The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[stormbind]

Come on, tell us one thing that the SToE doesn't explain fairly well.

S?

You claimed that, after twenty generations of no-contact, directly-related worms could no longer reproduce.

For how many generations were the Aborigines without contact with the rest of mankind? How come they didn't experience the same phenomenon?

 

[Perfection]

If evolution is properly understood, then evolution can be controlled. Evolve for me, a chicken with eight wings, and rice instead of feathers...

That's stupid.

If a meterologist presents a theory of how hurricanes form, you wouldn't discredit him if he couldn't create a catagory five on the moon!

Give me some empirical data to support Evolution!

See the first page of the thread!

The Theory of Evolution is far less complete than most other theories. What I was trying to get at, is that our understanding of ToE is still so incomplete, that it requires some leap of faith.

What "leaps of faith" do you allude to? Gravity is for from being completly understood, but it's silly to say that because it's not completly understood that it's not logical and reasonable to believe in its existance and you are running on faith!

Science changes all the time, and the Theory of Evolution has some evolving of it's own to do

I don't see you deriding all science as faith because of it.

S?

I believe he means standard, as in the standard thoery of evolution by natural selection. (basicly the functional core arguement of evolutionary theory)

You claimed that, after twenty generations of no-contact, directly-related worms could no longer reproduce.

For how many generations were the Aborigines without contact with the rest of mankind? How come they didn't experience the same phenomenon?

Ummm, it's a totally different creature with much difference in biochemistry behavior and structure so it's not really unexpected.

 

[carlosMM]

S?

Synthetic.

You claimed that, after twenty generations of no-contact, directly-related worms could no longer reproduce.

For how many generations were the Aborigines without contact with the rest of mankind? How come they didn't experience the same phenomenon?

Your understanding of the complexity of these organisms and of how genes work seems rather poor. And, btw, there IS a slightly larger rate (around IIRC 1 to 2%) of lethal factors between human populations long seperated than within each 'racial' group. Means that they DID drift apart a bit.

 

[Scuffer]

S?

You claimed that, after twenty generations of no-contact, directly-related worms could no longer reproduce.

For how many generations were the Aborigines without contact with the rest of mankind? How come they didn't experience the same phenomenon?

Man's success is due to his flexibility of existance, and being able to adapt at a cultural level. This means that less physical change is required to survive in an environment, slowing down the pace.
Oh, and the few, large offspring that we have, especially compared to worms, means that our rate of mutation is that much slower anyway. Too much investment to take that risk.
And I think we have a smaller gene pool, so again, less variation goes into the system.
It's also likely that Aborigines weren't completely isolated for all that time, there's bound to be a little input from outside. This one's just a guess though.

 

[stormbind]

Man's success is due to his flexibility of existance, and being able to adapt at a cultural level. This means that less physical change is required to survive in an environment, slowing down the pace.
Oh, and the few, large offspring that we have, especially compared to worms, means that our rate of mutation is that much slower anyway. Too much investment to take that risk.
And I think we have a smaller gene pool, so again, less variation goes into the system.
It's also likely that Aborigines weren't completely isolated for all that time, there's bound to be a little input from outside. This one's just a guess though.

Fair enough. Still no emperical data though!

 

[stormbind]

What "leaps of faith" do you allude to? Gravity is for from being completly understood, but it's silly to say that because it's not completly understood that it's not logical and reasonable to believe in its existance and you are running on faith!

There are no quantitative values. It requires a leap of faith, because ToE may apply only under certain conditions, or is perhaps even surpassed by another phenomenum.

You have no data! Claiming it is true is about as logical as mathematics without numbers. That's stupid!

The best you can claim, scientifically, is that you have circumstancial evidence to support an educated guess, which is far from a KO. If you claim anything more than that, then you are putting faith in something you cannot observe, which puts in the same race as Creationists.

 

[Scuffer]

I only do applied evolutionary theory. I like said somewhere in this thread before, I'm not trying to prove anything here. I reckon it's futile to try in any case. Even if I did have some emperical data, it could never be unequivocal anyway.

Not being able to nail down a theory is pretty common in science. You might think that there is a proven link between dirty surfaces and hospital acquired infections, but you'd be wrong.

 

[stormbind]

Not being able to nail down a theory is pretty common in science. You might think that there is a proven link between dirty surfaces and hospital acquired infections, but you'd be wrong.

It can be proven that a larger surface area provides greater refuge for potential pathogens, and a dirty surface can be proven to have greater surface area. There is more emperical data associated with that, than ToE can claim. And certainly, some 'dirty' surfaces are safer than 'cleaned' surfaces for a number of reasons. Each of those reasons can be backed up with observervation and mathematics.

I'm not trying to suggest that ToE is wrong. Just saying that there can be no KO with the current supporting evidence.

