OT - Questions about evolution

[cka203]

Suppose our planet was visited by intelligent machines from another world. These entities landed on earth...in a junkyard. They made some observations, took photos and notes, and collected samples. Then they departed.

As they evaluated what they had seen and collected, they might logically arrive at some conclusions. They might discover similarities and differences between the dead earthlings (or, what we would call "junked cars"). In categorizing the remains they might separate them into different species.... Mustang, Taurus, Malibu, Corolla, etc..

Further study might show them that each subspecies "evolved" over time. For example, they would likely note the incremental changes of the "Mustang" each year.

This might lead them to trace the lineage of a 2001 Mustang to a 2000 Mustang; A 2000 Mustang to a 1999 Mustang...all the way back to the 1964 Mustang.

They might also note that various species seemed to disappear at certain points of time; and other, more robust species replaced them. They might infer that competition had something to do with this.

And, in a way, they would have been correct about all of these conclusions.

Now, being machines, they have no experience...or even any concept of...organic living beings. Perhaps they lack the sensory mechanisms and logic circuits required to interface with the world of the living (since, in their environment, there would be no use for such a capability).

So, now they need to come up with a way of understanding how all these things came about. They can conclude that the gears and wheels gave these creatures mobility. They might observe the damage, from minor dents to totalled wrecks, and infer that these creatures led a violent existence. That they rolled around this little planet and randomly crashed into each other at high rates of speed. That most of these crashes damaged or destroyed the creatures...but a small percentage of these random crashes actually improved the creatures; made them better able to survive the competition.

Whereas, if they had the ability to perceive living beings, they might have been able to understand the the Escorts and Malibus had actually been created for a purpose; and that their evolution throughout the years was driven by what might be called intelligent design.

And, even if their sensory mechanisms were unable to detect and quantify living creatures, if their logic circuits were flexible enough to at least consider the possibility of such entities beyond their comprehension, they might be open to the possibilities of an explanation that would in fact be closer to the truth.

That's kind of how I feel about evolution. That we're basically correct in most of our conclusions...but that there's something beyond our understanding that's involved in the process.

The last sentence struck me.

"There's something beyond our understanding that's involved in the process".

Even IF all the rest were true... where did the intelligent machines come from?

 

[bmooney54]

Larry the Cable Guy summed it up when he said something along the lines of, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Are they the short bus retards that forget to evolve? You would think if that was the case one day you would go the the zoo and there would be 5 monkeys. The next time you went there would be 2 monkeys, two babies, and one half-monkey, half baby sitting there."

For me, from an engineering point of view, I think there are too many design flaws of humans to be the image of God.

 

[Jaric]

For me, from an engineering point of view, I think there are too many design flaws of humans to be the image of God.

Think of us as a beta test

 

[CleatMarks]

That's kind of how I feel about evolution. That we're basically correct in most of our conclusions...but that there's something beyond our understanding that's involved in the process.

And that's your belief and that's perfectly acceptable.

I have a very narrow definition of science by training but that doesn't mean that I don't have my own beliefs. In order for those to be accepted in the scientific arena though, I must prove them.

A disproof of a theory does not prove another one though. People can disprove evolution as a scientific theory and that doesn't mean that evolution is science and that's the real debate. It's not either or.

 

[Jaric]

***trimmed for size***

Excellent post DKM.

I'm slightly ashamed to say though that about halfway through reading it, the idea that "OMFG, dinosaurs could have been robots" popped into my head and wouldn't leave because it was too awesome a possiblilty to let go of.

 

[cka203]

I don't think that's what this is about. The problem is when people take a perfectly sound scientiific theory and exploit weaknesses to push an agenda. Let's not pretend that this is really an honest discussion when the questions have been formulated to exploit a weakness in a theory and replace it with something without any scientific merit.

