Evolution vs Creationism (be nice)

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I never used to buy into evolution at all, but the past couple years I've been seeing it as... a possibility. If I can trust the current scientific community, then the evidence is certainly undeniable. I'm reluctant, though, to fully accept it as undoubtable fact. I guess in order to be certain that it's what happened (as opposed to "agnostic" or whatever category I fall into at the moment) I would need to study the fossil record myself and come to my own conclusion that evolution is the knly explanation. Some things I can believe on authority, others... I know it's inconsistent to trust paleontologists wholeheartedly with regard to something like the length of a tyrannosaurus, but I do sometimes think that we humans get too big for our britches when we study the world around us. How can we be so confident in our own knowledge that we think we know for certain what happened millions of lifetimes ago? Others no doubt have an easier time accepting the words and ideas of experts. I'm not there yet in this area. Hope this gives a little explanation to some who don't understand why others don't just accept evolution as simple fact.

Because it's what the evidence tells us, until new evidence tells us otherwise. But we find that evidence through the use of the scientific method. The scientific method is the same method that gave us agriculture, medicine, cars, the internet, and a trip to the moon. Whether people know it or not science is responsible for all of the greatest achievements in human society. The subjects may differ; paleontology, agricultural science, engineering, computer programming. But the trial and error method that advances us is the same method in all of these. So when the same science that cured polio, put a man on the moon, and gave us the power of flight, also tells us we evolved from other beings, or that we're changing the planet's climate, it's best to listen to that science. Carl Sagan often expressed dismay over the fact that we use science to advance ourselves with very few people actually understanding it, they only reap its rewards. People view science as cold, and indifferent...and it is. But science is only a tool (method) that helps us figure out how the world works. It's ironic that people dismiss so many fundamental ideas in science, like evolution, while simultaneously reaping the benefits of science. The scientific method brings us to evolution as the answer. It's the same method that gave us a computer to type on. I don't think a lot of keyboard creationists even consider that level of irony.

He said this perfectly. I could not even add to it.....Gwangi is right on point here. Perfect summary....and well put.

[Faelrin]

By the way, one can still have their faith and still accept the scientific evidence supporting evolution as well. As I've mentioned before, I'm not religious, but I've met a few people that were like that. I've seen it explained as god was guiding evolution, like the driving force behind it. So maybe they can be compatible, but maybe just not the most literal creation interpretations. Although even then, that isn't completely true. Most of the argument against evolution that I've seen comes from those confusing evolution with abiogenesis. It would make more sense for abiogenesis to not be compatible with creationism, rather then evolution. If I'm mistaking something here, then please correct me.

In regards to evolution, aside from genetics and the fossil record, I'm pretty sure phylogenetic bracketing is helpful, even if things get moved around (with new evidence). It still helps show how things are related (distantly or close) in the end. With those things in mind, I like to think the history of life was like something like a how a tree looks, but it just keeps growing with large branches leading to smaller branches, and so on and so forth. Maybe some of those branches have broken off (representing species that go extinct). I suppose the roots could then be the things like carbon and such that are found within living things. Yeah this is probably oversimplifying it, but it works the best for me to understand how complex it gets at times.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[laticauda]

Did you quote me on accident? I don´t quite see how your reply relates to what I wrote.
[/quote]
Sorry I was writing to danmacom. 

[Halichoeres]

Relevant to dinotoyforum's comment, I do think that evolution renders certain conceptions of gods much less probable, as I've pointed out earlier in the thread. But there are definitely kinds of religious belief that you can squeeze into the gaps in our knowledge.

To those saying that people can't change their mind, I would hasten to point out that I did so. I went from literalist creationist (as a child) to various middle grounds ("maybe microevolution is possible and some number of 'kinds' could have fit on the ark") to something more deistic ("maybe a god just guideded evolution), to fairly strict naturalism. Obviously if I were presented with genuinely novel evidence I would have to reevaluate yet again.

As others have pointed out, besides the fossil record, genetic data, developmental data, and comparative anatomy ought to be pretty convincing to anyone evaluating the evidence with an open mind. I disagree that we can use phylogenetic bracketing as evidence for evolution, because optimizing characters on a phylogeny presupposes evolution. That is perfectly reasonable if the task is inferring how a trait evolved, but it begs the question if the task is determining whether evolution happened in the first place. Let's see if I can illustrate. Let's say that I am starting from the premise that orangutans, squirrel monkeys, and humans share a common ancestor sometime in the Neogene. If I have a phylogeny showing that humans and orangutans are more closely related than either is to squirrel monkeys, I can infer that features like downward facing nostrils and the loss of one set of premolars is something that happened in the common ancestor of orangutans and humans but not the ancestor both share with squirrel monkeys. If my starting premise is that they were all specially created, no such inference is possible. I first have to demonstrate that there is any shared ancestry in the first place.

