Is evolution true?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
101

<p>as a Christian, i believe in creation. although evolution does have its points, i accept it as a theory. i don't totally rule it out or bash it, but i do think that it needs mroe evidence. science has yet to show some more conclusive evidence on the different stages of evolution. </p>

<p>at my school, we learn reasons to support both creation and evolution. creation: intelligent design, watchmaker (some other power has to make it), higher power. evolution: natural selection... </p>

<p>but there is just something that i cannot digest about evolution: how does something (extremely intricate, high ability, perfection) come out of nothing (absolutely nothing)? look at nature... how a plant grows, turns light into energy. look at the human eye... how it sees, how the brain works... there has to be some higher power, intelligent being who made all this. </p>

<p>but one thing i encourage. THERE IS A TRUTH OUT THERE. WE JUST MUST FIND IT. WRESTLE WITH THE ISSUE. FIND TRUTH. :)</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
but there is just something that i cannot digest about evolution: how does something (extremely intricate, high ability, perfection) come out of nothing (absolutely nothing)? look at nature... how a plant grows, turns light into energy. look at the human eye... how it sees, how the brain works... there has to be some higher power, intelligent being who made all this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those are actually two of the most prevalant arguments for God. The intricacy of living things is called the argument from intelligent design. The second part how things come from absolutely nothing is an argument for the need a prime cause.</p>

103

<p>thanks, maize&blue22...</p>

<p>i also learned intelligent design to refer to evolution's explanation of similar structure. creation's argument (intelligent design) goes that if a certain design works (intelligently made), it would logically follow that the Higher Being (God) would reuse the structural idea for many creatures. so, it is not necessarily that we evolved b/c of similar structure but God (an intelligent being) reused the design in many creatures b/c it worked.</p>

104

<p>Okay, if evolution is merely a theory, how might one explain vestigial structures, like the appendix? But not just that useless organ in humans, vestigial structures in all creatures? </p>

<p>Also, how do you explain the fact that sickle-cell anemia is more common in Africa, where malaria runs most rampant, than anywhere else? Is this not an adaptation to an environment? I'm sure one could argue that this was caused by some greater power, but then why didn't everyone who is at risk of malaria recieve an immunity to it?</p>

<p>It is too bad that the conditions of Hardy-Weinberg do not exist in real life! Otherwise, yes, evolution would not be a possibility. Then, everyone would have remained the same from the time of creation until forever. </p>

<p>I know evolution has many holes, but fossil records, DNA, embryology, biogeography, blah blah, should have more than some merit in supporting the 'theory' of evolution. But does religion not have its holes as well? Did not ancient peoples rationalize the things they could not explain in their environments with stories of gods and goddesses? Greek mythology: does Apollo attach his chariot to the sun and drive it across the sky every day? Another thing, do we still think the earth is flat? will I fall off if I go too near the horizon? Humans tend to theorize their worlds with the evidence they observe and the technology they have to analyze it. (big duh, I know. dub me Captian Obvious, then...)</p>

<p>But on the flip side, does evolution necessarily debunk the possibility of intelligent design? For even if this earth was created by a "big bang" of dust, gravity, carbon, nitrogen, blah blah, where did all of those elements come from in the first place? Why do any elements even exist at all? Again, evolution is not trying to explain the WHY part of the equation. </p>

<p>Humans are entirely too geocentric and self-focused on the whole. We can't even comprehend the size or composition of the entire universe, and who knows if we ever will? Comparitively, our little solar system is quite insignificant~ do we think we are that special? Just because we haven't (supposedly) experienced "intelligent life" outside this earth, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. As I said, this universe is entirely too extensive for us to rule that out. But the same goes for a higher power -- just because we have never experienced one personally, doesn't mean there wasn't a watchmaker (or whatever, I'm sorry I'm not up on the terms) in the beginning that created the elements and set everything in motion and moved onto something else... The fact remains: we just don't know. The evidence we have in conjunction with our current technology tells us that creatures and species change over time, characteristics (genes) that best promote survival in a certain environment are perpetuated through natural selection, mutation, etc.</p>

105

<p>For those intersted in Aquinas:</p>

<p>His "Summa of the Summa" is where I would begin.</p>

<p>If you want to read a modern day "Thomist" try
Jaques Maritain: Degrees of Knowlede
Etienne Gilson:Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas</p>

106

<p>“Comparatively, our little solar system is quite insignificant~ do we think we are that special?”</p>

<p>Yes, as a rational non-dogmatic researcher you would have to say yes. Is that an absolute yes, no. But with the knowledge we now have, this solar system is by far the most significant system we have any knowledge of--- that is actual knowledge of and not science-fiction knowledge of.</p>

<p>If it turns out that there is sentience in the universe, and we have knowledge of it, we will need to adjust or thinking on what significance the earth, life and intellect represent.</p>