Your computer is based on a scientific theory that can only be proven by indirect testing but nothing you can directly prove. If I said that a semiconductor theory doesn't prove that they work because "electron holes" are a theory that can't be proven, I couldn't then say that it's just as plausible that there are electrons can change their charge and expect to be taken seriously.

It's a question of intellectual honesty. I don't think you'll find any scientest who feels that there aren't unanswered questions. It's a matter of what testing leads you to conclude that makes a scientific theory. You make predictions about a model based on the evidence. Nothing in science leads me to believe that creationism is the answer to those scientific questions and to give them the same status in a science discussion is unreasonable. If the question is faith vs science, then that's a reasonble debate. What is not reasonable is to intruduce an faith based answer to a debate about a scientific theory. When someone comes up with that kind of proof, the debate on that level is reasonable.

Nor should this discussion be taken to mean that I've identified myself as an athiest.

It's interesting to note (to me, at least) that this came up last Sunday in my SS class. And the point was made that science has not been able to disprove creationism. Nor has it been able to prove it.

Someone said that they thought God was messing with us.

I kinda agree.

I see us as ants, scurrying around, collecting knowledge, acting all smart like we know what's what, and He's sittin up there laffin at our foolishness.

Again, to me, it all comes down to one simple thing.....

Can we explain/prove/duplicate/create/whatever you wanna call it - ANYTHING - from scratch?

Or are we using materials and knowledge that was already provided to us?

And just WHERE did those materials and knowledge come from?

It's like that old joke about making mudpies, and God says, "git yer own dirt".

:shrug:

 

[tehmackdaddy]

I don't think that's what this is about. The problem is when people take a perfectly sound scientiific theory and exploit weaknesses to push an agenda. Let's not pretend that this is really an honest discussion when the questions have been formulated to exploit a weakness in a theory and replace it with something without any scientific merit.

Your computer is based on a scientific theory that can only be proven by indirect testing but nothing you can directly prove. If I said that a semiconductor theory doesn't prove that they work because "electron holes" are a theory that can't be proven, I couldn't then say that it's just as plausible that there are electrons can change their charge and expect to be taken seriously.

It's a question of intellectual honesty. I don't think you'll find any scientest who feels that there aren't unanswered questions. It's a matter of what testing leads you to conclude that makes a scientific theory. You make predictions about a model based on the evidence. Nothing in science leads me to believe that creationism is the answer to those scientific questions and to give them the same status in a science discussion is unreasonable. If the question is faith vs science, then that's a reasonble debate. What is not reasonable is to intruduce an faith based answer to a debate about a scientific theory. When someone comes up with that kind of proof, the debate on that level is reasonable.

Nor should this discussion be taken to mean that I've identified myself as an athiest.

It doesn't necessarily have to do with faith vs. science. Science tells us that all living creatures came from other living creatures...scientists can't smash two rocks together and get an apple tree. It thus shouldn't be an outlandish idea for modern science to consider a theory that suggests that life on earth emerged from some other form of life, whether that be a Creator or aliens (as examples). Based upon current scientific methods and all evidence ever gathered, life comes from other life.

 

[CleatMarks]

It's interesting to note (to me, at least) that this came up last Sunday in my SS class. And the point was made that science has not been able to disprove creationism. Nor has it been able to prove it.

Someone said that they thought God was messing with us.

I kinda agree.

I see us as ants, scurrying around, collecting knowledge, acting all smart like we know what's what, and He's sittin up there laffin at our foolishness.

Again, to me, it all comes down to one simple thing.....

Can we explain/prove/duplicate/create/whatever you wanna call it - ANYTHING - from scratch?

Or are we using materials and knowledge that was already provided to us?

And just WHERE did those materials and knowledge come from?

It's like that old joke about making mudpies, and God says, "git yer own dirt".

:shrug:

I don't think science should answer that and it shouldn't be surprising with our limited knowledge. It's a matter of faith and a series of questions man has been asking forever. There has been no proof introduced and therefore, you can't discredit something there there is no proof of or against. That's faith. It's when there is no proof but you believe. That's perfectly reasonable. It's just not science, it's faith.

