Evolutionary Debate

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 1 of 20

I am a non-scientific layman. I think in simple terms.

I had trouble with basic biology in High School, because my teacher kept telling me that viruses weren't alive, and that seemed wrong to me for reasons I couldn't completely explain.

Anyhow, I'm not a scientist. I don't claim any special understanding of the scientific process.

But I frequently find debate here about evolution. Some people argue it exists, other people argue it doesn't exist. Some people divide evolution up into 'macro' and 'micro' and dissect it thus. A lot of the arguments on both sides don't make a lot of sense to me.

I remember that in my frustrating biology class in High School, a small-scale example of evolution was presented to us. There were some light-colored moths in a forest. Then a factory started up near the forest. Soot from the factory turned all the trees dark. After a few years, the moths in the forest were all dark-colored.

The explanation was that all the light-colored moths got eaten (because their coloration made them stand out) and some random dark-colored moths proliferated (because their coloration allowed them to blend in) and so a species of light colored moths 'evolved' into a species of dark-colored moths.

This made sense to me. I could also imagine how, if other random traits came to determine the life-or-death of the moth, these traits might become the basis for new kinds of moths that we have never seen before. Like maybe a mutant moth with more aerodynamic wings could fly from danger faster, and thus survive to breed an entire species of aerodynamic moths.

But there are other things that make me wonder. There are insects that look like leaves or twigs, and this strikes me as much more complicated than light or dark colored moths. I am forced to wonder how many random mutations need to occur in a particular order to make an insect look exactly like a leaf. Or a twig. I mean, it seems rather improbable to me. It'd make a lot more sense if the insect could look at a twig and say, "Hey, I bet if I looked like a twig, I wouldn't get eaten." And then if it could somehow, over countless generations, WILL itself to become a twig... Well, that would feel more right. But an insect can't will the final result of its evolution. It's all supposed to be random. And so it seems like startlingly good luck for an insect to look like a twig. And this good luck seems to happen a lot.

I've heard of something called 'Intelligent Design' and have wondered if this sensation is the one that they're trying to capture. You know, the sensation that someone was WILLING the insect to look like a twig. Because it it was someone's active will, then the amazing good luck would be a lot more plausible.

So, I guess I'm in a tough spot on this evolution thing. Because while the basic concept of evolution makes a lot of sense to me, some of the end-results of evolution seem bloody unlikely.

Now, I believe in God, but I don't have any particular inclination as to how God operates. If he does his work by evolving his creatures, that's his business. The Bible says the world was a done deal in six days, but I don't need to take that at face value. I know too much about how the Bible came to be, and that certain books were included or excluded or edited or oddly translated at various points in history. At best, the Bible is the Will of God as Filtered through the Minds of a Thousand Idiots over the course of Millenia. I kind of just hope that the central themes survived intact.

On the other hand, I don't have anything AGAINST the idea that God Zapped things into being, and then provided them with a mechanism for adaptation called evolution. That way they wouldn't be like computers: Hopelessly outdated and doomed to replacement after a few short years. Rather, they could gradually become better.

I guess what I really want to know is this...

Is the entire community of Fireflyfans divided into "Evolution is It!" and "Evolution is Sacriligeous Crap?!"

I mean,

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm of the "it don't matter, 'cause we're here now" group, the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" group, and the "I don't believe in God" group, so there you have it.

Now, I'm just gonna set my lawn chair up over here and watch.

And no, Anthony, you're not retarded.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

AnthonyT-

Now, I believe in God, but I don't have any particular inclination as to how God operates. If he does his work by evolving his creatures, that's his business. The Bible says the world was a done deal in six days, but I don't need to take that at face value. I know too much about how the Bible came to be, and that certain books were included or excluded or edited or oddly translated at various points in history. At best, the Bible is the Will of God as Filtered through the Minds of a Thousand Idiots over the course of Millenia. I kind of just hope that the central themes survived intact.