However, a phylogeny can be useful in other ways. For example, it can predict fossil relatives. If I have a phylogeny, based on DNA, of fishes and tetrapods, and I find that lungfishes are more genetically similar to frogs than to goldfish (this is, in fact, what we find when we compare DNA), then we might predict--or hypothesize, if you prefer--something in the fossil record in the hundreds of millions of years ago that looks like it could have plausibly, eventually, given rise to both frogs and lungfishes. The occurrence in the Devonian period and latest Silurian of aquatic vertebrates with traits like choanae, lobed fins, and fused skull bones does in fact support this hypothesis.

One of the most visceral pieces of evidence against creation, to my mind, is the fact that our bodies, and the bodies of other organisms, are replete with features that no sane designer would give them. A famous example is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which runs from the head to innervate parts of the throat. Its path takes it behind the heart. In a fish, that's fine, because the heart is right up against the back of the head. But in tetrapods, which have necks, that's a problem. Our laryngeal nerve exits our skull, runs all the way down our neck to loop uselessly around the heart, and then runs all the way back up the neck to supply the larynx. It's a pretty important nerve, without which human speech would be difficult or maybe impossible, and its long path exposes it to more risk of dysfunction than if it ran straight from our skull to our throat. But our ancestors weren't wired that way, and so natural selection is forever going to find it difficult to wire us that way. An intelligent designer would have just given it the shortest path. This is even more hilarious in giraffes, which still have to run this nerve from their skull down two meters of neck past the heart, only to run it back up the neck to the larynx.

[Gwangi]

One of the most visceral pieces of evidence against creation, to my mind, is the fact that our bodies, and the bodies of other organisms, are replete with features that no sane designer would give them. A famous example is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which runs from the head to innervate parts of the throat. Its path takes it behind the heart. In a fish, that's fine, because the heart is right up against the back of the head. But in tetrapods, which have necks, that's a problem. Our laryngeal nerve exits our skull, runs all the way down our neck to loop uselessly around the heart, and then runs all the way back up the neck to supply the larynx. It's a pretty important nerve, without which human speech would be difficult or maybe impossible, and its long path exposes it to more risk of dysfunction than if it ran straight from our skull to our throat. But our ancestors weren't wired that way, and so natural selection is forever going to find it difficult to wire us that way. An intelligent designer would have just given it the shortest path. This is even more hilarious in giraffes, which still have to run this nerve from their skull down two meters of neck past the heart, only to run it back up the neck to the larynx.

Or put another way..."Down there, between our legs, it's like an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system. Who designed that?"--Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Neosodon]

Pure creationism in the biological field of study is pretty much dead. Close to everything about our physical makeup can be explained by natural selection. Rather than just believing in a god of the origins there is still one area you could apply creationist concepts too. Danmalcolm kind of brushed up on this earlier but human psychology is full of things that would be rather difficult or impossible to explain with evolution. Like why do we find animals cute and likable? Why would we evolve an emotion that makes us sympathetic towards our food? Unless your a psychopath killing an animal is very disturbing and unenjoyable. We may find the act of a hunting fun but only a sicko would enjoy cutting a chickens head off or clubbing a seal to death. Why do we even find things like a good story entertaining. Also what makes something pretty? What sort of environmental pressure or mutation would cause us to find the sunset so beautiful? And why are we so interested in things that have nothing to do with survival? Why do we find dinosaurs so cool? How are we improving our chances of survival by making plastic figures of creatures that died millions of years ago?

Some behavior just completely defies evolution. People go to war and die and terrorists blow themselves up for ideological principles. Under evolution all we should care about is survival. Why would we engage in things detrimental to our survival over things that have no evolutionary value. And then there is the diversity of personalities. Everyone has there own unique character. Evolution would just favor a set of behavior patterns that are most beneficial to survival. All the unique and interesting individuals I have encountered in my life is pretty strong evidence for me of intelligent design. When teachers ask what do you want to do with your life no one is going to reply I just want to survive and reproduce. Every one wants to accomplish something and find meaning greater than the instinctive desires that evolution has placed in them.

We've given traditional creationism a pretty hard beating on this thread but I don't think creationism in a general sense will ever truly die. Even if the big bang or the first life form were the only things ever created you could claim everything as being the result of indirect creation.

