A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Independent]

Greetings Muhammad

In your view, what position would be untenable for Creationists and what are you suggesting?

if I remember rightly, there is a very good Islamic principle along the lines of not denying what has been shown to be factually the case. I believe that this situation will one day occur with TOE and that some people, who have made opposition almost an article of faith, might find this difficult.

In my view, on the whole it would better not to involve religion with scientific debate, except from a moral perspective (eg the morality of human cloning).

 

[جوري]

Islam is above science and above philosophy and above the seasons and the folks who try to bring it down to the lowest common denominator. The only reason folks try to connect science to religion at all clumsily at that is to concoct a rift with which to cast doubt in the hearts of the faithful..
but there are three types of faith as is:
1- emotional faith, the one that comes from imitation you grow up on certain principles and see folks doing it so you do it too
2- Seasoned faith, the one that starts with doubt and cemented in logic and principles
3- soulful faith which is a combination of of heart and logic and a bit of emotion and it is probably the best of the three because with it not just faith is solid and strong but one might reach the level of sincerity and those are things that aren't swayed by any manly concoction especially that :Allah::swt: exalted the scientists to the highest level as their faith is built on that logic.

 

[Muhaba]

Evolution is simple in essence, those animals better suited to their environments survive and thrive. Those that aren't, die. It's been said over, and over, and over in this thread that evolution does not have all the answers, but it has a lot of evidence to point us in the right direction. At the end of the day, you either trust what scientists are telling us (99% of scientists) or you don't. You clearly don't.

Why do elephants have trunks? Because it conferred an advantage upon their ancestors and they received the trait. Why are some animals carnivores? Likewise. There is no special reason with evolution - things are as they are because they helped animals live and therefore breed.

Not a very intelligent or explanatory reply. How about giving some more information about two animals that live in the same habitat but evolve totally differently, one becoming a herbivore and the other a carnivore. When there is plenty of plants available for the first to survive, why would the second become a carnivore? Were the genes already present? Did God guide them to be that way? Or did random chance cause the change for no reason? It obviously wasn't for survival because then the effect would be on all animals. Some would evolve and their race would continue while those not evolving would get extinct.

These differences clearly show that it's not mere chance evolution that's causing animals to have so many different features.

 

[Independent]

How about giving some more information about two animals that live in the same habitat but evolve totally differently, one becoming a herbivore and the other a carnivore

If you look at Nature, what's striking is an amazing capacity to fill every environmental niche available. Part of what defines that niche is available food. And TOE predicts that in time every niche will be sought out. If there were just herbivores and no herbivores, that would support a Creationist world view rather than TOE, but the opposite is the case. (Which is why you see, say, marsupials in Australia occupying the environmental niches that mammals occupy in Europe and Asia).

These differences clearly show that it's not mere chance evolution that's causing animals to have so many different features.

No, it's the constant rolling of the dice that discovers new forms.

 

[Muhaba]

If you look at Nature, what's striking is an amazing capacity to fill every environmental niche available. Part of what defines that niche is available food. And TOE predicts that in time every niche will be sought out. If there were just herbivores and no herbivores, that would support a Creationist world view rather than TOE, but the opposite is the case. (Which is why you see, say, marsupials in Australia occupying the environmental niches that mammals occupy in Europe and Asia).



No, it's the constant rolling of the dice that discovers new forms.

If you say that everything observed supports TOE without explaining how, that isn't a very good answer. Creationists can do the same thing. State that everything observed fits with the creationist view. You'd have to show just how it fits with the evolutionist view and not the creationist view.

Why should existence of only one type (carnivore or herbivore) support the creationist view but existence of the different types support the evolutionist view? Please explain. Provide a logical step-by-step explanation how animals went from say one kind to the many different kinds. Because from what I understand, according to TOE at first there should be just one type of organism. For example, at first there would be just a carnivorous creature or a herbivorous creature or an omnivorous creature. Don't know what TOE says about the very first organism, what it was and what type of foods it could digest. Later this creature would evolve into a different type depending on the ecological conditions. So explain what sort of conditions should exist to create all the different types of creatures and such a balanced ecological system.

 

[Independent]

Please explain. Provide a logical step-by-step explanation how animals went from say one kind to the many different kind

In most of my replies I'm assuming a certain amount of basic knowledge about TOE. You really need to read some textbooks if you want that kind of detail.

Why should existence of only one type (carnivore or herbivore) support the creationist view but existence of the different types support the evolutionist view?

TOE predicts that, in the fullness of time, all available possibilities and niches will be explored. If you look at the world you find creatures not just in lush, easy environments but also the most extreme cold, hot, wet, dry, deep or shallow places. Absolutely everywhere possible. Many people make the mistake of thinking that evolution is on a course to 'higher' organisms (ultimately man). It isn't. It's simply filling all spaces available, whether that works with complex or simple creatures.

