Anybody Want to Argue Evolution vs "Intelligent Design"?

If you talk to biologists, you will hear from them that the kinks have been worked out. Everything is pretty much known.

Also, gravity is still referred to as a theory. I don’t see anyone saying that it doesn’t exist though.

Yes. You are wrong. Evolution isn’t a choice, which is what you imply. Evolution is simple. A bird lays eggs. Two birds come out. One has a small beak one has a long beak. Neither chose to have that beak size. When they both go out to eat worms, they find that the worms are deeper in the ground. The bird with the longer beak will be able to eat more worms, thus be healthier, thus live longer and thus be able to procreate. Because children inherit characteristics from parents, it is likely that the longer beak will be passed on to the younger children.

Naturally, the bird with the shorter beak has died off. It couldn’t eat, thus wasn’t healthy, thus couldn’t procreate. Neither bird changed to their environment. Their environment was presented before them and what they were born with either helped them survive or didn’t.

Sure, many people have tried to make that argument. The problem is that there is no evidence of that occurring. So instead of just believing what may or may not have happened, people that are smart are saying they just don’t know.

Ugh. Yes, it is all by chance. That is one of the reasons why Darwin didn’t like the word evolution. Too many people to take it to mean that it was some sort of decision that animals made. Every single form of evolution has been by chance. Arguing otherwise means you really don’t understand the concept.

 

Can't Genesis be an allegory? If you don't accept that it is literally true (maybe it took 6 million years, not six days) then it's not far to say that God created the earth but that he planned for species to evolve through evolution.

And there are plenty enough examples of people turning against God's word in the Bible for it all to have to hinge on Adam and Eve.

 

Pastor, Pastor, Pastor. We've argued this before.
I understand evolution quite well. I took a class on it in college (and got an 'A').
Mutation occurs by chance, yes. But the mechanism of natural selection means evolution doesn't. There is a difference. A mechanism that is pretty efficient at making sure that only those beneficial changes are carried on takes chance out of the equation. The experts agree on this.

 

So, which part is intentional? The bird will naturally grow a longer beak because it is needed or will the bird grow a longer beak as a freak of nature only to have the food supply short and thus it becomes a benefit?

It is a series of random occurrences. Nothing more.

 

Are you reading my words? I'm not saying ANYTHING is intentional. I'm just saying (and even what you are writing agrees) that is isn't random that the bird that had the chance mutation of the longer beak survived. It's a function of the mechanism of natural selection.
To put it another way, it is not my choice that I'm six feet tall. That is because of my genes. However, it is not random that I am not in the NBA. There is a mechanism to ensure the best players get to that level. It selects for those who can play (and are taller, faster, stronger, better shooters, etc.).
There is some randomness involved at the start, but it's not a coincidence that Yao Ming is there and I'm not.

 

Don't let Pastor get you. Can't you tell he's being sarcastic?

 

You can't exactly compare getting a job (playing in the NBA) with obtaining the essentials to live.

The reason that the longer beak works out this year when last year the shorter beak was fine could be due to a colder season. The worms dig deeper to stay warm. (I have no idea whether worms want warm or cold. But in my analogy they do.)

You, and I, aren't in the NBA because we chose not to practice basketball. We chose, instead, to do homework and study harder. It would be the equivalent of the bird with the shorter beak, having found the worms too far down, flying to a new location to get food. The shorter beak bird would still survive, it would just not longer survive in Alaska.

 

The fact that we're discussing the Book of Genesis, the theory of evolution and a career in the NBA on the same thread is, well, pure comedy.

 

So you'd be in the NBA if you had practised baskeball?

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

Stephon Marbury wasn't born with a basketball in his hand. He practised. He played often. However, the NBA isn't something comparable to the idea of evolution.

 

For once, Old Tony and I agree. That's always been my contention. Maybe God really did create the heavens and the Earth, but he did it via the Big Bang, evolution, etc., etc. Science and faith don't have to be mutually exclusive. Only people make it so.

 

I oversimplified it, yes, but is it that different? I'm talking about genetics. That is what evolution is about.
Tall people have tall children. Athletic parents have athletic kids. They carry on those traits.
It's the same in nature. But unlike society, which prevents the weak from being wiped out, natural selection helps the stronger thrive.
So, to an extent, a certain trait helping a species survive is like the fact that Kobe's father played in the NBA made it more likely he would.
In nature, the goal is to survive. In my analogy, the goal is to reach the NBA. In both cases, those better equipped due to their DNA have a huge advantage.