hey all.. interesting discussion..

I've came across a really good site recently about this creationist vs evolutionist theory..
Either side you're on, being in this debate calls for an open mind and an open heart..

anyway, those who are serious about knowing more,

check out this site: HERE

or just start with this article (it was this article that caught my attention): HERE

Just a lil background knowledge, I'm a bio major (2nd year) and I'm very interested in pursuing knowledge and be very sure about the truth. I think in the end, it comes down to what we want to accept as the truth.

Hi, welcome on board.

From your statement, below:

Just a lil background knowledge, I'm a bio major (2nd year) and I'm very interested in pursuing knowledge and be very sure about the truth. I think in the end, it comes down to what we want to accept as the truth.

Are you saying truth is relative depending on what one want to accept?

What is your opinion on absolutism (absolute truth).

looks like you agree with my definition of randomness. okay. as outlined in my previous post the world works on laws, and the laws are there to govern therefore yes u can say that no divine will was at play in dice throwing as the movement of the dice is already being manipulated by what is around it.

if we know the cause of something and if we know that the outcome of something can be predicted, then it is not randomness anymore.

about pattern, you cannot refute the existence of a pattern in which things work. again this is physics that is why we have formulas, because of these patterns we can effectively expect or predict how things work. being able to identify and manipulate patterns in everyday things are one of the characteristics that make the human brain so powerful.

indeed if laws and existence were forever there then "randomness" is possible (not statistically viable but possible). it stems down to whether 'everything' was always there (your definition of randomness), or was 'everything' created.

and frankly, there is no scientific proof that one side is more probable or true. saying existence is forever is as much taking a shot out in the dark as saying there is a God (scientifically speaking) as there is so much more that we do not know of the natural world. our reasoning at this stage in civilisation is akin to a child barely learning to crawl. i find it fairer to not make any conclusions.

---

Added on October 26, 2009, 5:59 pmi do not believe we have any control over our evolution (progress) whether genetically or culturally. unless mankind manages to unite as a single entity. otherwise there will always be disagreement and the sense of self preservation which is akin to the theory of 'survival of the fittest' and makes our evolution no different from darwin's finches.

This post has been edited by b3ta: Oct 26 2009, 05:59 PM

Can evolution be related to mutation?
If yes then, Einstein is a potential proof of human evolution.
I mean Einstein's parent r juz some normal folk like us.Y Einstein r more intelligent?
There r alot more mutation/evolution happened around us,Like some run faster,some taller,some more intelligent.
I means from these superior human,their child r also potentially born to be faster/taller/smarter.
But slowly their grandchildren n grand grandchildren will be more n more normal.(maybe the enviroment not really
needed their superiority,so slowly they back to normal)?
Evolution is more based on enviroment influence(i means the enviroment forced them to be superior),
N mutation is a sudden boost/sudden evolution,but due to not accepted by majority of the enviroment, mutant slowly degrading to be normal once again.


If u ask me there r alot of sudden evolution happened in our history,Like who is intellegent enough to plan the construstion of Pyramid/The myth of Hercules

If we put two mutant together(new Adam n Eve), n let them give birth to their child, n then eliminate all the normal human, then evolution had juz been completed, i learned this from RE5
But dun doubt it,Germany tried to create superhuman by this way b4...

This post has been edited by nujo87: Oct 26 2009, 10:20 PM

I agree with your original definition, but, as I said in the context of the creation of things:
and as you agre with me, there is no need for divine intervention, for things to occur, then this is the randomness which we are discussing, with the context of creation.

Putting it back into context. The original discussion about patterns, is that beauty, what people use as proof that God exist. Is all in their heads. Patterns is a method, of grouping things together, it does not exist on it's own. We used the grouped patterns to prove God and that is false.

"I rubbed a penny, I hit jackpot", some people will make associations that the action of rubbing the penny, caused windfall. And that is simply not true.