Why should existence of only one type (carnivore or herbivore) support the creationist view but existence of the different types support the evolutionist view

Firstly, it's believed land creatives evolved from sea creatures. In the sea, many creatures eat each other as well as minerals etc. But to answer your question specifically:

There could never be all carnivores and no herbivores because there is no energy input into the system, if all creatures are eating only other creatures. So this situation is impossible (except by continuous miracle).

You could have herbivores and no carnivores. Then the question would be, why have creatures failed to occupy the rich environmental niche of being a carnivore? We would need to discover some practical obstacle that's preventing it - but there isn't one. So if there were no carnivores, this would be a great challenge for TOE.

In a Creationist world, such limitations are meaningless. Any type of creature can exist, at any time, at any place. There is no need to 'wait' for certain charcteristics to be evolved, we can have humans from the start for instance.

In fact you might think that a 'moral' creationist world would deliberately avoid the apparent cruelty of one creature eating another. (In fact this specific issue greatly troubled Darwin himself: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. -- Letter to Asa Gray, 22 May 1860.)

So explain what sort of conditions should exist to create all the different types of creatures and such a balanced ecological system.

Different conditions favour different species but the most important limiting factor is that each stage of evolution must work with the material of what has already evolved (ie you can't walk on legs until you have already evolved bones, etc, etc).

You can see a general timeline here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Also an interesting article here: http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

 

[M.I.A.]

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. -- Letter to Asa Gray, 22 May 1860.

i Google'd it and found the letter,

its interesting, although i dont know how his thoughts develop later on.

seems like an intelligent man, did science just pick and choose what part of him they wanted to run with?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part10.html


...link in interest of humanising darwin. maybe even giving him a theistic side.

 

[Independent]

seems like an intelligent man, did science just pick and choose what part of him they wanted to run with?
...link in interest of humanising darwin. maybe even giving him a theistic side.

He is an interesting man and, as a scientist, outstandingly humane. He grew up a Christian but his faith weakened for the reasons described in your link. You can see how his thoughts don't stem from being aggressive towards religion, quite the opposite.

He delayed publication of 'Origins' for many years for fear of upsetting his wife, who was very devout and troubled by the implications of evolution on conventional religious thought at the time (a young Earth etc).

 

[جوري]

Does nature think? does it plan? does it move forward? They talk of 'nature' as if a creator that thinks and adds and subtracts..
it is very odd to read posts by these people and watch them substitute some force for a lesser force and conferring God like status upon it.
All the florid terminology comes apart from a few keywords!

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

if I remember rightly, there is a very good Islamic principle along the lines of not denying what has been shown to be factually the case. I believe that this situation will one day occur with TOE and that some people, who have made opposition almost an article of faith, might find this difficult.

But you didn't explain why the Creationist view would become/is untenable.

observer says:
It's been said over, and over, and over in this thread that evolution does not have all the answers, but it has a lot of evidence to point us in the right direction. At the end of the day, you either trust what scientists are telling us (99% of scientists) or you don't.

You also say that one day you believe TOE will become factual (although earlier you were confident that what is known currently 'proves that evolution has indeed taken place').

So the question is, why should Creationists abandon what they currently believe to be factual for something that might one day become factual? I finally checked to see what the video in the very first post was about. By the end of it, the interviewer illustrates how TOE boils down to a matter of belief, of simply trusting what the scientists are saying. Should we really abandon what God is saying for what humans are saying?

 

[Muhaba]

There could never be all carnivores and no herbivores because there is no energy input into the system, if all creatures are eating only other creatures. So this situation is impossible (except by continuous miracle).

You could have all carnivores but that would be the end of it. Soon, all animals would die out. Cells cannot think. They cannot consider the long-term effects that evolution can have. They cannot think that "we shouldn't all become carnivores because that would result in lack of energy input." According to TOE, Creatures would only be considering surviving in the current conditions.

Thus, all animals should've evolved to be carnivores because it would result in an increased source of food. Or more likely, as you say that all animals evolved from sea creatures and sea creatures which were "immediate ancestors" of the land creatures (according to TOE) were most likely carnivores, therefore all land creatures should also have been carnivores.

There should've also been cattle that were carnivores and lions, wolves that were herbivores. Furthermore, there should've been animals that could make food directly from sunlight through photosynthesis like plants do. That would aid their survival more. So why aren't there? Why did plants evolve to be able to make food using sunlight and animals didn't evolve as such?

 

[Independent]

You also say that one day you believe TOE will become factual (although earlier you were confident that what is known currently 'proves that evolution has indeed taken place').

I have tried to be precise in my statements and also to separate different types of evidence. One type of evidence is: this world has the appearance you would expect if TOE correct. The phylogenetics, the chronology, the geology etc etc. This is why most scientists are sure evolution has in fact taken place.

But the 'how' of evolution is not a finished subject. Creationists focus on the problems. They won't accept TOE until the how is complete in every detail, until every last 't' is crossed and 'i' is dotted.