---

i know ill get critized for this, but i believe the bible is the word of GOd(no point in debating, only time will tell). so that being said..

the Bible says that man is in a fallen state, a temporary, material state, where we are subject to lower level energies of negative influences. the significance of Jesus claiming to be God is that we will eventually be redeemed, to an immortal state, free from the cycle of death and decay of this age(which Lucifer is prince of). the zodiac actually tells this same story as the gospel- so to me, there is obviously some relation to horoscopes/numerology/lay lines etc- which leads me to believe that it cannot be discounted that real spiritual shifts or energy zones exist throughout the universe(and that this knowledge is known and held secretive by the elite, to mentally supress us us). the freemasons definately believe in these things, which is evident in that washington DC and the original cities of the revolution are built upon these lines.. and whose occult origins directly relate to the Enochian mystical doctrines and other polytheistic practices that go way back to Babylon, Egypt, and all this highly archetypical old world esoterism. what ties this all together are the references to the Sun god(Osiris), and a variety of Greek(and other) mythology in AMerican and European governments, as we are the ancestors of the pagan cultures, and have chosen to carry the proverbial torch of lucifer for this millenium.

i just think its crazy to throw out all of this anceint history, especially as it relates to 'gods', creation et al.. because there IS a conspiracy to turn AMerica into the "new Atlantis", and bring about their global new world order(of lucifer). the masonic and more illuminous new age philosophies share this common theme, which the secret societies have been working towards since the Templars, which is to seize upon this upcoming cycle of enlightenment to prepare for, and create their material Eden on earth(on the corpses of the old world and 2/3 of its population)to coincide with this new age(possibly aquarian).

anyways the theory of evolution contradicts this mess of historical speculation im talking about, and i personally feel that there is real profound truth there (but thats just my opinion)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I am a non-scientific layman. I think in simple terms.

I had trouble with basic biology in High School, because my teacher kept telling me that viruses weren't alive, and that seemed wrong to me for reasons I couldn't completely explain.

Anyhow, I'm not a scientist. I don't claim any special understanding of the scientific process.

But I frequently find debate here about evolution. Some people argue it exists, other people argue it doesn't exist. Some people divide evolution up into 'macro' and 'micro' and dissect it thus. A lot of the arguments on both sides don't make a lot of sense to me.

I remember that in my frustrating biology class in High School, a small-scale example of evolution was presented to us. There were some light-colored moths in a forest. Then a factory started up near the forest. Soot from the factory turned all the trees dark. After a few years, the moths in the forest were all dark-colored.

The explanation was that all the light-colored moths got eaten (because their coloration made them stand out) and some random dark-colored moths proliferated (because their coloration allowed them to blend in) and so a species of light colored moths 'evolved' into a species of dark-colored moths.

This made sense to me. I could also imagine how, if other random traits came to determine the life-or-death of the moth, these traits might become the basis for new kinds of moths that we have never seen before. Like maybe a mutant moth with more aerodynamic wings could fly from danger faster, and thus survive to breed an entire species of aerodynamic moths.

But there are other things that make me wonder. There are insects that look like leaves or twigs, and this strikes me as much more complicated than light or dark colored moths. I am forced to wonder how many random mutations need to occur in a particular order to make an insect look exactly like a leaf. Or a twig. I mean, it seems rather improbable to me. It'd make a lot more sense if the insect could look at a twig and say, "Hey, I bet if I looked like a twig, I wouldn't get eaten." And then if it could somehow, over countless generations, WILL itself to become a twig... Well, that would feel more right. But an insect can't will the final result of its evolution. It's all supposed to be random. And so it seems like startlingly good luck for an insect to look like a twig. And this good luck seems to happen a lot.

I've heard of something called 'Intelligent Design' and have wondered if this sensation is the one that they're trying to capture. You know, the sensation that someone was WILLING the insect to look like a twig. Because it it was someone's active will, then the amazing good luck would be a lot more plausible.

So, I guess I'm in a tough spot on this evolution thing. Because while the basic concept of evolution makes a lot of sense to me, some of the end-results of evolution seem bloody unlikely.

Now, I believe in God, but I don't have any particular inclination as to how God operates. If he does his work by evolving his creatures, that's his business. The Bible says the world was a done deal in six days, but I don't need to take that at face value. I know too much about how the Bible came to be, and that certain books were included or excluded or edited or oddly translated at various points in history. At best, the Bible is the Will of God as Filtered through the Minds of a Thousand Idiots over the course of Millenia. I kind of just hope that the central themes survived intact.

On the other hand, I don't have anything AGAINST the idea that God Zapped things into being, and then provided them with a mechanism for adaptation called evolution. That way they wouldn't be like computers: Hopelessly outdated and doomed to replacement after a few short years. Rather, they could gradually become better.

I guess what I really want to know is this...

Is the entire community of Fireflyfans divided into "Evolution is It!" and "Ev

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME