Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: a red herring?
limbosis
Member (Idle past 6278 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 1 of 120 (377255)
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


If the the claims of creationism were true, specifically that someone or something created man, then what can we make of the theory of evolution? I'd like to hear from those who are quite sure that evolution has not occured.
Is it possible that it was all a hoax that was perpetrated from the beginning?
Who would do such a thing? And, why?
In Darwin's time, did some entity know that human technology, with its ability to create some exotic new species and a host of unforeseen consequences, would be relatively right around the corner?
Is it a masterful attempt at perpetuating slavery?
Sure, evo's will bark at this. But they always seem to forget that the TOEv is only a theory.
What could it BE!?
...
Admin, anywhere you want to put this.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-15-2007 9:28 PM limbosis has replied
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 01-16-2007 1:10 AM limbosis has replied
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2007 2:45 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 7 by RickJB, posted 01-16-2007 5:18 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 12 by Tusko, posted 01-16-2007 10:51 AM limbosis has replied
 Message 13 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-16-2007 11:16 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 01-16-2007 2:02 PM limbosis has not replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 120 (377265)
01-15-2007 8:18 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 120 (377278)
01-15-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


The problem with your request for speculation about the possibility that evolution is false is that you say nothing about what happened to the evidence for evolution. Are we supposed to forget it? Pretend it doesn't exist?
Why don't you ask us to speculate about the possibility that gravity is false? Or that Newton's laws of motion are false? There's as much evidence for them as for evolution. So okay, I'm pretending they're false. What happened to the evidence? Am I supposed to imagine that I actually floated around my whole life? That billiard balls never really reacted equally and oppositely into their pockets?
Now pretending that evolution is false, what happened to the evidence? Am I supposed to imagine a world in which HIV and the flu virus don't evolve every year? A world where breeding doesn't actually work and where characteristics are not passed on to offspring? A world where DNA is not actually the basis of heredity? A world where fossils do not fit into a nested classification hierarchy? A world where adaptive radiation never takes place?
Until you answer the question of what happened to the evidence, I don't see how your request can even be approached, let alone addressed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 4:11 AM Percy has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 120 (377307)
01-16-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


Oh? Is that the case, eh?
Sure, evo's will bark at this. But they always seem to forget that the TOEv is only a theory.
And Creos always seem to forget that a scientific theory is far more than a wild-ass guess in the dark!
Is it a masterful attempt at perpetuating slavery?
SLAVERY!?!? You blame evolution for slavery!? I bet all those southern slave-owners had coppies of The Origin in each of their studies, no?
Who would do such a thing? And, why?
They do it because as far as they are concerned, the facts and evidence have pointed them to that conclusion. If evolution IS wrong and scientists haven't been doing it right, I assure you, it has not been an intentional and malicious attack on God and religion.
If the the claims of creationism were true, specifically that someone or something created man, then what can we make of the theory of evolution?
We could conclude that it were incorrect, as has been the case with scientific theories in the past. They are altered, nudged, changed a little, and sometimes just thrown out all together. I would like to point out, however, that the events you postulate have yet to occur .
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 12:58 PM Jon has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 120 (377312)
01-16-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


Well, that was weird.
Sure, evo's will bark at this. But they always seem to forget that the TOEv is only a theory.
Sure, that's why we keep calling it "the theory of evolution". It's 'cos we've forgotten that it's a theory. Some of us real hard-core evos have forgotten what "evolution", "the" and "of" mean as well.
What's the weather like on your planet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6278 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 6 of 120 (377316)
01-16-2007 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
01-15-2007 9:28 PM


This thread is directed toward the creationist POV. As we know, many of them believe that the diversity of life on earth is an expression of deliberate activity. To some of them, this may include evolution as a devised process, as well. That doesn't mean that they accept the proposed mechanism for speciation, either. They don't necessarily claim that creationism should replace the science of evolution. They simply believe that the TOEvo has been taken too far, and that it attempts to suggest more than it is capable of explaining.
It's nothing personal. And, I would agree that the TOEvo is given much more attention than it deserves. There is much more science to teach in biology class than evolution. And, contrary to popular scientific opinion, even much of molecular biology and genetics, which is normally posed to rely heavily on evolution, doesn't need to be presented within the context of that process anyway. Much of it stands alone, as it is.
With that in mind, it actually seems peculiar how much discussion is given to such a minor aspect of modern science. So, then the question becomes why? why this peculiar condition? Sure, it's debated by creationiststs. But, science in general is safe and sound. It isn't going anywhere. It's always going to be right there.
There's no need to take offense to anyone who puts evolution in a particular perspective, and decides to assume control of their own manner of addressing human knowledge and development. No one is obliged to observe current science, especially when they recognize that many major advances in science would not have ever occured until and unless existing theories had been completely ignored.
Now, when people see how ferociously the publicized scientific community tries to clench onto such a trivial idea, it starts looking like there's more to that story. I don't blame the average science-doer. I don't even need to know why evolution is so important to them. It certainly doesn't make them any better than anyone else.
If I'm not mistaken, this website is intended to serve as an impartial forum for productive conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-15-2007 9:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 01-16-2007 5:35 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 9 by Wounded King, posted 01-16-2007 7:58 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 01-16-2007 8:54 AM limbosis has replied
 Message 11 by nator, posted 01-16-2007 10:34 AM limbosis has replied
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 01-16-2007 12:46 PM limbosis has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 7 of 120 (377318)
01-16-2007 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


