Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only


Evolution vs Creation posted 08 April 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Jamara, Auditor

Quote: "Sokar":3cmvae5u
I wonder if you would have said that let's say 500 years ago... Must I remind you of Galileo..?
Let's face it..when religion loses its grip it adapts itself to the new views..that must be the reason for all this plurality within Christianity..never mind other religions...
In any case..religion and science can indeed go together..there are a bunch of Vatican scholars... Yet, I doubt their function is anything else than to keep their power over the masses and in an age where we value 'technological progress', they have no other choice than to find some way for credibility in the public.
I'll give you an example..the Orthodox Greeks were protesting when the barcodes(?) came up on the packages of food and the priests were the reason.. Or the stance of the Catholics towards condoms... Yes they did their own research and found that the AIDS virus can go through the condom..but why preach the use of it being absolutely unnecessary..?

You are right of course..they don't have to be a duality..but they are![/quote:3cmvae5u]

First let me respond to this. I never said religion. I said spirituality. I find it very hard for religions, or at least current religions, to coincide with science or embrace it. That is because religions are based on doctrines, dogma, and set beliefs which can not easily be changed (changing religious beliefs usually require many deaths). Spirituality is much different from religion. There is a classic (and if it isn't it should be) Kevin Smith qoute via Chris Rock, "mankind got it all wrong by taking a good idea and building a belief structure . . . you can change and idea, it's trickier changing a belief. People die for beliefs." To me, the underlining difference between religion and spirituality is that the first relies on structured beliefs, whereas the other relies on good ideas.

Okay, back to evolution. I was just reading a site which pretty much explained why intelligent people arguing against evolution (or at least evolution as a fact) have a problem understanding just what evolution is. The site gave examples of entries in various dictionaries, including the Oxford Concise Scientific Dictionary, which would be available to the layman or non-biological scientists. The entry in the Oxford dictionary was heinous. But it got me to thinking that if opponents of evolution were using these definitions as their understanding of evolution, then that was why there was so much misunderstanding out there.

It is very hard to concisely define evolution. But here is one of the best definitions; "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

This in essence, though there are some points which can be quibbled over, is what evolution is. It is not the "advancement from lower to greater, lesser to superior", it is the heritable change in allele (one of two or more alternative forms of a gene occupying the same position on a chromosome) frequencies over several generations.

Non-biblical arguement below:
Homo sapiens were originally black. They evolved in an area of high sunlight frequency. High melatonin levels in the skin granted a natural sun-screen as well as relfected the heat of the sun rather than absorb it. As man spread throughout the world, they entered into regions of differing climates. In the northern areas, now known as Europe, the sun was less predominant. This led to two things, the first being that those individuals who spent less energy on producing melatonin could spend more energy on feeding and procreating. The other factor is that skin produces vitamin D by absorption of sunrays. Now if your skin is high in melatonin, then you are reflecting what little sunrays are reaching you and thus producing less vitamin D. With these two aspects, we see how Homo sapien caucasian evolved in Europe. The lighter skinned offspring weren't wasting energy on producing abundant amounts of melatonin (energy not wasted means less comsumption of energy [less time hunting and eating] and more time for mating; more time for mating means more expression of personal genes within a gene pool. The more offspring produced in g1 means even more secondary-offspring in g2, which means even more tertiary-offspring in g3, etc...). And, those same lighter pigmented Homo sapiens are generating more vitamin D than their darker pigmented kin (vitamin D is important in bone formation and the immunosupression system, among other things).

There existed alleles which allowed for lighter skin pigmentation, but when in african regions, these were recessive and selected against (or if they weren't, then the recessive offspring simply didn't do as well as their darker pigmented kin). But when Homo sapiens spread into less "sunny" regions, these recessive traits actually arose as traits which would be selected for (or at least would allow their possessors to mate with a higher frequency). And that is exactly what evolution is. It is the heritable change in allele frequency within a population over several generations.

Evolution is not becomig something better or more specialized or more advanced, it is simply the heritable change in allele (gene) frequencies within a population. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown