[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Fyron]

People, not everyone that points out weak spots in the „natural selection“ theory is a creationist. I’m not, for all it matters. It just means that there may be other “forces” that drive evolution that we have not yet discovered. Maybe nature likes to jump every now and then with the gene pool and new species evolve. We don’t now. But keep asking and thinking of other possibilities! That’s what science is all about.

This is precisely what I have been saying all along.

[Andrés]

I agree there might be some missing factors in evolution and a few little details that might need to be fixed or filled up. But overall the theory proves to be consistent with current knowledge.
Unless you are a fanatic believer, (claiming creation must be literally as it is written in Genesis or whatever religious text you beileve in) there's nothing wrong in considering that God might be one of the missing factors and that this was just the mechanism He used to create the modern shape of life.

Up no now I haven't heard of a 3rd theory.
The only alternative theory I've heard from people who deny evolution is creationism or some attempts to make a compromise between evolution and creationism.
Nothing that does not involve some kind of divine intervention.

Let's face it there is no solid argument to suggest it might be wrong, there is no better theory, and no evidence at all to support an alternative theory, so evolution remains the best fitting theory that exists today.

Archeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It resembles both, reptiles and birds.
Some scientists argue it could not have flown, others that it must have been a bad flier, limited to flap from tree to tree.

I don't have time to search now, but there are some examples of non-flying dinosaurs with feathers, that apparently were first developed for heat insulation.

The main answer of the "lack of transitional fossils" argument is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...l#transitional

And the explanation of rarity of these fossils and more details.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Let's face it there is no solid argument to suggest it might be wrong, there is no better theory, and no evidence at all to support an alternative theory, so evolution remains the best fitting theory that exists today.
Archeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It resembles both, reptiles and birds.

It is surley not wrong. It might be incomplete. That's the point.
And again, Archeopteryx is not a good example because it has already fully developed wings. The missing link would be a creature in between legs and wings. And such a fossil we have never found up to now. Archeopteryx shows us, that reptils and birds are related to each other but Archeopteryx is already quite on the "bird" site.

[Krsqk]

since you're obviously not reading the pages we link to.

I assume, since you've been posting links to talkorigins, that you have some idea of the vastness of the site. Be patient. I'm assuming that you actually wanted me to read the links, not just shift-click them so they'd change color on my screen.

Pure creationism has no valid evidence at all. Evolution has some valid evidence.

Pure creationism would not leave evidence of origins. There's not going to be a big digital clock stuck in the ground somewhere that says, "6184 years, 2 months, 3 days, 13 hours, and 28 minutes since creation." Or, "God was here." Creation doesn't purport to be scientifically provable (I get this odd feeling of deja vu every time I say that). It does claim that all the evidence we see is a result of post-creation activities. Is there any way to falsify that? No, since there's no way to scientifically falsify creation. Don't acknowledge creation is unproveable with one breath and demand proof for it in the next. Whether or not creation is true, there will never be any "evidence" for it.

[Chronon]

I'm getting the feeling that what we are arguing about is not really evolution. No one seems to be arguing for a set creation date and no change thereafter (as was argued in the Medieval period). It seems we'd all agree that species have changed over time. I think what we're really arguing about is natural selection (by random variation) versus guided selection (by God or some other Designer - alien or god-like).

The whole evolution versus creationism debate, in my view, is cultural. As Andres has pointed out, the issue that gets most people fired up about this is what to teach in school. Since the Scopes trial, it has been portrayed as a stark dichotomy between religion and science. As we have noted here in this forum, this is a false distiction. I think what we are arguing about is which epistemology should be primary in our cultures: scientific or religious. In other words, when trying to answer the ultimate question of life the universe and everything, do we use the scientific method (of course we know the answer is 42 ) or do we consult the Bible, Koran, Sutras, Zen masters or other spiritual/religious sources?

I, personally, think the two sources can be complementary - especially in one's own personal, individual journey through life. But what is being contested in our culture is which has the authority to define truth, science or Christianity (in the USA anyway - I doubt this is much of an issue in Japan). So, there is a lot at stake, and it's no wonder that sometimes the relative merits of a theory that we know is incomplete have been exaggerated to the point where it has become a secular religion.

For our purposes, then, I would propose that we stop emphasizing the evolution versus creation argument, and start defining our positions along the lines of natural selection versus intelligent design (or whichever theory applies).

[Fyron]

Don't acknowledge creation is unproveable with one breath and demand proof for it in the next.

I didn't do that.

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by raynor:
The major problem with evolution is that the fossil record doesn't support it. At best, you can support micro-evolution--changes within one species. But there just isn't satisfactory fossil evidence to support the supposed transitional species. Without any evidence for macro evolution, you are left with waiting a million years. With a whole this large in evolution, creationism is equally valid.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a fossil? A creature has to die in mud and then be covered in mud before the scavengers move in (simplified, I know, but you get the point). There are millions of species that will never have a fossil record due to their environment. For example, a million years from now there will not be any fossil record of the buffalo (or just about any mammal currently living in australia). That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Overall, we should cosider ourselves lucky that we have the fossils that we do. It is ludicrous to expect a member of every species to kindly travel to a mudpatch and drown itself so we can fill out our historical record. We work with what we have.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.