Creationism, Darwinism, or 'Other'?

nanoboy

nanoboy

Well-Known Member
The posters on this specialist forum clearly love animals, and have an above average interest in, and knowledge of, animals of all shapes and sizes.

What conclusions have you drawn about how animals came to be?

Maybe a supernatural in his/her/its infinite wisdom created them. How else can we explain the sheer number and diversity of species?

Or maybe animals evolved, as this could explain the cunning specialisations that animals have adapted to their specific environments?

Maybe the truth is a combination of both: a supernatural being that created animals and allows them to evolve on their own (like humans' version of "free will").

Or maybe you prefer panspermia (the theory that we are not alone in the universe, and life came to earth from other planets by hitching a ride through the cosmos on meteors)?

Or maybe you have a totally different theory entirely!

So how have your love and knowledge of animals influenced your opinion on their origins?
 
If you're looking to start a controversy, this will do it for sure.

As for myself, I try not to box myself in by having concrete decisions. I do believe in some sort of higher power. I am not sure what, if any, religion I fall in line with through. I feel it is foolish not to belive in evolution, as it is so obvious around us. But I also think it is foolish to belive in it 100%. I also think panspermia is an interesting theory that I would not count out. Or maybe there is something else not thought of.

If you have a concrete belief in something, you will never be able to change your ideas when new evidence appears, which it always will. The best example of this I can think of a hardcore religious fundamentalists.

Either this thread will die quickly, or become incredible violent. Lets find out which.
 
KCZooFan said:
If you're looking to start a controversy, this will do it for sure.

Either this thread will die quickly, or become incredible violent. Lets find out which.
Click to expand...

Nope, not interested in controversy. I am just genuinely interested in the views of forumites. I would hope that we are all mature enough to respect fellow posters' views, so I am guessing that it will not become violent. But let's see.

Cheers for posting your own thoughts, by the way.
 
nanoboy said:
Nope, not interested in controversy. I am just genuinely interested in the views of forumites. I would hope that we are all mature enough to respect fellow posters' views, so I am guessing that it will not become violent. But let's see.
Click to expand...

Clearly you aren't very familiar with this website :D
 
Technically panspermia would only explain the ultimate origins of life on earth... unless things like dinosaurs, elephants, sea cucumbers, redwoods, etc., were also hitching a ride on an asteriod. You'd still have to get from those primitive microbes to modern organisms by some other mechanism.

The theory of evolution best accounts for our present limited diversity of organism. By "limited diversity," I mean that while Earth is populated by a wide variety of plants, animals, fungi, and nigh uncountable microscopic organisms, strong, prevalent patterns of limitations appear. For example, you never find things like griffons. Land vertebrates never have six limbs. Tetrapods (all vertebrates that aren't 'fish': mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians) always have four limbs or fewer, as their name implies. Those with fewer limbs all have relatives, either living or fossil, that possess more limbs, up to the maximum of four.

If, for example, alien geneticists were busily assembling Earth's organisms from scratch, they could have easily made griffons and other chimeras if they wished. But an evolutionary process has more limitations, and a tetrapod with six functional limbs is a huge hurdle to leap. This is because an organism like a tetrapod, and even insects and spiders for that matter, have pretty much locked their basic form down genetically. Contrast an insect with a centipede, for example. Insects have three main body segments; centipedes have a variable number of body segments. In insects, each segment has a particular function; in centipedes, the end segments are specialized, (especially the head, for obvious reasons), but the middle sections are basically copy-paste modules that can be added or removed without affecting the overall function of the organism much. A modular organism like a centipede could add an extra set of limbs rather easily; an ant or lizard couldn't.

Okay, I got kind of ramble-y toward the end there. Better call it quits before I go into a full-blown lecture.

Edit: Almost forgot to add. Regarding the ultimate origins of life on Earth: the theory of evolution does not address that directly. We currently don't have a reliable theory of abiogenesis yet, but I occasional joke that life originated on Earth while hitchhiking on a time-traveler's boot.
 
I think that animals evolved, but there are still problems with the current theory. Hopefully, new fossils will bridge some of the gaps in our knowledge.

I have read several books covering different aspects of the debate. Some of these are written by scientists who give reasoned arguments about why they believe in special creation or intelligent design, rather than evolution. I'm afraid that some of the other books are dishonest. Basically, they say there are two ways in which life could have come into being - evolution or creation, as written in the Bible, thus disregarding all other religions. Then, they pick holes in various parts of the evolutionary theory and state, "Now we have disproved evolution, the Biblical account of creation must be correct and everyone must accept every word in the Bible." This is hardly a scientific argument, as the authors allow no critique of the Bible.

Despite this, there are some points to ponder. One of the main ones is how a reconstruction of an animal can be made from a tooth or a small bone. An oft quoted mistake involved a picture of a family of Nebraska people (Hesperopithecus hardcooki) based on a tooth, which was later identified as a peccary tooth. While I like seeing reconstuctions of obscure extinct animals (I saw my first picture of the Antarctic marsupial, Polydolops, on Wednesday), it is risky to say what an animal looked like, when fossil material is scarce. I saw the Iguanodon models at Crystal Palace in May, complete with a nose horn, which was really a thumb bone. One religious book showed reconstructions of 'Zinjanthropus' in various scientific books. These showed an animal that looked like a chimp and another animal that looked like a man with a large lower jaw. At least one of the reconstructions must have been incorrect, but too few books mention that a reconstruction is speculative.

