TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Where does everyone stand in regards to...
- Thread starter Amateur_Expert
- Start date
-
- Tags
- widely
- Status
Well, most of the questions I've asked in this thread have gone untouched so far, but people seem interested in giving time to questions again so I guess I'll give it another shot. I dug this one up from 30 pages ago... if I can get a few thought-out responses to just this post maybe I can try to be ok with all the other ones getting skipped over.
Again, it's estimated that at least 97% (the number I've seen cited most is 99.9% actually) of all the species that have ever existed are extinct, so if every species was created from the beginning, we've literally almost run out of them. Even if you believe all this death was caused by a flood, without new species entering the picture isn't it clear what direction the natural world is headed in? Even if we stopped all of our destruction tomorrow, we still wouldn't be able to make much of a dent in the naturally occuring extinction rates, especially as the food chain loses more and more crucial links. Did God knowingly doom the world to this fate?
I can already hear some of the responses in my head (i.e. "this conflicts with what the bible suggests so those figures must be way off")... I'm hoping at least a few will surprise me. I really want to know how this is all reconciled for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
[b said:
Again, it's estimated that at least 97% (the number I've seen cited most is 99.9% actually) of all the species that have ever existed are extinct, so if every species was created from the beginning, we've literally almost run out of them. Even if you believe all this death was caused by a flood, without new species entering the picture isn't it clear what direction the natural world is headed in? Even if we stopped all of our destruction tomorrow, we still wouldn't be able to make much of a dent in the naturally occuring extinction rates, especially as the food chain loses more and more crucial links. Did God knowingly doom the world to this fate?
I can already hear some of the responses in my head (i.e. "this conflicts with what the bible suggests so those figures must be way off")... I'm hoping at least a few will surprise me. I really want to know how this is all reconciled for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
Oh wow, I've been wanting to mention computer simulations but I hadn't researched them recently and felt ill-equipped until I had time to brush up... I'm really glad to have someone here who's actually written them and can attest to amazing variety and complexity emerging in these simulations, often using surprisingly few iterations.[b said:
I think it's also important to mention that when you create a virtual environment where "lifeforms" can exchange genetic material in their reproduction, where mutations and variations occur, and where external influences cause some traits to be more successful than others, etc (mimicking reality, you get the picture)... they don't have to be told to evolve. They just do. It's cause and effect. You'd have to intentionally interfere to stop them from evolving.
Alpha Wolf, could you please qualify this statement?
"A Catholic (very biased here) attempt to slow down the world and progress. Correct me if I have made any mistakes, please."
You only tell me that there is a Catholic attept to slow down world progress, but you don't say how? or why you think this? or where you have heard this? Thanks!
"A Catholic (very biased here) attempt to slow down the world and progress. Correct me if I have made any mistakes, please."
You only tell me that there is a Catholic attept to slow down world progress, but you don't say how? or why you think this? or where you have heard this? Thanks!
Ok, I haven't read most of the new posts, so I don't have much to say, but, Alpha, my last post was mostly directed to AE -the times I said "you"-. Sorry for the confusion, it was just I used only quotes from him so I figured people could see it, but I guess I didn't make it clear enough- sorry 'bout that.
nope.[b said:
(LOL... I never said that)
oh it's not your fault. I just like to jump in i guess[b said:
LOL!!! you should see me when I'm REALLY hyper (especially in aim or msn) The thing is The happier/hyper..er.. I get the best I can think... yet the stupider I act (LOL how crazy)[b said:
well you keep harping on the "fact" that speciation has been "observed" yet i have seen not a single strong case of speciation. you have presented weak cases, most of which the flaws are there if you look for them, however this would not help the evolutionists so they are will to absent mindely look over them. you also like to keep bringing up the fossil record but i ask you this, how can you tell what could interbreed with what when all you have is fossils?[b said:
im not saying evolution is wrong im just saying that you need to accept and adress the weaknesses in it.
MAn, don't post for a few months and I come back to a 100 page topic on evolution vs creationism? crazy.
I am NOT going to spend hours of precious time that I dont have reading through this thread, but hopefully what i have to say has been covered and I am just intelligently recapping.
Modern Creationism divides the evolutionary model into two groups, Macro Evolution, and Micro Evolution. Macro evolution presumes that species A can evolve into Species B, where Micro Evolution presumes Species 1 can evolve into Species 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and so on, but never into species J or Q.
In other words, a specific form of reptile may evolve many times, through natural selection aka micro evolution, but it's descendants will always be reptiles.
