eventually turning into a mushroom? (not to use hyperbole, but...)

Yet another classic example of why we need to have good evolution education in our schools...

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

what do ya'll evolutionist say to this critter?

Convergent Evolution, is what I say

[Count Comfect]

Hello my dear debaters. The internet in my dorm room or on my computer (I can't tell which) has ceased to work. Therefore a) I'm not going to be here near as much because I have to do it on our computers in our computer lab, which is a big hassle and b) I am very sad.

So, I've just read the past 4 pages, and I could probably go on for about, oh, three full posts if I wanted to say everything. But I really don't have time or patience for that. So, a partial effort.

Plants and Animals, and the other 3 kingdoms are the most basic division between creatures. These split off so long ago that we don't know when precisely. But no animal suddenly decided to put down roots... in fact, it is probably more likely that the common ancestor was stationary and the animals developed the ability to move.

Fortunately BJ has pretty much covered again the difference between observable things we can compare with our own intelligence and things we can't. Intelligent design is not the same type of intelligence as ours, because we can't do that or anything like it, nor do we know of anyone proven to exist who can. If we observed (scientifically) God or some other being capable of it, I would say indeed that ID was scientific. But without that, no. And this is not being "hung up on the supernatural being" - the supernatural being is at the core of the idea. It's like talking about evolution and saying "don't get so hung up on the causation-by-natural-processes-alone idea." And God not being observed makes postulating His or Her or Its existence a MUCH more complicated theory than any theory using already known causation.

A platypus is a monotreme. There are actually quite a few of them. It's not that unlikely that they evolved, except in the sense that any particular individual result of a millenia (billenia? ) long process is going to be itself "unlikely" because it took a particular set of steps, each uncertain, to produce it.

ID does indeed say "here we don't understand - here, therefore, is God" - except it says intelligent designer instead. The entire theory is based on the idea that what evolution cannot explain should be explained by an intelligent designer, and that what it can explain should be explained by evolution. It's just that we disagree about macroevolution. It really is filling perceived gaps with a supernatural (above-nature) being. I'm sure Discovery Institute (Nurv, I know Cascadia is poorly defined - it's an odd concept - but the Cascades are used because WASHINGTON has only the one range and we're provincial ) doesn't say GOD, but that is because it is bad PR to use that word. In terms of capabilities, an Intelligent Designer is sufficiently similar to a God as opposed to humanity as to make very little difference. Less smiting, more shaping.

Speaking of which, without the flippancy about "I'm gonna make me a lemur", Krauthammer is actually fairly accurate about the current state of ID.

Originally Posted by Rian

you can TELL the difference between "noise" and an information-bearing signal.

That's because you know there is such a thing as information-bearing signal. If you sat a man who had no idea what a radio, radar, or electromagnetism was next to it, could he tell the difference? That'd be a better analogy, because we don't know what the difference between designed and undesigned life would look like because one of the two, Whichever It Is, we have never seen.

[Rían]

As I told Nurvi, I'm done with explanatory responses for the night (altho there's a lot I want to respond to in your post), but sorry about your computer, Count, and I hope your sadness is just because of my stubbornness and not anything more serious *Moothug*

[Count Comfect]

I know you're done. Hence my getting in (my only) cheap shot The sadness is my lack of internet access, but now that you mention your stubborness...

Problem is, I really don't think either of us is going to convince the other. I've read about ID, not only from anti-sites but from pro-sites and pro-people. You've clearly read about evolution, from both sides. If we're not convinced now, what are the odds that'll happen by some miraculous occurrence? Oh, right, we'll observe an intelligent designer... and that'd only work one way

*Moothug back*

[Rían]

(hee hee! Yes, God would be pretty convincing, wouldn't He?!)

Oh, I still think these types of discussions are valuable. I know I've learned a lot, and have had to think through a lot of things, and I've seen others willing to think and examine things, too. And hopefully you evolutionists have seen that there is at least one IDer/creationist who is intelligent, willing to think with an open mind, and of course incredibly good-looking, too

ME, in case you were wondering!