"The sky is blue, it is beautiful, God must have created it." This is just as absurd, because for one thing the colour blue, and being beautiful is subjective, and an association which the person makes based on their upbringing and personal experience. Second, making the association of beauty = God, is unsound.

Do you need scientific proof, that things was always here? We know that things exist, there is no reason why it should not. The onus is on those who think otherwise.

How do you place that which you can see and that which you can't see on par? That's amazing.

There is indeed alot for us to learn, infact it's infinity. But that does not mean, we cannot base our ideas on the basic info that we can look at. There is no 100% certainty in this world, but that doesn't stop us from calling a flower we perceived red, to be red, until proven otherwise.

I know what you are now, your a deist.

If we keep saying we can't control then we can't. Same as our current political situation, we keep saying we can't get a consensus, so just quit voting.

In order for us to achieve anything, we need to first have a target, then work to acheive it. Not the other way around.

Not that I am saying we should do anything about controlling evolution. Just that we discuss whether we need to, how do we achieve it and what are the ethical implications.

thank you.

---

Added on October 28, 2009, 10:58 amAh sorry, need to clarify some things on the relationship between mutation and evolution.

Mutations are changes in ones, genetic codes, which makes one different from their parents. but it does not mean drastic changes. It is probably the combination of gene's which causes a person to be better than their parents. Example: have a US engine designer, and a Japanese engine designer share their ideas. This might create an engine which is both fast and fuel efficient. Overall the engine will be better, probably even faster than its predecessor. If it takes all the bad traits, then of course, it could be even worse than the original engine.

Another reason for drastic changes, is recessive genes, that the offsprings inherit, if the child does not have a dominant gene, then that recessive gene will be apparent. Example, parents with thalassemia may not show the traits, until they bear an offspring together, that has both the recessive genes.

From what I understand, Evolution works on 3 things, reproduction, variance, elimination.

variance here, is achieved from mutations, elimination here refers, to controlling factors, such as age limit, and the environment.

I don't quite get what you're trying to say.




This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 28 2009, 10:58 AM

Did evolution limited only to physical apperance?(like from ape to we,human?)
Did a drastic change in intelligence level(IQ),lets say from an average of 100 to a new level of average 200,can be considered as an Evolution?

I personally think tat,Evolution is a natural process of human adapt to the enviroment or adapt to the culture/trend of majority of human races.
Normally Evolution take a long long times to happened,like did u notice we r no longer physically fit as compare to our ancestor?(we r either more fat or less muscular)
Well tats because we r not longer needed to Hunt for food,n fight with sword n shield.
But lets compare our child now to our ancestor,our new generation now can use a cellphone in their early age.
Of coz our lifestyle change from times to times,but if u look at a big picture of now and the ancient time,u can clearly tell we human had changed,from our physical appearance to our way of brain usage.N the different/Gap will only be bigger n bigger in the future.

But is there only a one way trip to achieve evolution?will there be other possibility to achieve evolution,without involving the entire races?
Lets say we human r really evolved from ape .
If out of 1,000,000 ape,there r two mutants(human) born,n these 2 mutants(human) get married...kissed...XXXed..n give birth to their child without mixing blood with those APE.
The offspring of these 2 mutants r also a human is possible rite?So while these mutant started their own races as human,the others continue to be APE...

This post has been edited by nujo87: Oct 28 2009, 08:08 PM

Ah not exactly... Though human beings are able to adapt to their environment, culture and trend, this is not what evolution is about per se.

Traits of using technology and handphones are probably similar as back then. It's just that practice makes perfect.

Evolution, is about genes that suits an evironment, appearing, more frequently, while the less adaptable traits gets wiped out. It's like shifting dirt for minerals, the heavier substances fall to the bottom,while the lighter stuff rises to the top and gets discarded. What is left is basically, stuff (traits) that fits the present environment.

Imagine the game Spores. Even though there are many different limbs and traits to choose from, people generally, keep on choosing the same body parts, over and over again, just to get the same optimum performance from their creature. This is what it is like in the real world to.

