Evolution

[blueroseking]

Is natural selection (Some people developing wisdom teeth, and others not etc.) The same thing as Evolution, is it natures way of experimenting, then changing genetic code acordingly?

[whowhatwhy]

Natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs. I could try to explain here but I won't since Darwin put so perfectly! Get yourself a copy of 'Origin of Species' from amazon, link below. Don't worry, it's actually a tiny book that can be read in an afternoon, it's easy to read and understand even from the point of view of a complete layman and yet it explains some of the most amazing and complex inter-relationships that exist. Everyone should read this book at school instead of 'Cider with Rosie' as I was forced to read years ago!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Species-Means-N atural-Selection/dp/0140432051/sr=1-7/qid=1169 685151/ref=sr_1_7/202-6611160-5134260?ie=UTF8& s=books

[mibn2cweus]

. . . and while your waiting for your copy to arrive the entire text is now widely available for reading on-line at no extra charge!

[Loosehead]

As above Natural selection is natures way of testing it's creations in the harshest game of all, survival. Over thousands generations, the sucessful patterns get to propegate and reinforce their attributes, the less sucessful ones do not get to breed and become genetic dead ends. For example take birds of prey, they all have amazing eyesight because if they didn't they'd starve, so the need for good eyesight is continually reinforced by breeding.

[kwicky]

Why do we have to choose between creationism and Darwinism? Would it be possible for a creator to bring the world into being and then use the principles of Darwin to continue the process?
For instance, thinking laterally, if a programmer produces a program this can be modified later by others to give other functions.

[mibn2cweus]

. . . How can you have a creator before you have a world in which he/she/it/whatever could come into existence?

[chakka35]

We choose because evolution is logical, it makes sense, it explains things very satisfactorily and there is a mass of evidence to support it.
Creationism is illogical, it makes no sense, it explains nothing and there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
One is observed science; the other is mere superstitious speculation.

[kwicky]

If you look from a pets point of view humans must seem like a god to them. If you take a horse why should it obey commands from a human a fraction of their size.
Then why do we assume we are the most intelligent beings in the universe. There is (was) a creator that possessed far greater intelligence and knowledge that we cannot grasp. This is not superstition but just the results of its handiwork which any reasonable person would say could not be the result of random mutations.

[mibn2cweus]

Randomness, like god, is not an attribute of reality, but a failure to grasp the causal chain due to a lack of knowledge of all the cause and effect relationships that lead up to an event or state of being. Inventing 'god' to fill this void does nothing to explain or provide the necessary knowledge to fill this void so that a rational understanding can take place.
Rationality demands that we accept the limited scope of our knowledge rather than turning aside from the only process that leads to it, reason.

[kwicky]

We are only capable of seeing in 3 dimensions + time. When we are capable of extending our understanding we will find there are extra dimensions that will answer many of todays perplexing problems.

[whowhatwhy]

we are currently aware of the possibility of there being an infinite number of dimensions, this does not answer any of 'today's perplexing problems', it poses even more infinitely challenging problems! Read Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku.

But the only rational, human way of dealing with this conundrum is to use reason and knowledge to fill these gaps as best we can in order to make some sense of it all. The real problem is that we are not sure what questions we should be asking ourselves, not actually achieving the definitive answers.

In the meant time I agree whole heartedly with mibn2cweus, there's not point filling this knowledge gap with a God and being done with it. In many ways it is neither here nor there as to weather a God exists, what's important is that you and I exist, right now.

[kwicky]

I don't think it's right that because we do not understand how we came to be what we are, there is just one answer. We should keep an open mind!
The word God puts off many non believers and even scientists and I would prefer not to use it. If there was a creator they would need to possess greater intelligence than ourselves, not too hard to imagine. I know this leads on up the tree to how was he created and so on in a linear fashion but anyone who has studied recursion techniques will see a different viewpoint.

[whowhatwhy]

I have. I know all the arguments and we are all being open minded here. I have not said that I believe there not to be a God....purely that, in my world...it is an irrelevant concept to labour over. I rather keep looking for answers through measurable, tangible & rational methods. I do not have a problem with weather or not a god exists, my issues arise more from 'religious' texts and the people who faithfully (blindly) follow the mantra of a old book over all other reason.