Yes - the whole "oh bugger, another new phylum" bit turned out to be wrong. Most (all ?) of the Burgess Shale stuff - although weird - turned out to fit into known phyla. Simon Conway Morris goes into this in The Crucible of Creation.
This picture looks more like it. If by "earliest species" you
quote:that these peculiar critters are representative of some of the earliest of species?
meant along the lines of Eldredge's "is violated, even downright falsified, by the early Cambrian fossil record" in THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION AND THE FAILURE OF CREATIONISM I must insist still on the larger sectors than NE's motivate a deeper than diversity than any implicated convergence of the smaler areas being Niles' The other two illustrations are from TOPOLOGY by Hocking and Young and OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS by FJ MATCHETTE
Did it ever occur to you to consider that it is possible that there could be a creator, and that the only reason for creating something so bizarre as this creature was to show us just how powerful He is? What if there is a God, and He simply wanted to show us how creative He is, so that we could see that no matter what, He will always love us?
Don't really feel like getting into a debate, just felt that this would be a nice little addition to the conversation.
Did it ever occur to you to consider that it is possible that there could be a creator
We consider it on a daily basis. That's where these discussions come from, remember?
[...] and that the only reason for creating something so bizarre as this creature was to show us just how powerful He is?
Creating something quite ordinary would also show his power, no need for anything bizarre. Besides, the bizarreness of Hallucigenia is relative. If it could think, it would probably find us rather out of the ordinary.
What if there is a God, and He simply wanted to show us how creative He is, so that we could see that no matter what, He will always love us?
This is what's really bizarre. I fail to see the logic. How does "no matter what, He will always love us" follow from "show[ing] us how creative He is"?
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
Okay, good. There are intelligent people here on these forums. Thank you for pointing out that obvious leap from fact to fiction.
I don't really think that God needs to create something bizarre to show us that He loves us, but can you give a reason as to why this species existed using evolution? Besides the obvious easy route of "well, we don't know how it happened, but we do know it couldn't have been created by some 'higher power.'" I just wonder why evolutionists have a hard time when creationists say that things couldn't have evolved, but they can't say how God created it. The whole point behind all this is, WE DON'T KNOW!!!! Your theory is just as good as mine. There is no way that any devout Christian is going to be persuaded otherwise, but there is also no way that a strong believer in evolution is going to change his beliefs either. However, each theory has its weak points, and I happen to think that the evolutionary theory has more weak points than the creation theory does. Of course that is the very argument used against Creation, is that it cannot be proven wrong, due to the "God of the Gaps" scenario.
Sorry about all the rambling, it's just that I kinda messed up my first post on this forum, and I'm sorta trying to redeem myself.
Thank you for elaborating your point. I'd like to say something about it right now, but I'm pressed for time. Probably others will be here first, but I'll get back to you in a few hours. Stay tuned.We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
First I want to address something from your initial post...
the only reason for creating something so bizarre as this creature was to show us just how powerful He is?
If he wanted to show us how powerful he was, why did he let many of these bizarre creatures die over the course of time? Its seems that if he wanted to show how powerful he was he'd have saved every species he made.
can you give a reason as to why this species existed using evolution?
Nitpicking, but that should be "how it came to exist" and not "why it existed".
The whole point behind all this is, WE DON'T KNOW!!!! Your theory is just as good as mine.
You are correct that we do not know for sure what happened in the deep past. However your theory is not as good as ours, and there is a reason why...
Evolutionary theory is constructed using facts that we do know. We learn about the world today, how it functions, and construct models using those mechanisms to explain what happened in the past.
Creationism is constructed by taking something that we don't know and assuming evidence of the past must somehow point to that unknown. That is why there is no coherent "creationist" scientific model, including mechanisms.
Also, even if we did not have adequate mechanisms known in order to postulate evolutionary theory (and thus it would be the same as Creationism) Occam's Razor would still kick in to knock out Creationism. That the answer would be found in natural mechanisms would be a simpler answer than answers coming from an additional entity (which itself would require an additional explanation) using mechanisms to produce said species.
However, each theory has its weak points, and I happen to think that the evolutionary theory has more weak points than the creation theory does.
This has been said so many times at EvC, and yet I have seen no person stick around to actually detail these numerous weak points. Will you be the first?
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Maybe there is a problem with the assumption of only one designer. May sound weird, but God could still have created everything, but also have created beings less knowledgeable than he, beings that try to use His techniques and principles to produce stuff.