So this is like a chicken and the egg story question, which came first? The answer here lies in your definition of what is a chicken, and whether chicken egg, refers to an egg produced by a chicken, or an egg which a chicken comes from.

Our predecessor, creatures of the same species that can mate, will slowly gain traits that we have today. These traits gets passed around, the present day. The only smoking gun, is our definition of humans (having what collection of human traits).

The reason why we are fat, and unhealthy today, can actually, be blamed on Evolution. Back in the days of our ancestors, food was scarce and unpredictable. Because of this, only those that are always looking for food, able to extract every nutrients from food, and able to retain energy, these are the people that strive. Today this backfires because, food is readily available.

With regards, to IQ, IQ is actually relative. Did you know that with a lack of sleep our IQ will be considerably lower, and higher after a good nights sleep? This could be the case of early humans, probably the food they ate was inadequate to fuel their brains. Couple that with dogma, and ignorance causes them to be perceived less intelligent then ourselves.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 29 2009, 12:54 AM

ah but i have not mentioned anything about attributing something to be 'just created by God and is therefore beautiful'. what im saying is that altho it looks nice it has something behind it that makes it look that way. and being able to grasp patterns is what makes the human mind beautiful. without it, we would never have a rough understanding of what's happening around us. without it, you wouldnt even be able to read what i'm writing. and do you mind explaining the logic behind grouping patterns and proving God as false?

the same can be said about your point. just because we know that something exists now, doesnt mean it will continue existing, nor does it mean it has existed for an infinite amount of time. the behaviour of the universe which is constantly changing (and you can actually see this) and where nothing is everlasting implies this.
coming to a conclusion based on the idea that one has based on a limited understanding or data is not very scientifically sound. the key word here being conclusion. one can merely hypothesize.

like i said, my religious beliefs do not come into this debate at all. i am not putting anything on the line (trolling, if you will). see? u cant make a conclusion based on something u do not know as yet. deists have this sense of detachment from what they perceive as God nor do they believe in 'miracles' or any intervention from their creator, so to speak. i beg to differ.

edit: read again. i didn't say it cannot be done. i said it cannot be done UNLESS mankind manages to unite into a single entity. go communism!

This post has been edited by b3ta: Oct 29 2009, 01:26 PM

few days ago in the star, it is reported that human will evolve to be shorted and smaller in size...

makes me wonder.. why throughout evolution size shrinks??? like cockcroach?? they were huge during times of dinosaur;.. but now?

so true....lastime human used to be much more bigger size...but as time flies we're shrinking in size....maybe like hobbits...lol
maybe its just nature tellling us that we're adapting to the newly populated environment..everything contaminated...
i do believe that we evolve for the better but not from ape to human and also believe that we are created by a bigger power/authority that our tiny piny brain cant even understand....just look at how amazing the entire universe are n not to mention the earth or human race that can't be seen even with a hubble space telescope...then we know we're not alone...
i also believe that we were "created" by something above us and we're allowed to evolve overtime so that we can continue surviving on earth and hence we're different from other animals.

size= k x population ?????

where K is constant.. for dono what...

and more population makes size smaller.. during the time of dinosaur, the population is not as many human as now....

with more and more competitive environment for food, size evolved to be smaller to meet demand for shortage for food....
dont you see that urban human live in smaller house than kampung house??

pretty ridiculous sometimes... moved to big city and earn slightly more than in kampung but live in small small house


ps... i just come out that equation.. if it is proven, i shall name it awaned_angel rule of size vs population.... reader be the witness here

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Oct 30 2009, 12:49 PM

Ah and neither have I, please read my posts again, I have been stressing that beauty is not proof that "God did it!", and not because "God did it!" it must be beautiful.

Again, are my points above insufficient to explain why we can't use beauty to prove God?

I had no interest in that, I had been proving that you can't use pattern or beauty to prove that God exist.

Remember the onus is on you to prove, how patterns prove that God is true.


Yes, and the onus is on you to prove it. We know that energy, particles exist. You need to prove that it wasn't so at one point.

huh? I'm not sure how you derived this from what I said. Do you mind quoting me.