 

[embitteredpoet]

No, ToE is the best Hypothesis to fit the facts. No-one has any inherent faith in it, and would all happily abandon it if a different theory discredited it (unlike Creationists)
Personally I find ToE at it's simplest level the most logical and common sense scientific theory that I've come across. But close your eyes if you want, it's not like a few creationists in America will stop the inevitable march of science.

 

[Blasphemous]

stormbind, completely independantly of the ToE, "scientific" Creationism makes absolutely no sense. To KO it you only need to think logically for a bit. The ToE can perhaps replace "scientific" Creationism, but to KO it you don't need an alternate theory. You only need an ounce of rational sense.

 

[Scuffer]

I'm not trying to suggest that ToE is wrong. Just saying that there can be no KO with the current supporting evidence.

I'm not trying to anything. I don't believe it is worth the effort to KO creationism. I'll wait until there is even a shred of credibility in it.
OK, 'KO' is the name of the thread, but I try to provide answers without an agenda. I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but if someone wants to know why man doesn't speciate as fast as worms, I'll try to explain what I think, based on what I know.

It can be proven that a larger surface area provides greater refuge for potential pathogens, and a dirty surface can be proven to have greater surface area. There is more emperical data associated with that, than ToE can claim. And certainly, some 'dirty' surfaces are safer than 'cleaned' surfaces for a number of reasons. Each of those reasons can be backed up with observervation and mathematics.

You'd think, wouldn't you? But the actual link between dirty surfaces and infections, no matter how convincing in principle, is neither proven nor accepeted. I'm not pulling examples out of the air here, this one is the last two years of my work. If this observable and testable theory hasn't been proven (yet!), then neither has ToE. In effect, I agree with you. However, in the absence of any viable alternative, I'm nailing my colours to this mast.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

carlosMM Were you not a Christian follower not to long ago????

 

[Perfection]

There are no quantitative values.

Actually, there are quantitative values (amount of genetic differences between organisms). Also, what makes qualitative science incorrect?

It requires a leap of faith, because ToE may apply only under certain conditions,

Well ToE only applies to life (well, viruses too) and some life-imitative computer programs. Other then that I see not a shred of credence that it applies only under certain conditions because it applies to the basic phenemena of life

or is perhaps even surpassed by another phenomenum.

Such as?

You have no data! Claiming it is true is about as logical as mathematics without numbers. That's stupid!

I have data! Look at the first post in the thread, it refers to, get this, DATA!!!!!

The best you can claim, scientifically, is that you have circumstancial evidence to support an educated guess, which is far from a KO. If you claim anything more than that, then you are putting faith in something you cannot observe, which puts in the same race as Creationists.

But I can observe evolution, though homologies, the fossil record, biogeography, biochemistry, genetics, and developmental biology.

 

[stormbind]

Actually, there are quantitative values (amount of genetic differences between organisms). Also, what makes qualitative science incorrect?

Nothing, it's just cannot deliver a KO

There's too much interpretation, too much assumption, too much emphasis on faith.

 

[Perfection]

Nothing, it's just cannot deliver a KO

Why do you say that? What's unscientific about qualitative evidence?

 

[stormbind]

Why do you say that? What's unscientific about qualitative evidence?

It's not accurate; it lacks proof.

 

[Perfection]

It's not accurate;

It's accurate, just as qualitative chemistry is.

it lacks proof.

What makes it need numbers for proof?

 

[stormbind]

It's accurate, just as qualitative chemistry is.

Actually, Chemistry is packed with mathematical evidence.

What makes it need numbers for proof?

Once upon a time, scientists believed sailors who travelled too far from land, would fall off the edge of the world.

You and they share the same faith in qualitative observation.

 

[Blasphemous]

Nothing, it's just cannot deliver a KO

There's too much interpretation, too much assumption, too much emphasis on faith.

stormbind, completely independantly of the ToE, "scientific" Creationism makes absolutely no sense. To KO it you only need to think logically for a bit. The ToE can perhaps replace "scientific" Creationism, but to KO it you don't need an alternate theory. You only need an ounce of rational sense.

Spoiler :

Ten character limit ignores quotes. Argh.

 

[betazed]

I read a Zen story yesterday and it reminded me of the debates about Evolution vs. Creationism in this forum. Allow me to share it with you.


A westerner once went to a famous Japanese Zen master to learn about Zen philosophy. The teacher asked

"why do you want to learn Zen?'

"Because I have learnt so much occidental philosophy and now I want to learn some oriental one?" the prospective student replied.

"Ah! in that case, come please joine me in having tea."

So both the westerner and the Zen master sat down to have tea. The master laid down two cups and then started pouring tea in one of them. slowly the cup filled with tea and started overflowing. The master continued poruing tea as it overflowed onto the tatami. Finally the westerner could not hold himself anymore and said

"Master can't you see? The cup is full it will not hold anymore?"

The master stopped to ponder and said,
"Likewise if you are already full with your ideas on philosophy how will I pour into you new ones!"


Maybe, it is time to ponder that many people on both sides of this debate are already so full with their own ideas that it may take a long time for them to have some empty space when they can learn something new again.