[Loon]

Interesting questions Neosodon, I'd like to know those answers too. I'm no expert so I can't answer,  however, I'd prefer to not settle on assumptions or guesses due to a lack of answers.

[stargatedalek]

Animals display those same traits.

Animals will also adopt the young of other species, some will even steal them and then raise them. Even animals that can often seem to enjoy killing as they play with their food, such as orca, will go through the exact same actions with inanimate objects which implies that that's nothing more than a strong disconnect with the prey animal and they derive no pleasure from killing them but rather will use anything convenient for their games. Many birds will collect objects they consider attractive, even birds that don't use them in display or nest building. Toucans are particularly well known for becoming extremely attached to their toys, these can be anything from stones to garbage, and they guard and even hide them when not playing with them.

Crows will waste hours of their day sledding, macaws will commit suicide after loosing their closest friends or family, and dolphins will risk beaching themselves while trying to herd fish into shallow water for no reason other than laziness.

If as you say; "this behavior defies evolution", than clearly all animals have the capacity to defy evolution.

As for terrorism; that's what happens when someone thinks they or their ideals are above the law, and the dictionary describes it as someone who commits a crime with political intent. A jihadist is no more a terrorist than an evangelist of a western faith who harassed homosexuals, or an eco-terrorist who trashed a laboratory (I'm not saying these actions are equivalent morally, just that terrorism is in actuality a very broad concept). Every action seems logical to someone at some time, the only difference is that some of us don't value the lives or livelihoods of those outside of our own goals or ideals and some of us do.

Extreme acts of terrorism can be caused by any number of factors; disenchantment with society, obsession with a specific religion, doctrine or cause/goal, mental illness, lack of education, etc. I don't see why this behavior "defies evolution" if we know why it happens and can even prevent it in some cases (IE treatment for patients of mental illness with extreme instability).

[Gwangi]

The human quirks of our species stem from the evolutionary pressure to live in a functioning society. That is all. We find things cute, because we find baby humans cute so that we're compelled to care for our own offspring. The more something looks like a baby human, the cuter it tends to be. Flat faces, big eyes, small size etc. Stargate hit the nail on the head on this one, while we are complex, we're not as unique as we would assume.

It's important too to realize that a lot of the behaviors we exhibit have roots in our animal nature. We buy big houses and nice cars to impress our peers and earn rank, even if we don't realize it. We "fall in love", which is nothing more than a chemical signal from our brains compelling us to breed. We have a clan/tribe mentality where we shun or fear outsiders because 10,000 years ago the clan across the river would have probably killed and ate us. I'm not saying humans aren't special because the fact that I can communicate all this too you via a computer proves otherwise but when looking at the roots of our behavior that exist in the animal kingdom it's easy to see how eventually, after 4 billion years of life on this planet, something like ourselves would evolve. And other species have come close too; great apes, dolphins, parrots, crows and ravens. If they haven't achieved what we have it's because they lack something we don't. It's the collection of our traits that make us unique. Sophisticated language, dexterity, intelligence, group living. Dolphins possess three of those, but they're hardly dexterous enough to build a house, or computer. Termites are social insects that build skyscrapers that comparatively put ours to shame but they're drive is instinctual and they're certainly not intelligent in the way a dolphin is.

I would highly recommend reading "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond and also "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins on why we evolved to be what we are, and why we're not as special as religion would suggest.

[Neosodon]

I never said humans are the only ones that that display any kinds of these behaviors. We just display them in a more extreme sense than other organisms. The fact that other animals display non evolutionary behavior too is even more evidence of intelligent design to me.

And in fact I find chicks and baby sauropods much more cute than baby humans. We even find adult animals cute too. I've heard people say that they find almost all living things cute except for most people. It doesn't seem likely that this is nothing more than a result of maternal instincts.

We can rationalize the actions of people who commit illogical acts in an evolutionary sense but that doesn't answer the question of why evolution would favor individuals that care about anything more than survival.

And of course allot of behavior can be explained by evolution too but it's a bit of a mixed bag. I don't think it's that far fetched that our consciousness and that of other intelligent life could be influenced by a greater more abstract sense of consciousness.

[suspsy]

Well, the members who don't accept evolution have been very quiet on the topic of creationism/intelligent design since the topic was left open. I was hoping for some engaging debates, and wonder why nobody has stepped forward to answer Suspsy's question (irrespective of how it was worded) to give everyone something to chew on. Even if the answer is "nothing", that would help both sides to understand each other. Some members who accept evolution answered the same question, showing that they are willing to change their mind if faced with new evidence.

Okay, I said I was done in this thread, but curiosity got the better of me today and I took a look. And now I feel compelled to respond to our admin's post.