<p>But it seems unnecessarily cynical to say that we live in an insignificant solar system. It's a mind over matter thing.</p>

<p>Thought>matter. </p>

<p>As far as we can now say with apodictic certainty thought seems to be the rarest possession of the universe. Thus our solar system is quite significant indeed.</p>

<p>It does not matter where you find the most precious possession of the universe. The place it is found will not make it more significant or less, but rather the place it is found will become very significant because of what was found there.</p>

107

<p>To my knowledge, the major theologies only teach that the Unmoved-mover/First principle/Creator/God doesn't change, but that all other things must by their very nature and contingency change. They not only change but come into and out of material existence of neccesity.</p>

<p>Mutation, as a material principal, seems to logically follow from this.</p>

108

<p>vestigial structures are a argument for evolution. however, science is finding that the vestigial structures may acutally help. the human appendix may acutally help fight immunities. </p>

<p>three ?s... is there a God?
1. does the universe exist? yes, exists
2. has it existed forever? no. support: must have a starting pt. or not make sense. entropie (order-> disorder)--stars change color/die off; if universe existed forever, stars would've already blown up.<br>
3. did it start itself? no. it cannot start itself. something outside started it. support: "Anthropic Principle hold that hundreds of conditions must be met before human life on our plant can be possible. the odds against these conditions occurring by chance are astronomically high." "Consider the strong force that binds the nucleus of atoms. if it was just 5% weaker, there would only be 1 element on the periodic chart, and the world we know wouldn't exist. but if it was just 2% stronger, living systems could never be formed." for more... <a href="http://www.reasons.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.reasons.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>is love JUST a chemical reaction... the earth would freeze, burn, etc if it stopped spinning... there is truth out there... wrestle with the issue :)</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
Consider the strong force that binds the nucleus of atoms. if it was just 5% weaker, there would only be 1 element on the periodic chart, and the world we know wouldn't exist. but if it was just 2% stronger, living systems could never be formed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know how many of you guys read Time, but there was an article on this a few weeks ago. They had some guy saying that yea--if any number of "natural" conditions were slightly different life wouldn't exist, but if you start playing with more knobs at once other situations would seem to support life, as well.</p>

110

<p>"did it start itself? no. it cannot start itself. something outside started it. support: "Anthropic Principle hold that hundreds of conditions must be met before human life on our plant can be possible. the odds against these conditions occurring by chance are astronomically high." "Consider the strong force that binds the nucleus of atoms. if it was just 5% weaker, there would only be 1 element on the periodic chart, and the world we know wouldn't exist. but if it was just 2% stronger, living systems could never be formed." for more..." - smile05</p>

<p>The origin of the Universe is certainly a difficult issue, but I think that there are more options than most people accept. First, is the 'Universe' necessarily the entire exent of what we call 'existence?' There can't be an absolute beginning to 'existence.' However, if our percieved Universe is only part of 'everything,' its creation is not as difficult to comprehend. </p>

<p>As far as I know, the anthropic principle is not what you defined. It is the principle that holds that our Universe is the way it is because any other 'configuration' would mean that we couldn't observe it. How unlikely our Universe is irrelevant to the question of its existence because if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be questioning it. There could be countless other Universes that don't support life, matter, or perhaps the laws of physics.</p>

111

<p>I've only really posted about the semantics of what should be called a theory and what ought to be considered a truth.</p>

<p>I'd like to add my two cents about what I actually believe.</p>

<p>As a neuroscientist, it is impossible not to appreciate the evolutionary process. Almost all of neuroscience is learned by using animal models to understand our own brain. We always start studying something by looking at flies and slugs. Once we understand it in "simpler" animals, we move on to then rats, then cats, then monkeys. It is impossible not to be struck by the similarities that bind all of these animals together, as well as the differences in specialization that allow (for example) rats to navigate in the dark.</p>

<p>On top of this, our own brains clearly have parts that are phylogenetically older. Neocortex is so named because it is new--6 layers, highly convoluted, and responsible for complex functions (like planning). We also have what is called paleocortex and archicortex, 1-3 layers, much smoother, responsible for simpler things like balance. </p>

<p>Yet at the same time, it is impossible to be a neuroscientist and not appreciate the existence of higher power or creator. When you study, (as I got to as an undergrad at Brown), the way our brains constantly change themselves in order to allow us to learn, it is like you are watching God at work in real time.</p>

<p>I guess what is interesting to me is that I started off as a pure scientist with agnostic religious views at best, but it was my pursuit of science that led to my current avid faith that there must be a god.</p>

112

<p>dcircle (or anyone else with a background in biology), can you tell me about the Miller-Urey experiment?</p>

