I wrestled with "believe" in the question. As it is, the question that it, it works well enough, so I voted. I would like to see more people from the "creationism" side actually understand what they are worked up about. Not being insulting to all of them. I think many, if not most, DO understand the theory. The ones that are very vocal seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the basics.
Reece & Mathgeekjoe - I assume that Mathgeekjoe is a good example of "anti" people understands the theory well enough. I would also assume that quibbling over the age of the earth is not the issue with him.
Reece, I am saying evolution is still weak over a billion years. Anyways you asked me if microevolution and macroevolution have the same mechanics.
I have a question for you, does stacking bricks and building very a tall stack of bricks use the same mechanics?
Let me ask it this way, if I start stacking a pile of bricks, what would be the first cause for it to fall. What happens if I eliminate this cause, what would be the second to cause it to fall. Continue the process as far as you can think.
Well the first cause for it to fall might be from defects in the stacking process, Lets say I removed all of these defects, next problem would be the wind, lets say I prevented the wind from hitting the structure. Next problem would be changes in the ground from settling or earthquakes, lets say I stop that problem, what would the next one?
@Mathgeekjoe - Yea, I know you are on a track, and will conceded to the examples given. Since I don't real know where you are driving, I am having a hard time co-piloting. A mad bull knocks the bricks over, I just don't know.
I don't really like how the options are phrased. You're implying that Christian Creationism is the only one out there and it's not. There are more religious people on this site than just Christians, and some people believe in both evolution and creationism.
@PetersSmith - I balked a bit at the wording too, but not every poll question has to be inconclusive of permutations. If the question were phrased "all creation myths" it might have worked, but that would introduce a new problem.
"@Mathgeekjoe - Yea, I know you are on a track, and will conceded to the examples given. Since I don't real know where you are driving, I am having a hard time co-piloting. A mad bull knocks the bricks over, I just don't know."
A mad bull could just as easily knock over a small stack. But lets say I eliminate all random events. What would be the next limit? Would any evidence of this limit causer be apparent in a small stack?
@Mathgeekjoe In regards to your last comment; I get what you mean. But you don't consider survival of the fittest (adaptation). Do you know the field of epigenetics (gene expression via direct body chemistry)? Species do go extinct obviously.
"@Mathgeekjoe In regards to your last comment; I get what you mean. But you don't consider survival of the fittest (adaptation). Do you know the field of epigenetics (gene expression via direct body chemistry)? Species do go extinct obviously."
Epigenetics is the field I actual have in mind when I claim that the current theory of evolution doesn't properly describe what happens. Epigenetics has less to do with survival of the genes as much as which genes are expressed by the environment.
Reece - I can't really believe that is where he is going. Then it makes no rational sense. I would not put this on him, but many creationists put the cart after the horse. That evolution was "making" humans. It adds purpose where there is none.
Anyways the next cause of my brick tower collapsing would be the weight of the bricks at the top crushing the bricks on the bottom. Lets say I fix this by making my brick tower out of a material infinitely strong or at least strong enough to make it to the next limit?
"@TBR Hes pretty much saying 'what if this happens or that, etc"
Reece this is not what I am saying. The purpose of my example of bricks is that there are limits that are unnoticeable when looking at something small like micro evolution. Micro evolution(small brick stack) may work while macro evolution (large brick stack) may not.
Sorry for not responding, I am still in school right now.
"Using "micro evolution" as a model for evolution may not be sufficient to prove the larger. There are additional variables that "micro evolution" cannot make good use of. That is the point, rigth?"
Basically the point, but it isn't the only one I have.
"@Mathgeekjoe giving an analogy is one thing but to actually go into detail of how bricks and DNA are structurally identical is another."
The analogy was merely to show that microevolution does not guarantee macroevolution.
To tell the truth, I do not go with creationism because it is a better explanation, I go with it because there is already enough people looking at the situation through the view of evolution. Even if my belief is wrong, it still allows me to see problems through a different point of view which may allow my to notice or realize something I wouldn't have notice or realized otherwise. And then there is always the chance where my belief is right.
@Furyan5, there are very few things that are impossible. If I have a base ball and a wall, there is a random but highly unlikely chance that it will appear on the other end of the wall. The actual probability is so low that even with several lifetimes of the known universe, it would still be unlikely to happen. But what matters is that it isn't impossible.
@Furyan5 - This is the cart before the horse problem I was speaking of. Every attempt to look at from an odds prescriptive I have seen attempt to attribute meaning or purpose to evolution. That is, that human was the necessary outcome, and therefor we must calculate the.... Do you see the issue? The world is not suited for US we are suited for the world we live in. Europa may have life. It will look nothing like a human, and that's fine. If somewhere else, the best possible thing created walks on three wonky legs and has no eyes, that works fine for evolution too.