Personally, I have long felt that evolutionary dogma would eventually follow suit, per secular humanism, which seemed very materialistic, and then later New Age spiritualism became a big force among the same educated crowd of Americans that reject traditional religion, but found strictly "material" explanations insufficient, "material" defined classically.
In the same manner, I predict in another 30-50 years, the alien hypothesis will become dominant, and evolutionists will insist there is evidence of alien intervention. We'll see.
quote:This has been said so many times at EvC, and yet I have seen no person stick around to actually detail these numerous weak points. Will you be the first?
Well, I'll just use one, and we'll just see how well your theory holds up compared to the creationist theory. How do you explain the fact that almost every species of animal developed 2 sexes, and only 2 sexes? If evolution is true, then why don't we have some species which keep progressing into more sexes? There are also species who simply have both sexes in each organism (like the earth worm) or simply divide itself (like the ameoba (sp?)). Those mechanisms seem to work just fine, so why did "evolution" deem it necessary to split the sexes up? Also, how big of a genetic mutation would have to take place in order to go from dividing oneself into two separate organisms, into having two sexes that must mate in order to reproduce? I want to see an exact diagram that shows all of this.....
Now do you see what I mean when I say that evolutionists do the same thing creationists do? Evolutionists simply say that "it had to happen. We don't know how, or when, but we're sure we'll find out someday." Creationists, on the other hand say something similar, yet entirely different. "We don't know how it happened either, but we do know that it could not have happened by chance, so therefore, we believe that it had to be created." Do you see the difference between the two? Neither one knows how it happened, and both take a huge leap of faith in order to beleive their theory, but in my oppinion, the leap from no gender to 2 genders in one body, to one gender in one body, and then none of the species developed a third or fourth gender; and all of that just happened and the evolutionary theory can't do anything to explain it. Just as the creationism theory can't do anything to explain it either. They are both dealing with metaphysical properties at this point, so either one could be right, theoretically. I have just chosen the one that eliminates the possibility of it happening by chance.
Oh, and that doesn't even hit the tip of the iceberg. You still have to explain to me how it is possible for all that matter to get there in the first place. The origin of the universe is a great little topic, one for which evolutionists have absolutely NO answer for, unless maybe you can give me one I've never heard before.
So, if you want to use Occam's Razor, you are falling short of explaining how the sexes came about. You do not have enough information to explain how the different sexes came about, nor can you detail the exact description of how the genetic mutation will work, so therefore you cannot prove it. You CANNOT rule out God at this point, because "natural mechanisms" do not account for the obvious fact that any one of us can see is here today; the fact that there are only 2 sexes, no more, no less. An species may have no sex, but if it does have a sex, it either contains one or both of the sexual organs in one organism.
If I am way of base, please feel free to show me where I have erred, but I believ you will find that very hard to do.
P.S. I think I like this forum (its my first day here), and I do beleive I will stick around, unlike some of the other forums I have tired of.
Well, it seems Holmes has pretty much answered your previous post the way I would have. There are some leftovers however, and I'll just finish those first. (Sorry it took so long.)
There is no way that any devout Christian is going to be persuaded otherwise, but there is also no way that a strong believer in evolution is going to change his beliefs either.
I don't know about the devout Christian, but you're definitely wrong about the evolutionist. First, evolutionists aren't "strong believers", because evolution isn't a belief. Second, the moment compelling evidence is presented that really seems to falsify evolution, the shit will hit the fan. Every evolutionist on earth will want to verify the evidence. And if they can, the theory of evolution is in deep trouble. I think I can safely say that any real danger for the theory of evolution wouldn't come from creationists, but from the way science is practiced.
Of course that is the very argument used against Creation, is that it cannot be proven wrong, due to the "God of the Gaps" scenario.
Well, since you brought it up yourself, how about a defense? You see, this is why "your theory" isn't as good as "mine": it's not falsifiable. The moment someone opposes it with a good argument, the God of the Gaps jumps on stage.
You still have to explain to me how it is possible for all that matter to get there in the first place. The origin of the universe is a great little topic, one for which evolutionists have absolutely NO answer for
Evolutionists aren't cosmologists. Evolutionists deals with the explanations for the diversity of life, nothing more, nothing less.
You CANNOT rule out God at this point, because "natural mechanisms" do not account for the obvious fact that any one of us can see is here today; the fact that there are only 2 sexes, no more, no less.