"What specific, testable evidence would convince you that you're wrong about evolution?" I learned about this simple question some years ago from an online acquaintance who's been investigating creationist claims for more than twenty years. His knowledge and understanding of them frankly put my own to shame, and he's a devout Christian to boot. Knows the Bible in Hebrew as well as English. I've seen my friend pose this question of creationists more times than I can easily recall; I've posed it myself more times than I can recall for that matter. I strongly recommend that you all pose it yourself whenever you get the opportunity. You will find that, without fail, the creationist response always falls into one of four categories:

1. The creationist will ignore the question.

2. The creationist will demand "real evidence" without providing any firm specification as to what he or she would consider or accept as "real evidence."

3. The creationist will demand "square circle evidence," meaning evidence that is wholly impossible for anyone to present. They will demand to see a fish giving birth to a frog or a dog giving birth to a cat or a Tyrannosaurus rex giving birth to a chicken. Basically anything that, if it really were true, would in fact debunk the theory of evolution as we know it!

4. The creationist will admit that no evidence would ever convince them that they're wrong. This is the only truly honest answer, and it's the one that professional charlatan Ken Ham gave at the conclusion of his humiliating debate with Bill Nye back in 2014. It's also what Thelordsgym boldly proclaimed near the beginning of this thread. But in doing so, the creationist inadvertently admits that his or her position is based not in science at all, but in mere faith. All science is falsifiable; indeed, that is the very essence of science. Everything we know in science can be overturned by new ideas and discoveries. That is what makes it so useful and so powerful. If science were not this way, then doctors would still be going around in heavy robes and scary bird masks on their faces! The fact that we no longer perceive dinosaurs as slow-moving, cold-blooded brutes, that we know them to have given rise to birds, that the human evolutionary bush has changed many times since Louis Leakey dug up Lucy, has not damaged the veracity of evolution in the slighest. On the contrary, each and every new discovery adds to our understanding. We may never be able to complete the entire jigsaw puzzle, but we definitely have enough pieces to determine what it depicts.

I am often disappointed when creationists fail to respond to this direct question, but I am never surprised. This thread has been no exception. Again, I do recommend employing this question whenever you find yourself dealing with a creationist. It works just as well in person as it does online. Arguably even better, as quote mining and copying and pasting aren't nearly as easy without a device handy!

And that's all I have to say on that.

[CityRaptor]

Relevant:
https://sandara.deviantart.com/art/Stampede-716659981
Note how the Creationist claims stuff as hoxes, but does not show an proper proof.

Also, given some of the stuff I see when looking for books, this is pretty accurate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOJEUVnSbr8

[Halichoeres]

Continuing in the same vein as suspsy, if you start out from the position that nothing can change your mind, you are not doing science. You are doing apologetics.

@ Neosodon: You are engaging in a flavor of argumentation called the Argument from Ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). In particular, you are using the gaps in our knowledge to argue that there must be space for a creator or designer, which is a sure recipe for an ever-diminishing deity. What is worse, you are invoking some gaps that don't really exist. Some of the things you cite as things we don't know are things we (collectively) actually understand pretty well. The fact that you personally don't understand how evolution explains a particular phenomenon doesn't constitute evidence that evolution does not explain it. You do have a point that this kind of thinking will never die, but it is only because fallacious argumentation will never die. You ask a lot of questions in your post, some more interesting than others, but if you want to pick one or two that really trouble you I'd be happy to respond with what evidence exists.

[Neosodon]

Continuing in the same vein as suspsy, if you start out from the position that nothing can change your mind, you are not doing science. You are doing apologetics.

@ Neosodon: You are engaging in a flavor of argumentation called the Argument from Ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). In particular, you are using the gaps in our knowledge to argue that there must be space for a creator or designer, which is a sure recipe for an ever-diminishing deity. What is worse, you are invoking some gaps that don't really exist. Some of the things you cite as things we don't know are things we (collectively) actually understand pretty well. The fact that you personally don't understand how evolution explains a particular phenomenon doesn't constitute evidence that evolution does not explain it. You do have a point that this kind of thinking will never die, but it is only because fallacious argumentation will never die. You ask a lot of questions in your post, some more interesting than others, but if you want to pick one or two that really trouble you I'd be happy to respond with what evidence exists.