Limbosis writes:
But they always seem to forget that the TOEv is only a theory.
No, Creationists always seem to forget what a scientific theory actually is, despite being told over and over again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM limbosis has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 120 (377319)
01-16-2007 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by limbosis
01-16-2007 4:11 AM


It's nothing personal. And, I would agree that the TOEvo is given much more attention than it deserves. There is much more science to teach in biology class than evolution. And, contrary to popular scientific opinion, even much of molecular biology and genetics, which is normally posed to rely heavily on evolution, doesn't need to be presented within the context of that process anyway. Much of it stands alone, as it is.
Perhaps that is true, but it all makes MUCH MORE sense when evolution is taught. Evolution helps to tie up all the loose ends, answer all the whys and give meaning to the material.
If I'm not mistaken, this website is intended to serve as an impartial forum for productive conversation.
And what is productive about you starting a thread and only allowing fellow Creos (who will already agree with you) to reply? If it's productive conversation that you want, then you must allow all viewpoints. If not, then you should've really just stayed in bed this morning
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 4:11 AM limbosis has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 9 of 120 (377324)
01-16-2007 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by limbosis
01-16-2007 4:11 AM


It's nothing personal. And, I would agree that the TOEvo is given much more attention than it deserves.
Who are you agreeing with?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 4:11 AM limbosis has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 10 of 120 (377328)
01-16-2007 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by limbosis
01-16-2007 4:11 AM


limbosis
No one is obliged to observe current science, especially when they recognize that many major advances in science would not have ever occured until and unless existing theories had been completely ignored.
I find this a curious statement. What existing theories were ignored?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 4:11 AM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 2:03 AM sidelined has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 120 (377332)
01-16-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by limbosis
01-16-2007 4:11 AM


quote:
And, I would agree that the TOEvo is given much more attention than it deserves. There is much more science to teach in biology class than evolution. And, contrary to popular scientific opinion, even much of molecular biology and genetics, which is normally posed to rely heavily on evolution, doesn't need to be presented within the context of that process anyway. Much of it stands alone, as it is.
Nothing in science "stands alone".
All new science is based upon past science, and all sub-fields in a dicipline are related to each other, since they make up the whole of the field.
Unless there is a scientific theory to unite and explain why genes appear as they do in species, then those subfields of molecular biology and genetics consist of nothing more than just so many isolated, meaningless data points.
The ToE is that explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 4:11 AM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 2:16 AM nator has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 12 of 120 (377333)
01-16-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


When I first read this I though you were raising the question of why an all-powerful creator would secrete (apparently false) evidence of evolution all around us.
But instead when you talk about a hoax, it seems you are talking about some kind of hoax on the part of the scientific community - is that right?
I guess its true that it might all be a hoax by scientists.
I still don't know why no public-spirited soul hasn't studied to become a scientist, and having gained their confidence, revealed the fact that evolution and related disciplines is a hoax. Surely bringing down the whole edifice of post-enlightenment science would be worth the effort: humanity would forever be disabused of a false idea (and that's disregarding the fame and riches that individual would almost certainly be garlanded with).
To be honest, I'd rather talk about my first reading of your post because I find it more interesting. Assuming that there is a divine creator, why do you think they left a lot of evidence that seemingly supports the idea of evolution through natural selection lying around, in the genetics and taxanomics of living species, and in the fossil record?
Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM Tusko has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 120 (377337)
01-16-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


Sure, evo's will bark at this. But they always seem to forget that the TOEv is only a theory.
Wait... it is? But that means the system has been feeding us a LIE!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM limbosis has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 120 (377354)
01-16-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by limbosis
01-16-2007 4:11 AM


limbosis writes:
This thread is directed toward the creationist POV.
Well, okay, best of luck!
The rest of your post is just an argument against evolution that has a lot of potential to draw the thread off-topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 4:11 AM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6278 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 15 of 120 (377357)
01-16-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jon
01-16-2007 1:10 AM


Re: Oh? Is that the case, eh?
Jon defends with:
And Creos always seem to forget that a scientific theory is far more than a wild-ass guess in the dark!
I wouldn't go that far. I can't speak for them. But, I can tell you that's just what a theory is, a guess, an elaborated hypothesis. There may be various levels of supporting data. Yet, fundamentally, there's no distinction. I'm sure that many creos applaud the degree of effort that is applied to the theory, and can appreciate it's scientific legitimacy. I doubt that anyone thinks the theory is a stab. Many people simply have difficulty in stipulating that it's the only scientific direction that one can take with the evidence available.
Keep in mind, this has been going on for quite a while, long before genetic mutation was ever suggested as a mechanism. Also, remember that the supposed evidence for the origin of species has been readily available to humans, WHEREVER there are animals and plants, since the dawn of time. It is a bit odd that the notion did not present itself until the 19th century. In fact, it's very odd. Yes, there are some lovely creatures in the Galapagos. But it's not much different than anywhere else really, in terms of organic diversity.
You blame evolution for slavery!?
No, I'm suggesting that the idea of evolution may have been intended as a means of eventually justifying the feeble, state-sponsored notion that one race is in any way superior to another. Eugenics would be another name for it. I blame god for slavery.
I would like to point out, however, that the events you postulate have yet to occur.
You'd be surprised.
Edited by limbosis, : I blame god for slavery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 01-16-2007 1:10 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RickJB, posted 01-16-2007 1:24 PM limbosis has replied
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 01-16-2007 3:09 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 20 by nator, posted 01-16-2007 11:13 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 01-17-2007 8:46 PM limbosis has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024