Generally replying:
Of course we cannot use something which we are not sure, to make a conclusion. Alas we need to make a conclusion, otherwise, we can never decide what to do. And unfortunately nothing is 100% certain, there is always something outside of known knowledge that may occur.

So how do we make decisions? Simple, by eliminating, claims/information which are not readily available to us. (Ocham's Razor maybe helpful)

eg. If someone was to say they saw aliens in their room, is this proposition impossible? No it is not, there is no 100% certainty on the matter.
So if the person is unable to provide evidence, should we begin an alien hunt, or a "welcome to our planet" campaign?

No. Because the onus is on the claimant to provide the evidence. Otherwise it is consider false.

There are infinite possibilities, into our existence, we cannot believe in all of it at the same time. The most reasonable thing to do, is to believe, that which is present, until new evidence proves otherwise. In your case, that matter, energy, etc were once not here, but God was.

Yes, there is no relevance betweeen your religious beliefs and the truth in your arguments. It was just my own curiousity here. Your religious affiliations would tell me, where the discussion is leading to, so that I can reply them accordingly. As someone once said, "how can we discuss, if we are not on the same page?"

I was not jumping to conclusion, I wanted to see your reaction, to better gauge what reply will be more relevant to you.

Yes, and I am against the pessimistic view. Why must the discussion be killed off with "Communism"? After we have decided what is right, then we can talk about how we can achieve it.

To think that the only solution is communism, is to shut off ones mind.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 30 2009, 02:19 PM

i dont get it.. why need beauty to prove god exist??

if god is everything that beauty is, then who created ugliness??

IMHO, there are no beauty or ugly in this world.. all in our mind...

take example, bird`s nest, chinese find it a delicacy, but the west find it disgusting...

a thing may be a beauty for some and ugly for other....

have you ever stare at shit so long that it loses its ugliness??
i did that during army camp.. the trainer ask us t oeat infront of shit... as punishments

Nicely put.

you should did what I did...

take a thing... either pretty or ugly.. put it infront of you and just look at it....

=.=||

Biased or not, theory of evolution is supported by more than one type of dating method. And not only does biology require the billion year old earth to be explained, geology does too. Some rock and mountain formations cannot have formed in 10,000 years. These estimates were made independent of each other (biology and geology), but they both came to the same conclusion.

That website you have linked to based their "evidence" for a 10,000 year old earth on scriptures alone. Nothing else. In fact, they have no evidence at all except for the words of others. Remember, people once claimed the earth was flat too, and that the sun revolves around the earth. Why are their "words" not taken as evidence that the world is flat?

The billion year old theory is backed by thousands of fossil discoveries as well as geology, most independent of each other, hence not influence by one another, yet they came to the same conclusion.

Which seems more rational?


To dear Creationists,
Does your religion condone incest?

A question that always ponders me on the theory that life existed by a chance:

DNA is a code of life. All the information about the organism is in DNA. How come a DNA was created wonderfully by a chance? It's like a pen suddenly drops at a piece of paper and accidently it writes an award-winning novel.

Yes, it's just as difficult to understand, how a pen drop could create an entire library (God).

But, wondering aside, the theory of evolution still sticks.

I think one can also believe in God, while believing in evolution. But yet many disbelieve it because of religion. What does that tell us about that religion?

One in a million, or billion, chance, is still a chance. The chemical that interacted with one another that ultimately led to the formation of DNA had not one interaction, but a few hundred, maybe million billion interactions. So the formation of the first DNA (or RNA) is not actually surprising.

Comparing it to a pen, paper and novel is not appropriate because the DNA did not form from a one off reaction. It most likely formed one after the other. Eg: Bases formed, then other bases, then the Hydrogen bond, then the helix etc.

The more appropriate analogy would be to drop the pen on a different paper several trillion times, then rearranging those strokes created in several trillion different ways, and there ought to be at least one or two of those arrangements where there is a recognised word formed.