 

[cka203]

That's fine and I do respect that. Do you see it in the arena with science or are your beliefs based on faith? I personally don't see why the two need to compete.

I think, for me, it's a combination of the two.

I was raised to believe in creationism, but I'm also an inquisitive sort, and always looking for "proof". I've just never been able to find anything that disproved what I was taught, or that could answer my fundamental question of "where did it all begin, and from what".

Ya know?

 

[Jaric]

***timmed for space***

You make some good points, but ultimately I see discussions of faith vs science as very natural things considering the subject matter.

Both evolution and pretty much every religeon that's been documented, are attempting to answer the same question. Essentially "How did we get here?"

The problems arise when both sides with a vested intrest (for whatever reason) in proving they are the right one start talking past each other and stop listening to each other.

From my personal perspective, I don't see how believing in some of the principles of volution is somehow at odds with any sort of belief in a higher power.

In fact, I think when combined, the two make the most sense.

At least, that's my opinion

 

[tehmackdaddy]

It's interesting to note (to me, at least) that this came up last Sunday in my SS class. And the point was made that science has not been able to disprove creationism. Nor has it been able to prove it.
:shrug:

Science cannot disprove that the earth was created by the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny either, but that doesn't mean those two rascals should be included in a scientific discussion about the creation of our universe and life in general.

Here's something for your SS class: if God gives/gave us scientifically measurable evidence that He exists, then the entire Christian religion as we know it is no good because it is based upon faith. With evidence, there is no faith required.

 

[CleatMarks]

It doesn't necessarily have to do with faith vs. science. Science tells us that all living creatures came from other living creatures...scientists can't smash two rocks together and get an apple tree. It thus shouldn't be an outlandish idea for modern science to consider a theory that suggests that life on earth emerged from some other form of life, whether that be a Creator or aliens (as examples). Based upon current scientific methods and all evidence ever gathered, life comes from other life.

No problem with that either. You just need to come up with evidence in order to have it considered a scientific theory. It can then be tested and debated.

I think the biggest misunderstanding some people have (about me) when I have these kinds of discussions is not whether their beliefs are valid or invalid. It's a matter of the definition of what constitutes science. My arguments draw no conclusions on their beliefs. It is always going to ask if it meets the criteria defined by science. It really has little to do with the ultimate truth IMHO.

 

[tehmackdaddy]

No problem with that either. You just need to come up with evidence in order to have it considered a scientific theory. It can then be tested and debated.

I just did:

Based upon current scientific methods and all evidence ever gathered, life comes from other life.

 

[cka203]

And that's your belief and that's perfectly acceptable.

I have a very narrow definition of science by training but that doesn't mean that I don't have my own beliefs. In order for those to be accepted in the scientific arena though, I must prove them.

A disproof of a theory does not prove another one though. People can disprove evolution as a scientific theory and that doesn't mean that evolution is science and that's the real debate. It's not either or.

I have a little problem with this. Not with you personally, but with the overall picture.

And by that I mean... why is it then, that our schools can teach evolution as scientific fact, when it's not been proved? And why can't creationism be offered as an alternative theory?

The short answer, of course, is people automatically say "creationism = religion", when, in fact, that's not necessarily true.

When science can disprove creationism as an alternative theory, then it can be removed from the curriculumn.

Until then, though, I think it should remain as a viable alternative.

 

[CleatMarks]

I think, for me, it's a combination of the two.

I was raised to believe in creationism, but I'm also an inquisitive sort, and always looking for "proof". I've just never been able to find anything that disproved what I was taught, or that could answer my fundamental question of "where did it all begin, and from what".

Ya know?

Understood. I think TMack summed up my thoughts on it with his analogy though so I'll let that one stand for mine too.