(did my word game post make you smile?)

[Nurvingiel]

I just want to say, that this thread really rocks. There are loads of interesting ideas in here.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd like to respond to that, but I'm just out of gas right now ...

I'll make my last post for the day here with a saying that I like - "The universe was created out of the laughter of the Trinity"

No worries RÃ*, and awesome quote! Wait until you've had some re-fried beans to respond.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why are you guys even making the ASSUMPTION that the designer made something out of NOTHING? That is a philosophical assumption outside the bounds of science.

that is what ID is about... if the intelligent designer didn't do that, then what exactly did he do that we are theorizing about?

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that is what ID is about... if the intelligent designer didn't do that, then what exactly did he do that we are theorizing about?

Don't you mean "hypothesizing"?

[Spock]

Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at D
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
------------------------------

the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>

IMO posters here are doing BOTH

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Don't you mean "hypothesizing"?

true, but they claim it is a scientific theory

[Count Comfect]

Rian, the jokes always make me laugh

As did that last post.

Originally Posted by Douglas Adams

I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. But, says man, the Babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't. I didn't think of that, says God, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. Oh, that was easy, says man, and goes on to prove that black is white and get killed at the next zebra crossing.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

true, but they claim it is a scientific theory

I have a theory that the moon is made of cheese. And it's scientific, too. See, I'm wearing a lab coat and I'm holding an Erlenmeyer flask. It is based on research done by Wallace and Grommit.

Even the Vatican gave ID the thumbs down. *ouch*

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that is what ID is about... if the intelligent designer didn't do that, then what exactly did he do that we are theorizing about?

He could have made something out of something else. He'd still be an intelligent designer.

*waves to Cirdan* Hey, good to see you back.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

He could have made something out of something else. He'd still be an intelligent designer.

that's why i pointed to theistic evolution as a possibly compromise nurvingiel, but rÃ*an didn't seem to want to touch that one

but even "something out of something" is unscientific when the cause of that change is unobservable or impliable from observed causes

it is like my star example:

we look for aliens doing things we might do or things we might be able to do in the future

if we observed an electronic transmission that seemed to be flashing in a pattern that was regular and not something we normally see naturally, we could theorize alien intelligence behind it because we know humans can make these kind of signals... even if they were stronger than signals we could produce with current technology

if we saw a star suddenly pop into existance, we would not theorize an alien cause (or no good scientist would without actually seeing the aliens)... because, as far as we know, this is not possible scientifically... even for an extremely advanced race... this does not mean it is ultimately impossible, just that it jumps so far ahead of our understanding of the universe we live in as to make scientific theorizing about it impossible

it is why science theorizes about the big bang and after, but can't theorize about before it... there is nothing to base it on

this is the problem with ID... we have never observed an intelligent being with the ability to create the universe out of a void... so the speculation is outside science

causes within a scientific theory must be something we've observed... or, at the very least, something we can reasonably imply from what we've observed... scientist's do not jump to conclusions that are infinitely beyond human observation just to solve a problem... they try to work in small steps beginning with things we do know

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's why i pointed to theistic evolution as a possibly compromise nurvingiel, but rÃ*an didn't seem to want to touch that one

but even "something out of something" is unscientific when the cause of that change is unobservable or impliable from observed causes

I like the idea of theistic evolution (though it's not really a scientific theory). I sort of believe in theistic evolution, but I'm not sure of the nuts and bolts.

My point with "something out of something" is that this could occur without violating the ideas of ID.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

causes within a scientific theory must be something we've observed... or, at the very least, something we can reasonably imply from what we've observed... scientist's do not jump to conclusions that are infinitely beyond human observation just to solve a problem... they try to work in small steps beginning with things we do know

Excellent point. By taking small steps with what we know, and testing ideas with experimentation, scientists can discover something new without making too many assumptions.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's why i pointed to theistic evolution as a possibly compromise nurvingiel, but rÃ*an didn't seem to want to touch that one

RÃ*an has lost track of everything she wants to touch but doesn't have time for