Similarly, scientific books and programmes need to be proof-read. Mammals didn't evolve from reptiles, nor did they evolve from dicynodonts, which are only distantly related to cynodonts. I'm afraid I've seen similar mistakes in several worthy tomes and if scientists can't get their facts right, they can fall prey to clever religious scientists.

As an end piece, some of the students at my college had a tutorial about how 'living fossils' prove evolution. While evolution can be used to explain why a species has survived unchanged in a relatively stable environment, a species that has remained unchanged for millions of years could also be used to prove special creation.
 
Dassie rat said:
As an end piece, some of the students at my college had a tutorial about how 'living fossils' prove evolution. While evolution can be used to explain why a species has survived unchanged in a relatively stable environment, a species that has remained unchanged for millions of years could also be used to prove special creation.
Click to expand...

Even so, our understanding of "living fossils" is limited and changing
Cycads are not 'dinosaur plants' after all | COSMOS magazine
 
I do not want to be controversial, but having been a science teacher for 37 years I feel I must comment here. I simply recommend everyone to read the books of Richard Dawkins; if you have already done so, I can also recommend rereading them :)

Alan
 
Seconding gentle lemur's recommendation, The Greatest Show on Earth especially. A great crash course on the topic. The Ancestor's Tale is high up on my To-Read list right now as well, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
 
Creationism, Darwinism or 'Other'

Thanks Zooplantman for the article about cycads.

I must admit that I have some admiration for 'living fossils' that thrive nar humans. Years ago, I had a connversation with the cockroach expert at the Natural History Museum and I'm not too bothered when I see silverfish in my flat.

While I tend to admire Richard Dawkins, I must admit that he can be just as dogmatic as some of the religious people he castigates. I enjoyed the concept of 'The Ancestor's Tale', although I felt that some of the tales had little to do with the creatures listed and were more a chance for Dawkins to vent his spleen against people he disliked. Despite this, he has done a good job at making biology accessible to the general populace.
 
Off topic but; in the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy, the answer to life the universe and everything is 42, I once had it explained to me why Douglas Adams concluded this, but have since forgotten. Can anyone re-enlighten me. Something to do with energy I think?
 
Ned said:
Off topic but; in the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy, the answer to life the universe and everything is 42, I once had it explained to me why Douglas Adams concluded this, but have since forgotten. Can anyone re-enlighten me. Something to do with energy I think?
Click to expand...

The only explanation I've ever seen him give was that is was chosen for being 'an ordinary, unremarkable number - the sort of number you could safely take home to meet your mother'. I don't think it has any special significance.

I do love the conceit that the reason the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything makes no sense is that we don't know what the Ultimate Question is.

I'm a long-standing Adams fan; the creation of the Universe by being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseisure, causing its Jatravartid worshippers to live in perpetual fear of a time called 'The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief' is by far my favourite Creation story. :D
 
Thanks, the irrelevancy of the number does sound very Adams. I've since googled the question and found a book called '42: Douglas Adams' Amazingly Accurate Answer to Life, the Universe and life and everything' which is winging it's way to me from Amazon for the sum of 50p, 8p more than 42p.
 
Re: the Ultimate Answer
I've also heard it said, though I can't remember the source, that its part of the theme of the universe as an arbitrary, nonsensical bureaucracy. See also, the Vogons.
 
I will totally vouch for Dawkin's the Ancestor's Tale. Well worth the read. Nothing of his non-religous beliefs are stated for those who want to stay clear of that aspect.
 
I think you can't DISPROVE that there's a creator. Unfortunately if you believe that the life we see around us couldn't have been created except by a creator, then you have to ask who created the creator, as surely a being complex enough to create all creation couldn't have happened by chance themselves?

Similar on panspermia: I find it quite feasable, but it still doesn't answer how life got started in the first place.

I think scientists are getting quite close now to how life could have got started. The chemistry is a bit beyond me, but I think they think rna might have come before dna now or something, and maybe the first 'cells' were actually water bubbles in ice or something? Anyway sounds like they are getting somewhere with it.

Dawkins: I've read River Out Of Eden and Climbing Mount Improbably, which are both good. Can't comment or compare on the rest of his.
 
I think it is funny. Only Creationists use the term Darwinism, like we evolutionists actually worship Chucky D.
 
I'm a Darwinist Athiest



gentle lemur said:
I do not want to be controversial, but having been a science teacher for 37 years I feel I must comment here. I simply recommend everyone to read the books of Richard Dawkins; if you have already done so, I can also recommend rereading them :)

Alan
Click to expand...

Plus one!!! :D
 
Maguari said:
I do love the conceit that the reason the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything makes no sense is that we don't know what the Ultimate Question is.
Click to expand...

The Ultimate Question is "What is six times nine"

From Wikipedia (and Adams work):
At the end of the first radio series (and television series, as well as the novel The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) Arthur Dent, having escaped the Earth's destruction, potentially has some of the computational matrix in his brain. He attempts to discover The Ultimate Question by extracting it from his brainwave patterns, as abusively suggested by Marvin the Paranoid Android, when a Scrabble-playing caveman spells out forty two. Arthur pulls random letters from a bag, but only gets the sentence "What do you get if you multiply six by nine"?
“ "Six by nine. Forty two."
"That's it. That's all there is."
"I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe"
Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I share your favorite Creation Story. Hopefully we can successfully conserve some of the wonderful species and ecosystems on Earth before the Great White Handkerchief comes to get us all.
 
I believe that everything was created by God, the one and only God. But animals, plants, and humans adapted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top