Steven Hawking outlined these exact questions in his book "A Brief History of Time" and he's one of the formost authorieis in physics.

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him? (p. 192)

 

[cka203]

I don't think science should answer that and it shouldn't be surprising with our limited knowledge. It's a matter of faith and a series of questions man has been asking forever. There has been no proof introduced and therefore, you can't discredit something there there is no proof of or against. That's faith. It's when there is no proof but you believe. That's perfectly reasonable. It's just not science, it's faith.

So you're saying evolution is based on "science"? And if so, where is "science's" "proof"?

If you can't discredit something for which there is no proof against, why is creationism dismissed so readily?

 

[CleatMarks]

I have a little problem with this. Not with you personally, but with the overall picture.

And by that I mean... why is it then, that our schools can teach evolution as scientific fact, when it's not been proved? And why can't creationism be offered as an alternative theory?

The short answer, of course, is people automatically say "creationism = religion", when, in fact, that's not necessarily true.

When science can disprove creationism as an alternative theory, then it can be removed from the curriculumn.

Until then, though, I think it should remain as a viable alternative.

As Tmack pointed out, disprove the Easter Bunny. You can't. The definition of science is very strict.

For instance, why should Creationism be taught over let's say Shamanism.

 

[Jaric]

And by that I mean... why is it then, that our schools can teach evolution as scientific fact, when it's not been proved? And why can't creationism be offered as an alternative theory?

Well, first off any good science teacher would never teach evolution as fact, because it's not, nor is it likely to ever reach that state because it cannot be "proven." Which is why it's called the "theory of evolution"

Now, as to why creationism should not be taught in public schools? Because quite frankly it is teaching religeon, and I'm sorry CKA, but to claim it's not is disingenous.

Just because you leave out the words "God" or "Jesus" doesn't mean that isn't where it's coming from. A rose by any other name and such.

Let me ask you this. Would you have a problem with a class teaching children about the Muslim Faith? What Allah says is right?

Or are you like I am, and think that those sorts of things are better left off to their parents and sunday school?

 

[PatsFan09]

It's interesting to note (to me, at least) that this came up last Sunday in my SS class. And the point was made that science has not been able to disprove creationism. Nor has it been able to prove it.

Someone said that they thought God was messing with us.

I kinda agree.

I see us as ants, scurrying around, collecting knowledge, acting all smart like we know what's what, and He's sittin up there laffin at our foolishness.

Again, to me, it all comes down to one simple thing.....

Can we explain/prove/duplicate/create/whatever you wanna call it - ANYTHING - from scratch?

Or are we using materials and knowledge that was already provided to us?

And just WHERE did those materials and knowledge come from?

It's like that old joke about making mudpies, and God says, "git yer own dirt".

:shrug:

Just like there's no proof in God, as in the Biblical one.

:shrug:

My problem with creationists is when they try to base in in their particular religion, because religions are all hybrids, combinations, pickings-and-choosings of other religions. That's factual. There's almost nothing original, for example, in Christianity; so if Christians try to claim creationism, they shouldn't within the framework of their religion.

 

[cka203]

Science cannot disprove that the earth was created by the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny either, but that doesn't mean those two rascals should be included in a scientific discussion about the creation of our universe and life in general.

Here's something for your SS class: if God gives/gave us scientifically measurable evidence that He exists, then the entire Christian religion as we know it is no good because it is based upon faith. With evidence, there is no faith required.

I agree about the context of faith.

It IS the cornerstone.

What I have a problem with is when man, in his "infinite wisdom", claims to know how we came to be, and shoves it down the throats of our children as fact, when he really has no clue. Or proof.

I think schools should teach FACT. And in the absence of fact, present ALL the available theories, so that individuals can weigh the "evidence" and make up their own minds.

IMO, to ONLY present evolution (which has NOT been proven), is doing a disservice to our youth.

I just think it's wrong to present evolution as "scientific fact", when it's NOT.