As an analogy, think back to the time of Copernicus and Kepler. From the observed positions of the planets they constructed a theory that the planets rotated round the sun, not vice versa. But they didn't understand the 'how'. For that we had to wait until Newton.

Copernicus and Kepler should have been convincing enough. No other theory explained the data so well. Nevertheless, not everyone believed them. In time this position has become untenable and all but a few eccentrics now accept heliocentricity as a matter of indisputable fact.

In my view, this is parallel to the situation with TOE.

So the question is, why should Creationists abandon what they currently believe to be factual for something that might one day become factual?

Witholding judgement is fine. But many Creationists are going much further than that, even in this thread. They say Darwin is the devil, evolution is evil, and the whole thing is a secular conspiracy to overthrow religion. They routinely make personal attacks and question the integrity of the scientists involved. The opposition to TOE is as fierce as anything in history.

I finally checked to see what the video in the very first post was about. By the end of it, the interviewer illustrates how TOE boils down to a matter of belief, of simply trusting what the scientists are saying.

.
This video is a good example of how not to conduct a fair debate - hassling random people in the street. Make it a fair debate with willing participants, or leave it alone.

 

[Independent]

You could have all carnivores but that would be the end of it. Soon, all animals would die out. Cells cannot think. They cannot consider the long-term effects that evolution can have

You seriously have to read some evolutionary text books, you are not understanding the principles at all. Have a read of "The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins.

The key point is that the world is full of survivors. If a gene doesn't get a chance to replicate, it will cease to exist. Only successful strategies persist through the generations.

It is impossible for genes to 'decide' to be only carnivores. Nature eventually tries all permutations. If there were only carnivores, that would be evidence for Creationism.

Why did plants evolve to be able to make food using sunlight and animals didn't evolve as such?

I wouldn't be sure of the physics of it but I very much doubt that an animal could make enough energy from photosynthesis to enable movement etc.

 

[جوري]

If there were only carnivores, that would be evidence for Creationism.

I am curious as to how that rings true in your book?
There is no point whatsoever for more than one specie in existence and the end result should be one complete self sufficient being with no need for partner or replication...
you people just add more jambalaya to the stew as you go along I guess.
I'd actually recommend everyone read that God delusion and selfish gene by famed psychic Dawkins so they can be entertained and virtually amused- but I am curious as to your failure to synthesize his work to better elucidate your points.. Most of the time we spend it here listening to tall tales that can't be verified nor replicated!

best,

 

[Independent]

There is no point whatsoever for more than one specie in existence and the end result should be one complete self sufficient being with no need for partner or replication..

I have never seen any theory that predicts that outcome, in TOE or otherwise. Please give us details how you work that out.

 

[جوري]

I have never seen any theory that predicts that outcome, in TOE or otherwise. Please give us details how you work that out.

and did you not just predict the outcome yourself with this statement:

If there were only carnivores, that would be evidence for Creationism.

I can't fault you, you don't know what goes into the making of a single cell, let alone the making of an entirely noetic being with reticular function, that for every time 'nature' creates that being and makes a mistake it would have to start from scratch - I gave an example earlier if you took the time to read, simply adding the wrong ion in the wrong place or even a rate limiting step to the urea cycle would render that being dead and the process as enigmatic and orderly as it is would have to be restarted again, if I am to subscribe to that concept at all 'nature' after many trials and error would keep with the one tried and true creation and perfect it so it wouldn't lose all its work and start over and over again across millions upon millions of species suited for their environment.
I am astounded by this state of comatose torpor that the lot of you have when asked to work out a few details for us...

good luck with what you're selling

best,

 

[Independent]

There is no point whatsoever for more than one specie in existence and the end result should be one complete self sufficient being with no need for partner or replication...

Please take us through this theory, with the benefit of your enormous knowledge and qualifications. How would TOE result in a single non replicating being? It's a radical idea, i can't imagine how you worked it out?

 

[جوري]

Please take us through this theory, with the benefit of your enormous knowledge and qualifications. How would TOE result in a single non replicating being? It's a radical idea, i can't imagine how you worked it out?

:lol: at that hilarious reverse psychology and your petty attempts. I don't subscribe to TOE to work the details for you, the onus is on you when selling a product to tell us of its accolades not the other way around- we've simply peppered it with some of the necessary ingredients that you should add to your mix to make it quasi scientific!

best,

 

[Independent]

There is no point whatsoever for more than one specie in existence and the end result should be one complete self sufficient being with no need for partner or replication...

As a self professed expert in this field, you have made an unequivocal statement that 'the end result should be one complete self sufficient being with no need for partner or replication.'

Why?

 

[جوري]

As a self professed expert in this field,

My expertise is in medicine which is an actual science! TOE has no basis in reality unless we're speaking of adaptation, squamous cells becoming columnar not fish sprouting lungs and walking on lands!

you have made an unequivocal statement that 'the end result should be one complete self sufficient being with no need for partner or replication.'

Why?

And I have already stated why above. Try to read what is written so we're not constantly repeating ourselves!

best,