Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - This was the old evolution thread, go to the new thread to post

elaphe · 05-03-2003, 06:28 PM

Its funny that this topic has ended up as a thread. I was recently debating this very issue with a close friend of mine. He is a devout born again Christian and I received a classical education form the University of Toronto, majoring in evolutionary biology. So far, our heated disscussions have not ended our friendship, but we have agreed to disagree.

So what does this mean to the rest of you?

I too could not see how anyone with an education could believe that that the incredable diversity of life on this planet could have been created a few thousand years ago in six days. (Remember, even God needed to rest on the seventh!) My buddy is educated and has a thriving business providing IT services to his clients. He can weave a path through the complexities of a networking problem, but he could not see how we could have evolved from apes.

Of course my arrogance had led me on the crusade to bring my buddy out of the dark ages and into the new century. This had forced me to investigate not only his religious beliefs, but my own also. What I found did not change my idea on the evolution of life, but it did open me up to the flaws in the theory.

First, I must correct some of my fellow members:

Mael, the fossil record has not recorded failed experiments. Each of those lifeforms was successful and was highly evolved for its time. Evolutionary success is measured in an individual's ability to pass on its genetic material on to the next generation. If you believe in evoloution as a series as steps that lead to the diversity found today, then you must accept that the fossil record is a snapshot in time and individual success is measured by what came before it.

Ratman, there is no empirical evidence that supports evolution. This emplies an ability to reproduce the results in support of the thoery. Thats the rub. No one can reproduce phylogeny (the "family tree", so to speak) of any given lifeform, even Homo sapien. One cannot test the theory because time manipulation is impossible.

greytone was correct in stating that Darwin was able to get an idea of the mechanism of natural selection through pigeon breeding, but natural selection is about random chance and domestication of agricultural livestock cannot be compared due its mechanism of directed selection (A farmer "selects" traits when breeding the livestock that are desirable only to the farmer).

Labell, you feel that evolution fits the facts, not fitting the facts to the thoery. Which facts? The fossil record is fragmented at best, with implied relationships between groups of lifeforms. What if these relationships turn out to be artificial and contrived in order to best fit a theory that cannot be tested?

I am not trying to pick on anyone here. I am just trying to open eyes to the flaws in the theory. In comparison, Creationism has it easy. God made everything and it all works because thats how He planned it. Don't have to test a thing because I've got FAITH!

And this is how my arguements ended with my buddy. We agreed to disagree. He has is belief in God and I have my belief in random chance. I'm still not sure who came out on top of all this.

05-03-2003, 06:28 PM	#21 (permalink)
elaphe Tilted Location: British Columbia, Canada	Its funny that this topic has ended up as a thread. I was recently debating this very issue with a close friend of mine. He is a devout born again Christian and I received a classical education form the University of Toronto, majoring in evolutionary biology. So far, our heated disscussions have not ended our friendship, but we have agreed to disagree. So what does this mean to the rest of you? I too could not see how anyone with an education could believe that that the incredable diversity of life on this planet could have been created a few thousand years ago in six days. (Remember, even God needed to rest on the seventh!) My buddy is educated and has a thriving business providing IT services to his clients. He can weave a path through the complexities of a networking problem, but he could not see how we could have evolved from apes. Of course my arrogance had led me on the crusade to bring my buddy out of the dark ages and into the new century. This had forced me to investigate not only his religious beliefs, but my own also. What I found did not change my idea on the evolution of life, but it did open me up to the flaws in the theory. First, I must correct some of my fellow members: Mael, the fossil record has not recorded failed experiments. Each of those lifeforms was successful and was highly evolved for its time. Evolutionary success is measured in an individual's ability to pass on its genetic material on to the next generation. If you believe in evoloution as a series as steps that lead to the diversity found today, then you must accept that the fossil record is a snapshot in time and individual success is measured by what came before it. Ratman, there is no empirical evidence that supports evolution. This emplies an ability to reproduce the results in support of the thoery. Thats the rub. No one can reproduce phylogeny (the "family tree", so to speak) of any given lifeform, even Homo sapien. One cannot test the theory because time manipulation is impossible. greytone was correct in stating that Darwin was able to get an idea of the mechanism of natural selection through pigeon breeding, but natural selection is about random chance and domestication of agricultural livestock cannot be compared due its mechanism of directed selection (A farmer "selects" traits when breeding the livestock that are desirable only to the farmer). Labell, you feel that evolution fits the facts, not fitting the facts to the thoery. Which facts? The fossil record is fragmented at best, with implied relationships between groups of lifeforms. What if these relationships turn out to be artificial and contrived in order to best fit a theory that cannot be tested? I am not trying to pick on anyone here. I am just trying to open eyes to the flaws in the theory. In comparison, Creationism has it easy. God made everything and it all works because thats how He planned it. Don't have to test a thing because I've got FAITH! And this is how my arguements ended with my buddy. We agreed to disagree. He has is belief in God and I have my belief in random chance. I'm still not sure who came out on top of all this. __________________ "Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.