This is my first post to the site
Lots of fun ahead!
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Hasn't this just turned into a bundle of joy! First, to be on topic, there is no proof that many of the "asteroid craters" were made by
asteroids....that's just what they are called because that is the only accepted explanation for it.
Agreed: we definitely can gain from remembering this every instant. The sclerosis of our 'educated guesses' is the author of stagnation.
now about creationism vs. evolution.....here's the thing. Firstly, it is more probably that there is an intelligent being or groups of intelligent
being that exist on a plane not comprehendable in the terms of our existence that could have been the source of life than it is that darwin's theory
is true, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.
Once again, I feel inclined to applaud the open mind towards intelligences beyond our reach of perception, but this is not a valid challenge to
Darwin's theories. I believe there is plenty of intelligence beyond that which we perceive, but Darwin's work still is a valid framework.
As for similarities, there are a lot of things that look alike and arent very related at all. Cats that look like dogs, and dogs like cats, etc...and
if I remember correctly, over 90% of our DNA IS THE SAME AS A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM! This does not support evolution, this supports the use of a
blueprint, an INTELLGENT DESIGN, for life. If evolution were true, why are there no mass divergents? after all, anything probably, however unlikely,
will happen, isnt that right? So there should be some sort of organism that is totally alien from all other life, just by the freak chance.
On the contrary, evolution as we currently understand it precludes the 'freak occurence' you think we should expect to see. All organisms on earth
have evolved side by side, in a restricted set of conditions. None of us are islands unto ourselves. This would tend to lend a certain homegeneity
to life on earth.
Saying anything will happen ignores the atmospheric and geographic conditions, which are the common factors all life on earth evolves through.
Someone here asked for proof....can anyone show me ANY proof for darwinism? I know they can't, there is none. Accepted theory is not proof, nope,
sorry bub, you've been brainwashed! I'm not saying I'm right....I'm saying that your belief is...you got it....a religion too!
Correct, there is no absolute proof for any theory we use to describe reality.
A religion of anti-religion, of anti-soul, but a religion all the same. A religion tailor-made for those who want to believe that this is all there
is,so they can live without a conscience. Remember, a religion is based on faith, and faith is the belief in things that are not provable. Darwinism
cannot be proven true. That things can adapt can be proven.....but not that anything can make a fundamental change from one thing to something
completely different. Anyone who is willing to do unbiased, objective research will see that there is far too much design for darwin's theory.
Darwinism is not a religion of anti-religion. Granted, it is historically linked to an enormous challenge to the Church, but the work of Darwin is
not a challenge to religion as a whole in and of itself.
How could an orchid with a 12 inch hole down to its pollen have survived before the moth with the 12 in nose existed? And if the moth came first,
then why would the orchid have come into existence, and even if it had, how and why would the moth have survived in the meantime? Life, all of life,
is contructed with immensely complex designs that mere chance can explain. And have it known that Darwin actually USED that moth/orchid example as
supposed proof for his theory.....and people call that brilliant? Pretty blind, I would say.
I don't think you have understood Darwin. When someone so acclaimed appears blind to you, its a good idea to ask yourself if you have grasped him
well enough to judge...
These species co-evolved
. There was no clear cut 'one came before the other', only moment to moment opportunism. An explanation as good as
any other for the specific example you gave could go like this:
- moths with a longer proboscis find it easier to feed in a particular area where the most abundant pollen is slightly harder to reach: they are
'selected for' and thus have a competitive edge on other moth species in the vicinity, and out breed them to a certain degree.
- the greater concentration of moths with longer probosci, whoh at this stage have formed a taste for the pollen/nectar of the flower in question,
provides an advantage for the flowers with the longer tubes, effectively selecting for that mutation.
- a symbiotic link is slowly formed until both species are highly adapted to one another.
That, though, is just a tiny piece. Things that we take for granted, like vision, hearing, etc, our entire nervous system, rely on so many
interconnected systems that supposed mutations can't begin to explain.
Personally, I believe there is more to evolution than so-called random mutations (I don't believe anything is random: random is merrely a word to
describe an occurence for which we do not have enough data to piece into the framework of our reality). I believe our genes are in constant dialogue
with our surroundings, and adapt intelligently, if you will. There is nothing really esoteric to that: we, as organisms, are aware of the limitations
of our organisms, and we arguably seek to mate with individuals who exhibit abialities we see ourselves as lacking, and which would prove useful to
the environment we are subjected to. This is intelligence in action, and it directly influences the genetic makeup of our species.
This happens largely on what we might decide to call a subconscious, or instinctive level, and its hard to say just how far reaching this
'intelligence' is... There is no reason to rule out that it might be the intelligence of the planet in action, acting through us. Or the
intelligence of the universe. Yet this theist approach in no way invalidates the broad tenants of Darwinism, unless I am missing something.
If the fittest survived, then why is it they just happened to also have these odd useless mutations that later became key for other mutations, not
just once, but millions of times? Seems pretty organismed and well thought out, doesnt it? I'm not saying there is a god...what I am saying is that
there is more than blind chance.
I agree there is more than blind chance (since I don't believe there is any room to argue blind chance even exists).
But your reasoning does not bolster this effectively: the fittest that survive do not have to only have well-adapted features. By this, I mean that
their vestigial baggage does not make them necessarily unfit. They are called the 'fittest' simply because of the well-adapted features that
allowed them to survive, and this says nothing of the features that fall into disuse.
When those features are needed again, hopefully, there will still be individuals in the gene pool who exhibit them strongly enough that it might be
dusted off and put back into motion
And we haven't even touched the metaphysical aspects of life. And before you rush out to deny them, enlighten yourself, and you might just see your
error. That we are more than just the skin that holds us all together has been proven in many ways and forms, some quite scientific. Tell me how a
non-physical body evolves from nothing, will you? Thats something I REALLY want to hear.
The way I see it, we creatures manifest on more levels than we are even aware of. This perspective strongly bolsters your support for the
'metaphysical'. The main point of my post is to try to impart the sense that Darwinism does not ruffle a spiritual or metaphysical approach to life
in the slightest, unless that approach is a dogmatic one. The Church reacted so negatively because they had very specific and crystallized myths to
uphold as part and parcel of their cumbersome dogma. They perceived that a weakening of these myths was a weakening of their power. Those of us with
more fluid and dynamic concepts of spirit need not perceive Darwinism as an enemy.
[edit on 7-8-2004 by upuaut]
[edit on 7-8-2004 by upuaut]