[Bibbi]

Axeman Axeman:

tritium tritium:

This comic is pretty hilarious. If you don’t quite understand it, though I doubt that’s many people here, it’s basically poking fun at intelligent design. You’re not allowed to teach religion in school so Christians have presented intelligent design as a “comparable theory” to darwinian evolution to get around that.

...the difference being that "Intelligent Design" is a theory and evolution is a "Fact".

It comes down really to which of the two is most illogical. The problem with random evolution is that it implies that we are the only humans in the whole universe. That is equivalent to the old fashioned notion that the earth was the centre of the universe, which was quickly proven laughable. It is a more religious belief than creationism!

"Intelligent design" may imply some apparent logic in the process, but jumping from there to creationism seems to be over a considerable gap. If evolution can be recreated because it is "intelligent design" then that would explain the possibility of extraterrestials, but since the design is "intelligent", it would imply that all humans would look alike including extraterrestials. Not very logical.

The likelyhood is that extra-terrestials will NOT look like us, which rules out "intelligent design" and the "created in the likeness of God" belief. On the other hand if evolution is random, then it cannot explain the existence of any other humanoids than us in the universe, irrespective of their look. That is equally illogical.

So, both are wrong. We don't have the answer yet, or even a logical hypothesis.

[roger-roger]

Who says evolution is random, I think you understanding of evolution is flawed.

[roger-roger]

Bibbi Bibbi:

It comes down really to which of the two is most illogical. The problem with random evolution is that it implies that we are the only humans in the whole universe. That is equivalent to the old fashioned notion that the earth was the centre of the universe, which was quickly proven laughable. It is a more religious belief than creationism!

Bibbi you have some explaining to do about his statment.

[Bibbi]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Who says evolution is random, I think you understanding of evolution is flawed.

My understanding of the theory of evolution is that gradual changes in the environment, food chain, and other needs of animals lead to "adaptations" and changes at the genetic level causing the species to change its characteristics and "evolve" in order to survive.

Since there are by definition, one heck of a lot of variables involved in this process, I don't see how it can be anything but random.

By the way, the creationists would say that if it not random then it must be "intelligent design".

So, what am I missing here?

[roger-roger]

Bibbi Bibbi:

Since there are by definition, one heck of a lot of variables involved in this process, I don't see how it can be anything but random.

You were good up until this point. Evolution is an extremely slow process, and the evolutionary change in an animal is in response to specific changes in environment. Its hard for me to list sources to help explain this from work, but when I get home I will try and throw up some videos for you. In the mean time if you surf YouTube for videos on evolution, I think ExodantDodo (sp) has some good, but pretty technical videos. Also, do a search for the evolution of the eye, its extremely interesting!

[Axeman]

Bibbi Bibbi:

My understanding of the theory of evolution is that gradual changes in the environment, food chain, and other needs of animals lead to "adaptations" and changes at the genetic level causing the species to change its characteristics and "evolve" in order to survive.

Since there are by definition, one heck of a lot of variables involved in this process, I don't see how it can be anything but random.

By the way, the creationists would say that if it not random then it must be "intelligent design".

So, what am I missing here?

Virtually EVERYTHING. Your understanding is completely wrong. Animals don't "adapt and change". They die if they can't live in the environment. Only the ones that can survive the environment survive. Their genetic traits are, therefore, "selected" to perpetuate. You're employing the "stretching giraffe necks" fallacy. You need to do some reading. I suggest Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors".

[Axeman]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

You were good up until this point.

No she wasn't. She got it COMPLETELY wrong. Animals don't change. Their offspring do.

[Bibbi]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Bibbi Bibbi:

It comes down really to which of the two is most illogical. The problem with random evolution is that it implies that we are the only humans in the whole universe. That is equivalent to the old fashioned notion that the earth was the centre of the universe, which was quickly proven laughable. It is a more religious belief than creationism!

Bibbi you have some explaining to do about his statment.

Well, if the genetic adaptations over thousands of years to changes in the environment led to the evolution of the species then reproducing those exact changes over centuries on Earth would be impossible on a different planet at a different distance from a different sun, with different gases and structure and different climate.

If the conditions that led to evolution of the species cannot be replicated, then there seem to be only a few possibilities when we are talking about another planet. No evolution and therefore no humans. Evolution to different animal forms. Evolution to species that are not easy to define.

If you believe in evolution, it follows that the only way that by definition animals can evolve into man is by means of the variety of conditions that existed and now exist on Earth. Therefore unless the exact same conditions existed somewhere else in the universe at the same time there would be no humans as the same end result.

[roger-roger]

Whats wrong with that? Why should Homosapiens be on other planets?

[Axeman]

Bibbi Bibbi:

Well, if the genetic adaptations over thousands of years to changes in the environment led to the evolution of the species then reproducing those exact changes over centuries on Earth would be impossible on a different planet at a different distance from a different sun, with different gases and structure and different climate.

If the conditions that led to evolution of the species cannot be replicated, then there seem to be only a few possibilities when we are talking about another planet. No evolution and therefore no humans. Evolution to different animal forms. Evolution to species that are not easy to define.

If you believe in evolution, it follows that the only way that by definition animals can evolve into man is by means of the variety of conditions that existed and now exist on Earth. Therefore unless the exact same conditions existed somewhere else in the universe at the same time there would be no humans as the same end result.

Now with that post, you've gotten nearly everything RIGHT.

[raydan]

I have a problem with the "ET brought life to earth" theory.

Lets suppose that it's true and extra-terrestrials did bring life to earth.

If that's true, how did life start on that planet... other extra-terrestrials.
So this theory doesn't solve a thing because at one point, life started on some planet by another method...

[roger-roger]

Axeman Axeman:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

You were good up until this point.

No she wasn't. She got it COMPLETELY wrong. Animals don't change. Their offspring do.

Thats pretty much semantics, I am sure she didnt think that animals spontaneously mutate to adapt to their environment.

[roger-roger]

raydan raydan:

I have a problem with the "ET brought life to earth" theory.

Lets suppose that it's true and extra-terrestrials did bring life to earth.

If that's true, how did life start on that planet... other extra-terrestrials.
So this theory doesn't solve a thing because at one point, life started on some planet by another method...

Thats why most people dont like that theory, Dawkins speaks a great deal about the logical fallacy of the 'seeding' theory.

[Axeman]

raydan raydan:

I have a problem with the "ET brought life to earth" theory.

Lets suppose that it's true and extra-terrestrials did bring life to earth.

If that's true, how did life start on that planet... other extra-terrestrials.
So this theory doesn't solve a thing because at one point, life started on some planet by another method...

ET didn't bring life to this planet, if ET is a higher order creature. We KNOW that life on earth evolved from simple molecules...ALL life on earth (plant, animal, microbe, virus) have a common ancestor. It's extraordinarily unlikely that plants evolved from a complex multi-celled animal. If you mean "ET" to be a particle, or atom from which life evolved, then you're correct. All the atoms in all lifeforms on earth were once contained in stars.

[Axeman]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Thats pretty much semantics, I am sure she didnt think that animals spontaneously mutate to adapt to their environment.

I don't read it that way, Eis. She said that "animals adapt to their environment" which sounds an aweful lot like "giraffes reaching for high leaves stretch their necks, making them taller."