Nothing I said was intended as evidence against evolution or proof of a higher power. In fact I already know what would be considered the likely answer to all of my questions. The brains of intelligent life have the capacity to be free thinking meaning they are no longer being completely controlled by evolutionary based instincts. But there is no way to prove that this is the one and only explanation for all of our thoughts and feelings so it just opens up the possibility for more abstract explanations. There is no scientific evidence or philosophical argument that will prove any degree or form of creationism. I just see how the way things are would make sense with intelligent design to open up the possibility that our existence is not just a mere coincidence. Theism isn't some concrete scientific theory. It is more like wishful thinking so we have a reason to believe our existence amounts to anything more than that of a bacteria cell.

[Gwangi]

I never said humans are the only ones that that display any kinds of these behaviors. We just display them in a more extreme sense than other organisms. The fact that other animals display non evolutionary behavior too is even more evidence of intelligent design to me.

No such thing as "non-evolutionary behavior".

And in fact I find chicks and baby sauropods much more cute than baby humans. We even find adult animals cute too. I've heard people say that they find almost all living things cute except for most people. It doesn't seem likely that this is nothing more than a result of maternal instincts.

And that's your individual preference but speaking in general what humans find cute usually fit a formula that happens to include baby humans. Chicks certainly fit that formula too with their big eyes, small size, fluffy feathers, round heads and so forth. I too think kittens, chicks, even baby turtles are cuter than most human infants. Except of course my own child which is cuter than everything else. Go figure. You've seen baby sauropods?

We can rationalize the actions of people who commit illogical acts in an evolutionary sense but that doesn't answer the question of why evolution would favor individuals that care about anything more than survival.

Because caring about others is what's needed for our survival as social animals.

[Soopairik]

I have never believed in God and believe in evolution.

[Halichoeres]

Continuing in the same vein as suspsy, if you start out from the position that nothing can change your mind, you are not doing science. You are doing apologetics.

@ Neosodon: You are engaging in a flavor of argumentation called no antthe Argument from Ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). In particular, you are using the gaps in our knowledge to argue that there must be space for a creator or designer, which is a sure recipe for an ever-diminishing deity. What is worse, you are invoking some gaps that don't really exist. Some of the things you cite as things we don't know are things we (collectively) actually understand pretty well. The fact that you personally don't understand how evolution explains a particular phenomenon doesn't constitute evidence that evolution does not explain it. You do have a point that this kind of thinking will never die, but it is only because fallacious argumentation will never die. You ask a lot of questions in your post, some more interesting than others, but if you want to pick one or two that really trouble you I'd be happy to respond with what evidence exists.

Nothing I said was intended as evidence against evolution or proof of a higher power. In fact I already know what would be considered the likely answer to all of my questions. The brains of intelligent life have the capacity to be free thinking meaning they are no longer being completely controlled by evolutionary based instincts. But there is no way to prove that this is the one and only explanation for all of our thoughts and feelings so it just opens up the possibility for more abstract explanations. There is no scientific evidence or philosophical argument that will prove any degree or form of creationism. I just see how the way things are would make sense with intelligent design to open up the possibility that our existence is not just a mere coincidence. Theism isn't some concrete scientific theory. It is more like wishful thinking so we have a reason to believe our existence amounts to anything more than that of a bacteria cell.

I also don't think free will is real, so you definitely have not anticipated my response, but I'm willing to cede that I may have misconstrued your argument.

[Neosodon]

You guys don't even believe in free will or non evolutionary behavior? Those characteristics are not necessarily exclusive with creationism and can be easily observed. I'm no neuroscientist but when the thinking and decision making part of the brain becomes developed enough it can override the evolved set of survival based instincts.  Everything about our evolutionary programmed instincts is to make us survive. Yet people (and some animals) kill themselves all the time. That is like the complete opposite of evolutionary behavior. Our instincts tell us to reproduce but there are plenty of people who choose to remain single and not have kids. That is free will.

[stargatedalek]

Even things often construed as "instinct" are in actuality free will or learned behavior.

Wild ducks will choose not to migrate entirely of their own volition if they're being kept well fed through the winter. And in contrast birds raised in captivity need to be taught how to migrate. Many predators kept well fed in captivity will coexist peacefully with would-be prey animals (fish in particular). Even insects will learn and alter their behavior to fit their environment.

One can quote Rick and Morty "love is just a chemical reaction that causes animals to breed" all they want, that only explains the existence of physical attraction, it explains nothing of romantic bonds. Every individual is different and will seek those that are compatible emotionally, whether platonically or romantically.

I would argue that rather than free will not existing, "instinct" doesn't truly exist. Though perhaps it's simply semantics at that point.

I've always considered the concept of free will not in contrast to evolution but in contrast to creationism. Many times growing up I'd hear "oh its all gods plan" as if we were nothing more than objects being controlled by some grandiose being, and frankly I found that concept revolting and still do.