Micro Evolution is generally accepted by most creationists, while Macro Evolution is dismissed as an unprovable hypothesis (it has not been observed, we have not been around long enough TO observe it.) where as micro evolution can be seen in for instance, a coral reef where two species of Acropora coral may intermingle, and outcompete their predecessors in the same area. i.e. a new species is formed.
And an important thing to remember as far as species goes, is that is a method of scientific notation that man developed, it is artificial, and in fact, constantly changing, species are constantly being reclassified, oops, we didn't realize this is just a different color morph of this, oh, this fish has one more ventral spine than this one, let's make it a new species, so on and so forth...
Anyhow... now that I have said that, I guess I will start lurking in the shadows again.
I am NOT going to spend hours of precious time that I dont have reading through this thread, but hopefully what i have to say has been covered and I am just intelligently recapping.
Modern Creationism divides the evolutionary model into two groups, Macro Evolution, and Micro Evolution. Macro evolution presumes that species A can evolve into Species B, where Micro Evolution presumes Species 1 can evolve into Species 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and so on, but never into species J or Q.
In other words, a specific form of reptile may evolve many times, through natural selection aka micro evolution, but it's descendants will always be reptiles.
Micro Evolution is generally accepted by most creationists, while Macro Evolution is dismissed as an unprovable hypothesis (it has not been observed, we have not been around long enough TO observe it.) where as micro evolution can be seen in for instance, a coral reef where two species of Acropora coral may intermingle, and outcompete their predecessors in the same area. i.e. a new species is formed.
And an important thing to remember as far as species goes, is that is a method of scientific notation that man developed, it is artificial, and in fact, constantly changing, species are constantly being reclassified, oops, we didn't realize this is just a different color morph of this, oh, this fish has one more ventral spine than this one, let's make it a new species, so on and so forth...
Anyhow... now that I have said that, I guess I will start lurking in the shadows again.
Sorry about that. I read somewhere that the majority of people who made up the Creationist theory were Catholic. First let me say I am not Catholic (obviously) and so only know what I have read about them. Feel free to correct me about any points. As far as I can tell their religion needs to be updated. It is too 16th century. Things all happen because their god wanted it to happen. And if this be true how could a god (who is supposed to protect people) want anything to die, go extinct excetera. If that god did I would be "shopping" for a new one. If you mean the (biased) part I think everything that is the oppisite the way Catholics think to be right.
Wait a minute Creationsists think "god" makes things evolve but then they die out so he creates a new species? If thats true then if N. viking was wiped out what species will the god create next? And does that mean that the people who find these species are demi-gods? I always thought they had dumb luck, persistance, and a very good knowledge of species of a genus on their side. If the Demi-god thing is correct we should be worshipping Allen Lowrie, he discoved and co-discoved lots of Drosera species.
Wait a minute Creationsists think "god" makes things evolve but then they die out so he creates a new species? If thats true then if N. viking was wiped out what species will the god create next? And does that mean that the people who find these species are demi-gods? I always thought they had dumb luck, persistance, and a very good knowledge of species of a genus on their side. If the Demi-god thing is correct we should be worshipping Allen Lowrie, he discoved and co-discoved lots of Drosera species.
According to my Seminary training, many years ago (Alpha, I know a bit about many religions), God gave us the earth, lock, stock, and barrel, to do with as we pleased. Why everyone blames God for everything is beyond me. We do as we will, He will not interfere with natural processes. The crap that comes out of many churches, is usually the idea of man, not God. I don't expect anyone to go grab a bible or anything, but just remember, this earth is ours, a present if you will, with the admonition to take care of it. As you can see, we aren't doing a very good job. We have been given dominion over the plants in the field, the animals all around us, and the chance to do good. Well, man hasn't done a lot of good with this planet, and God promised not to interfere unless called upon by us. Anyones walk with God is personal, and not to be stuffed down anyones throat. As you can see, not a very good job was done there either. So don't blame God for the screw ups of man, and the fact that man feels the need to force himself on the world at large, and doesn't treat his own very well either. So, leave God out of it. The world is ours, evolution is probably a natural part of it, and away we go.
Do you guys think that humans are still evolving?
I personally think that humans have, if not totally halted, slowed almost to a stop when it comes to evolution. The factors necessary for evolution (sexual and natural selection) don't affect humans anymore.
We don't adapt to our sorrounding we make them adapt to us. And when it comes to choosing a mate, theres virtually a person for everyone.
I personally think that humans have, if not totally halted, slowed almost to a stop when it comes to evolution. The factors necessary for evolution (sexual and natural selection) don't affect humans anymore.