Look again. Here for example: "Mushrooms have as many as 36,000 sexes, and a strange growth called slime mould has about thirteen." This site gives a possible explanation for why there are only two sexes in most sexually reproducing organisms.
P.S. I think I like this forum (its my first day here), and I do beleive I will stick around
By all means, do, and feel welcome.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Jun-2005 10:06 PM
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
I had a good little response all typed out, but then I lost it. Oh, well. I'll try to re-do it, only it will be condensed.
quote:I think I can safely say that the real danger for the theory of evolution doesn't come from creationists, but from the the way science is practiced.
I agree. What I think we disagree on is the fact that you can disagree with evolution, or at least question the evidence used to support it; but only if you are not trying to support ID, or creation, or whatever.
As for "God of the Gaps", my point is that both evolutionists and creationists use "gaps", the only difference is, creationists use a God to fill the gap, and evolutionists use extremely long lengths of time and miniscule chance in order to explain how something happened. Neither of these is satisfactory in a sense, but if God created it, then there is really no need for us to worry about it is there? I think that if there is a God, which is what I believe, then He would have created a world where we could find His hand in it if we wanted to find Him.
About the sexes thing, let me look at that site, and then I'll get back to ya.
Oh, yeah. Thanks for the welcome. This place has much more intelligent people than other sites do, probably because one of the other sites was based on video games, but hey, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. As for my style of argumentation, I prefer to use more of a common sense, simplified approach; but that does not mean I can't, or won't use a more elaborate method to make my points. I prefer to use arguments as if they were my own, and not try to use someone else's work (journals, notes, etc.) in order to back up my claims. If it doesn't make sense, someone should be able to point it out without using somebody else's information. I look at it as kinda like a competition. Who can outsmart the other one, with their own personal knowledge? That's my way, but of course, there are some things that must be researched and shared, such as this multiple sexes thing.
I checked out that link you put up, and here is the headline for it:
quote:Scientists in Britain believe that the reason there are only two sexes is due to a bacterial infection our ancestors caught about two billion years ago.
Okay, here we go. We're right back to the whole "gaps" thing. Essentially, there is no answer! This doesn't explain anything more than what MIGHT have happened! I'm sorry, but this is not proof of anything.
quote:"It looks as though there used to be bacteria where mitochondria come from. So we think that we got them about two billion years ago from bacteria taken into ourselves. So they became part of us, and that ability to replicate at will is left over from their bacterial ancestry."
It LOOKS as though? What ever happened to real, hard evidence? How come it's okay for an evolutionist scientist to say this, but it's not okay for a Christian to say something very similar about God, and still be taken seriously? Evolutionary theory is based on such things as this. That is my whole point. You're standing on really thin ice here. This same scientist went on to say that "we THINK (emphasis added) that we got [mitochondria] about two billion years ago from bacteria taken into ourselves." Well, this still doesn't answer the question of how the bacteria developed these mitochondria; nor does it answer the question of how we obtained traits from something that was living inside of us!!! I would sure like to see that explained!
The bottom line is, there are gaps that the evolutionary theory, or atheistic worldview, or whatever; cannot answer. It cannot give a comprehensive view of everything that must take place in order for us to be here without the existence of a supernatural being.
So, since both evolution, and ID are in the same boat, why is it that ID cannot be taught in school? What are the atheists so afraid of? I believe that they are terrified of the thought of actually having to answer to a higher power, but that's just my oppinion.
Oh, and Parasomnium, I hope none of this seems too hostile. I'm not "attacking" you as a person, I'm "attacking" your ideas that you have presented. I hope you will do the same.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My theory - that is, evolution, which isn't of course "my" theory in any sense that I came up with it - not only explains all the data, but it makes predictions which have been tested and found accurate. It provides a way to make sense of populations and predict how they'll respond to changes in their environment.
Does your theory do those things?
There is no way that any devout Christian is going to be persuaded otherwise
I was a devout Christian when I came to accept evolution; I came to that position because of the strength of the evidence for it.
but there is also no way that a strong believer in evolution is going to change his beliefs either.
Also not true. Come up with a better theory, one that explains all the data evolution does better than evolution does; one that makes better predictions than evolution does, and you'll see scientists abandon evolution in droves. You'll also get a Nobel prize.
I hope Admin doesn't step in to remind me that this is a science forum so I have to argue something scientifically to be here, because I don't want to argue any science at the moment. I just want to say I appreciate your arguments very much so far and hope you stick around.