Beyond the Grave wrote:
Not to take anything from the conversation, but where are the Creationists on here. I know there are a few on here. We need them in this conversation. This one-sided conversation is getting boring pretty quickly.
Alright, ya caught me. I'll debate. (I haven't debated in this thread since... 2004.) My belief is that the science that is trying to prove Evolution (or, at least, macroevolution, since microevolution exists -more on this later) has subsequently disproven it [Evolution] and reinforced the idea that a creator, or at least intelligent design, was the only cause for the beginning of life. Now, I've probably opened up a can of worms (eww) and will likely start a brouhaha (ha ha) over this.
@Kef: I'm BAAAcck! Did ya miss me? Huh? Well, I've been educated and armed with the book
The Case for a Creator which, through at least seven interviews with experts in the fields of molecular biology, astronomy, anthropolgy, neuroscience and others makes a very forceful point for a creator.
furrykef wrote:
I would say the strongest argument in favor of both natural selection and evolution is statistics. If you start with the premise that species mutate over time -- which is known to be true and has even been empirically observed -- then the ideas of natural selection and evolution naturally follow.
Do elaborate on mutation. Don't forget about the Cambrian Explosion.
furrykef wrote:
It's hard to really explain unless you're already familiar with statistics and randomness. But consider a weighted coin, one that comes up heads 51% of the time in the long run. That 1% difference seems insignificant, and indeed it truly does not matter if you just want to flip a coin to decide what you're going to have for lunch. But if you add up these coin flips over millenia, that 1% is going to make a huge difference. If you flip that coin one billion times, you will get 10,000,000 more heads on average than if the coin were fair.
Survival of the fittest is like a weighted coin in that respect: small differences aren't so small in the long run. This is a very imperfect example, but the idea is to get the idea across that small differences are not small.
Granted, natural selection takes place. I see that around me. The bird with short wings that can't fly too high will get hit by a car and his genes will be removed from the pool.
I don't think a weighted coin is a good illustration. I don't think a weight would really influence the actual motions of the coin too too much.
furrykef wrote:
Now consider that these not-really-small differences also accumulate, combining with each other... how could a species not evolve over time? If you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, maybe that argument doesn't seem so important, but then you have to figure out how to refute all the evidence that points to the planet being 4.6 billion years old -- or, at least, older than 6000 years.
Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. I can't exactly say when I believe Earth was created. I had to say more that 1 billion years ago, though. I'd have to ask you to elaborate though: are you referring to micro or macro evolution?
furrykef wrote:
Did he sell eggs? wrote:
(Another mistake of a lot of evolution people: Natural Selection has been basically proved wrong by people who believe in evolution.)
By whom, exactly? This is certainly not scientific consensus.
- Kef
Agreeable on Kef's point. May Eggs meant to say something else. I don't know. But I shortly explained Natural Selection earlier. I won't argue over that.