113

<p>About the vestigial structures...... that is something that has been changing rapidly for a while. My biology knowledge isn't up to par, so feel free to correct me, but what I remember reading is that there are only a few vestigial structures. About a handful, correct? If you go back half a century, there were dozens, I believe somewhere upwards past 50 or so considered "vestigial". Times are changing - we may find out that there are true vestigial structures, or that even these apparently useless structures do have a purpose.</p>

114

<p>I guess my two cents is this:</p>

<p>Personally, I believe in Creation, but I have no problem with the teaching of evolution in school, since it more based in science than creation. I'm even okay w/ the decision to take off those stickers. They don't really do anything but infuse doubt without reason, and uneducated disbelief is just as bad as uneducated belief. However, the thing that bothered me freshmen year when I took biology was that the bio book NEVER EVER mentioned a single loophole in the theory of evolution. Yes, loopholes don't disprove a theory, but it would at least be nice to inform students that evolution is not a perfected theory and has problems that scientists are still trying to figure out. (It did, however, spend a couple pages decrying creationism as pseudo-science.) This lack of information and lack of solid, sincere questioning bothered me more than anything else.</p>

115

<p>I'm surprised by the amount of people on this forum who believe in creationism to the exclusion of evolution or evolution to the exclusion of creation. the arguments are compelling for both and i can see how smart people might be swayed either way. but wouldn't you expect more smart people to see the merits of creation AND evolution and be satisfied with the idea that god created something adaptable?</p>

<p>i mean, if you believe god created the earth you have to also believe god created an earth that alters its shape every time there is an earthquake</p>

<p>if you believe god created people you have to believe god created people with mercurial emotions</p>

<p>if nothing else around you is stable, why should species be too?</p>

116

<p>I believe that religion plays too big of a role in some peoples minds. Logic and science should play a bigger role, because it has facts behind it while religion is only belief. (although many religions have facts behind them, some religions have gone too far on interpreting what their Gods said about life)</p>

117

<p>I agree with you, dcircle. I see your point of having both creation and evolution, and that it's possible to reconcile both.</p>

<p>neelesh, I don't think it's a matter of whether religion or science should play a bigger role. Both have their own merits, and I don't think science should be hailed to such a high level just because it has facts behind it. These "facts" are often proven wrong over time because science is constantly disproving old theories and discovering better theories. This works both ways; religion also has its faults just as science does.</p>

118

<p>"Okay, if evolution is merely a theory, how might one explain vestigial structures, like the appendix? But not just that useless organ in humans, vestigial structures in all creatures?"</p>

<p>"Also, how do you explain the fact that sickle-cell anemia is more common in Africa, where malaria runs most rampant, than anywhere else? Is this not an adaptation to an environment?"</p>

<p>I don't think any modern Christians believe that species don't adapt over time. I should hope that people don't think that, say, Enoch was exactly like Ashton Kutcher (in terms of development, not in lack of comedic talent). However, a good many people have a problem with all species stemming from one ancestor in the primordial ooze.</p>

<p>"But does religion not have its holes as well? Did not ancient peoples rationalize the things they could not explain in their environments with stories of gods and goddesses? Greek mythology: does Apollo attach his chariot to the sun and drive it across the sky every day?"</p>

<p>True, but "explaining things" is a characteristic of pagan religions. The Big 3 don't attempt to explain anything besides languages and creation of the world.</p>

<p>"Another thing, do we still think the earth is flat?"</p>

<p>Ironically, the Bible was (correct me if I'm wrong -- Isaiah was born around 760 B.C.) the first evidence that the world was round.</p>

119

<p>tsk tsk tsk... I still can't believe this debate is still happening.... didn't the Scopes trial take care of such things oh well. I think that there will always be people who think that the Earth was created in 7 says and the bible is meant to be taken literally. In which case ... hooray, now I can own slaves and whip women... :) :) :)</p>

<p>obviously the last point was sarcastis. I am still amazed at the backwardness of some people :( :(</p>

120

<p>Sempiter555</p>

<p>You probably haven't come across eugenics and other aspects of near-modern science and their horrific consequences. Also, 18th and 19th century scientific theories of race, and the superiority of one race to another. There were also scientific theories of why women were inferior to men, and thus those who wanted to keep women out of the public often had science to back them up. There have been many scientific theories that at the time were taken to be fact which have been proven to be scientifically, socially and politically false and often morally repellent.</p>

<p>There was apost a while back that seemed to indicate you were not exactly up on the actual facts of the Scopes Trial, either. You may want to go back and check it.
Moreover, I have not seen anyone post anything that would indicate that they were against the teaching, or science, involved in the theories of evolution.
You seem to have created a stereo-type of what you want people who disagree with your rather harsh opinions to be like and then attack the hobgoblin (see Emerson's Self Reliance) you have created in your own mind.</p>

<p>On the other hand, most of us have a lot to learn.</p>