I think it was pretty clear that there are no supported alternatives and an infinite number of unsupported ones.
Well, I didn’t mean that Linnaeus set out to destroy phylogenetic trees (which, as you note, are a relatively recent invention). More like his scheme, and the continued adherence to it, have caused all manner of confusion and misrepresentation regarding the relationships of various groups. Thus we have the mistaken perception that reptiles “became” birds, or “became” mammals. The logical leap required to understand the transition from, for example, “reptile” to “bird” is much greater when they are considered separate-but-equal ranks than when one considers the actual hierarchy of those groups.
Yes, you did, and I appreciated it.
But, I see now the thread is becoming a podium for some to cheer their rightness and jeer the wrongness of their chosen opponents. So I will leave now for more peaceful pursuits.
Perhaps someday you can try to explain what you mean to me more fully.
Yes, perhaps on my message board.
I checked it out once; I didn’t have time then for the contents, but the music was very pretty.
Since you are a primary poster embracing that activity, you do well to retire from this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
EVERYONE, if you have a point to make regarding alternatives to creationism or evolution, post them.
If you have only snide remarks to make about people with different world views than your own, take it to the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, personally I thought that I provided some novel and thought-provoking alternatives back in post #19. But apparently the SDMB isn’t yet ready to acknowledge the possibility of Cosmic Chickenism.
I’ll step up and challenge the assumed dichotomy.
Why is the debate phrased as creationism OR evolution? That requires a Creator that could create only a product, and not a process. I’m no theologian, but that doesn’t fit any definition of ‘omnipotent’ that I recognize.
Only creation myths (if I may use the word without offense) that specifically state certain times frames could contradict creation by evolution. To accept creation myths as inerrant is just not acceptable; no myth that has been handed down orally, copied by hand, and translated could possibly be inerrant. (I’m not a linguist, either, but I’ll stand by that).
Well, the chicken does have to be intelligent enough to keep the egg warm, and not go gallivanting about in other universes.
Actually, look at Terrifel’s Chickenism in Post #19. It’s a very good example of your Created Process. Evolution set as a process is probably the most common form of mainstream Christian belief, at least in my experience here in the US. God more or less set things up and let them unfold.
Most of the discussion thus far has been about choosing either creationism or evolution as the explanation for life as we know it (the principal mechanism of natural history). In other words, the implied choices have been:
a. Creationism is right
b. Evolution is right
I think an interesting third choice is this:
c. In the fullness of time, we’ll discover that neither provides an adequate explanation.
This is very much the choice that I’m learning to favour. I dismiss creationsm as a non-scientific derivative of out-moded medieval superstition and mythology, and I have nothing to do with it. Whatever else you can say about it, it simply doesn’t explain anything.
As for evolution… I know there is a lot of evidence for it, and that it is a very successful theory that accounts for a rich variety of things we can observe about natural history. However, I think there are also things that it either explains very poorly, only in the vaguest terms and with some hand-waving thrown in, or doesn’t explain at all. I could give examples, but I think this would lead to some serious derailment of the thread. In other words, I believe evolutionary theory is far, far from being a complete or comprehensive mechanism for all we currently know about natural history, and that it is possible there is another mechanism at work (nothing to do with mysticism or religion) that we haven’t recognised.
I believe that in the fullness of time, say 50-100 years, we’ll look back on our current understanding of evolution the way we now look back on, say, medical knowledge before we knew about bacteria and penicillin. We’ll realise it was incomplete, to a far greater extent that we could either perceive or feel comfortable acknowledging.
That certain is true of just about every scientific theory ever proposed; they get refined.
I think the problem that most people have with Creationism is that it is static: these are the facts; questions, comments, and alternate interpretations are not allowed.
I doubt it. The thing about evolution is that it’s really very simple, there is change over time, offspring are not identical to parents. We will continue to learn about specific details, but the basic process is just too simple. It would actually be far more difficult to not have evolution, it would require elaborate mechanisms to keep things static in an error prone environment (our biology).
As for the OP, the only other alternative I can think of is that the formation of our DNA (and everything else’s DNA) is a naturally occuring formation of molecules analogous to the formation of crystals. It’s a mathematical certainty that the specific parameters of our environment(s) cause these formations exactly as they are. The only problem with this proposal is that the evidence doesn’t support it in the slightest.
Actually, I suspect that a presentation of events that you believe are not or poorly explained by the Theory of Evolution would be exactly what is required to give this thread any meaning.
For example, we already are aware of such apparent divergences from the Theory of Natural Selection as ring species, genetic drift, and junk DNA, yet Darwin, himself, noted that Natural Selection was probably not the sole engine of evolution and none of the exploration of the other factors has served to undermine Natural Selection in nearly 150 years of continuing development and trial of the Theory of Natural Selection.
If you think that there is an aspect of the development of species (or genera or whatever) that the Theory of Evolution inadequately explains, then let’s see it so that we can speculate on why a “third” option might be viable (or discover that the T of E actually has addressed it).
As a devout Pastfarian I believe that it is time to put in a word about the missing “third option.” Unintelligent design.
The universe, as we followers of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” know, was created 5000ish years ago by the “Lord of Lasagna”.
The “Prince of Pasta” isn’t really all that bright, thus the UD. He also doesn’t seem to be that interested in us. But the “Master of Manicotti” gets to make the rules so whatta’ya gonna do?
But we followers of the “Giver on Gonnochi” are in on a major cosmic truth that may be of help to this discussion. Science isn’t wrong, as far as anyone can tell or prove. What happens is that the “Creator of Calamarata,” for reasons of His own, steps in, and with his Noodly Appendge alters any measurement so that scientists get readings consistant with a 14 billionish year old universe.
Hope this helps.
RAmen
Sorry. That is only a variation on Creationism (using a different creator).
Well, there are only two options: the universe/world/mankind/tennis balls/whatever was created, or it wasn’t. However, I think it’s rather disingenuous to conflate all forms or variants of creation with “Creationism”, which is primarily a christian construct, describing a handful of very specific models. Nothing polytheistic, or polynontheistic (like the earth being built by a group of non-gods a la Hitchhikers Guide) would really fit the term “Creationism”, the way I understand it.
There are ways of having been created that aren’t Creationism, and there are ways of not having been created that aren’t Evolution. Ergo, there are myriad options besides the given two.
Actually, that was done years ago, with the polio virus.
So, unless the “spark of life” is downloadable, it’s not necessary.
Ah, but that was done using splicing. It would be even clearer if this was done from the most basic of molecules, to build the DNA. A bit harder, but doable.
But I do admit that downloading the spark of life from some divine Gtunes has a certain appeal.
Be prepared for moving goalposts, though. Once a virus is done, that won’t be considered life. Once the parts of a cell were done they’ll just say “but you didn’t make a person, so there.”