We don't adapt to our sorrounding we make them adapt to us. And when it comes to choosing a mate, theres virtually a person for everyone.
Trequem, thank you for the explination. Your comment makes much more sense to me now.
As for the outdatedness of the Catholic Church, Vatican II was held in the 1960's which made some changes through the church. As for "Things all happen because their god wanted it to happen," I don't know if this was created in the seventeenth century, if it ever was part of any official Catholic teachings.
As for the outdatedness of the Catholic Church, Vatican II was held in the 1960's which made some changes through the church. As for "Things all happen because their god wanted it to happen," I don't know if this was created in the seventeenth century, if it ever was part of any official Catholic teachings.
Wow, this thread actually got RamPuppy out of the woodwork! Its work is done.
I think it's remarkable how much discussion this topic has caused. That's often the case with issues that have no definitive answer. As RamPuppy so clearly explained it, most religious people have no problems with the only kind of evolution that has been proven, while nobody who claims to be of scientific mind can blindly accept macroevolution without making themselves about as "guilty" of faith in the unproven than the religious person they often denounce.
I happen to be a person both religious (or perhaps faithful is the right word) and scientific. I don't find any conflict of interests in that. On the contrary i think it's a synergistic duo, where belief and faith make it easier to direct a line of inquiry to obtain scientific evidence. There was a book written by a member of my faith called Faith of a Scientist that i find inspiring (even as a title alone).
So my stand is that evolution is an obviously real process that is a (to me) forgone conclusion given the mechanism for heredity, (and hence the existence of mutations and gene duplicity), and natural selection. As was said many times before, i don't think that has any bearing on the existence or lack thereof of a god or gods, but that wasn't the original question, anyway.
I would actually go a step further and say we are devolving as a species. Almost all natural selection has been removed, both by science and by legislation. In many ways, "political correctness" is little more than the sophisticates' dictate that a person's capabilities and performance should not affect their opportunities, which seems to me to be the fast track to retrogression, both genetic and civilizational.
I know that i wouldn't have lived, or at least lived to reproduce (hmm... i guess that's still not a given) had i been born 100 years ago. Asthma, excema, allergies, myopia, etc: all "diseases" made survivable by our modern sophistication.
And then there's our ability to influence the global evolution of pathogens. Even if we beat the herited disorders before they get completely out of control from lack of selection, the selection we have been imposing on microbes will prove a possibly lethal end. After just fifty years of antibiotics, we are getting to the point where infectious diseases are as untreatable as they were before penicillin. Given the global nature of industry and society, that will be catastrophic. See The Coming Plague
Just some food for thought.
I think it's remarkable how much discussion this topic has caused. That's often the case with issues that have no definitive answer. As RamPuppy so clearly explained it, most religious people have no problems with the only kind of evolution that has been proven, while nobody who claims to be of scientific mind can blindly accept macroevolution without making themselves about as "guilty" of faith in the unproven than the religious person they often denounce.
I happen to be a person both religious (or perhaps faithful is the right word) and scientific. I don't find any conflict of interests in that. On the contrary i think it's a synergistic duo, where belief and faith make it easier to direct a line of inquiry to obtain scientific evidence. There was a book written by a member of my faith called Faith of a Scientist that i find inspiring (even as a title alone).
So my stand is that evolution is an obviously real process that is a (to me) forgone conclusion given the mechanism for heredity, (and hence the existence of mutations and gene duplicity), and natural selection. As was said many times before, i don't think that has any bearing on the existence or lack thereof of a god or gods, but that wasn't the original question, anyway.
[b said:
I would actually go a step further and say we are devolving as a species. Almost all natural selection has been removed, both by science and by legislation. In many ways, "political correctness" is little more than the sophisticates' dictate that a person's capabilities and performance should not affect their opportunities, which seems to me to be the fast track to retrogression, both genetic and civilizational.
I know that i wouldn't have lived, or at least lived to reproduce (hmm... i guess that's still not a given) had i been born 100 years ago. Asthma, excema, allergies, myopia, etc: all "diseases" made survivable by our modern sophistication.
And then there's our ability to influence the global evolution of pathogens. Even if we beat the herited disorders before they get completely out of control from lack of selection, the selection we have been imposing on microbes will prove a possibly lethal end. After just fifty years of antibiotics, we are getting to the point where infectious diseases are as untreatable as they were before penicillin. Given the global nature of industry and society, that will be catastrophic. See The Coming Plague
Just some food for thought.
- Status