@Mathgeekjoe - It looks like I am "here". Truth is, I am just MORE likely to be here than there. For the non-chemistry/math/physics people, your physical body (or any part of it) COULD suddenly be elsewhere, it is just not very likely to happen.
@Mathgeekjoe - No, I just love the idea. There really is only just... Well, "chance" that my physical body is in this spot (like right this second). It COULD be "elsewhere" and break no rules of physics, chemistry etc. All backed by real science.
Well the odds are in the favor of your body not randomly teleporting(not exactly teleporting it looks like teleporting). Basically there is a very small chance that your atoms will quantum tunnel a certain distance through a barrier. If all of your atoms tunneled the same way at the same time, you may appear on the other end of a normally impassable barrier like a wall. But there is a far greater probability but still a very small possibility that your atoms would tunnel in a way that causes you to cease to function.
@Mathgeekjoe - Yeah. I don't know if this is exactly where he was going, but I have seen people attempt to "run the numbers" before, and the common problem is in working backwards from the outcome. There simply is NO reason to do that.
I guess you mean by pointless to run the numbers because any outcomes would have been unlikely. If I flip a coin 100 times, what ever the outcome is, it would be incredibly unlikely.
But there are ways to run the numbers that doesn't go through that misconception. I personally find quite unlikely for current life to have occurred randomly with only a billion years.
"I guess you mean by pointless to run the numbers because any outcomes would have been unlikely." - Exactly "If I flip a coin 100 times, what ever the outcome is, it would be incredibly unlikely." Yup. "But there are ways to run the numbers that doesn't go through that misconception" - Yes, and I have never seen any good ones.
Play a game of chess. Document the moves. Now, try to run the probability of THAT game getting played. Well, it got played. We watched and documented it happening. However, just by the math, playing chess for billions of years may not result in the same game.
Run our evolution for the past couple billion of years, and there is JUST NO RATIONAL CHANCE of getting the same result. Any attempts to use this as the argument fail in a spectacular way. Evolution is not "trying" or "desiring" any outcome.
If I remember correctly, one calculation was the average times it takes for a beneficial mutation to cause a double in the mutation population compared to the normal population. Basically the time it takes for 1/100 population mutation to become 2/101 of the population.
Sorry. Stuck reading chess stories. Anyway, one guy says it is very likely that there has never been a repeated game (popular science). Using an attempt account for common setups, etc. the number is still just too damn high to even make it likely that the same game has ever been played in the ancient history of the game.
Just got back from eating. You want to see some of the calculations? Ok, well first you take the natural log of 2 then divide it by the natural log of the increase in survival. Lets say you have a mutation that increases survival by one percent, which one percent is a extreme large increase in survival compared to other mutations, but it makes a good starter. You get 69.66071689 when you divide ln2 by ln1.01. This means that on average it will take somewhere around 70 generations for this mutation to go from 1/100 of the population to 2/101 of the population. I need to relearn the next step. Oh, something to keep in mind, this is a basic example, I will go into the calculations that don't add up with evolution after I get past the basics.
""which one percent is a extreme large increase in survival" - To make it... Fair, that is WAY high." I think you are being sarcastic about saying it is way too high. One percent is a very large increase if you consider the average mutation. Typically you get something that allows the creature to get more food or run slightly faster, these advantages really only help in specific situations. Being able to run faster really only helps when you get chased by a predator, and it only effects your survival when that extra bit of speed is the difference between life and death. If you get a good head start then you would survive anyways, if you react to late or were in a bad position you would die either way. When it comes to food, it really only helps when that increase in food either makes a difference in reproduction or survival, if food is plentiful it doesn't matter, if food is too scarce you will starve even if you are better at getting food.
If God existed then Yes. Creation is more plausable than evolution given the fact that for life to even exist on this planet the odds are astranomical. Type and size of sun. Size/rotation/tilt/electromagnetic field of the earth. Size and location of the moon. To name but a few.
@mathgeek by definition God is benevolent and allknowing. It follows that God knew what Satan would do but created him anyway. Or he did not know what Satan would do. Therefore God is either not allknowing or not benevolent and by definition, not God. Well that's the Abrahamic God anyway.
@TBR Well I'm human. I cant argue on bahalf of a chicken. But that's irrelevant. Just the neccesary factors for life to exist on this planet are astranomical. Yet here we are. Any possibilty bigger than a billion to one may as well be impossible even if you can imagine that 1 happening.