Creationist vs Evolutionist
-
This is the crux of all the points on any argument! EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN, BUT IT IS STILL UP TO THE PERSON TO ACCEPT OR DENY IT....Originally posted by Poopie-Head:2 - Evidence can be given, but it is still up to the person to accept or deny it. You can always REFUSE to UNDERSTAND or ACCEPT a proven fact, there's nothing anybody else can do about it. It just proves you have a closed mind. Let's see you PROVE Creation as a FACT? All Creationists have been doing is trying to find the bits of loopholes to try to break the Evolution theory, hardly we see Creationists prove their ideas.
On one hand, Christians will insist on the truth according to the Bible, on the other, the evolutionist will quote scientists who from time to time disagree with each other on the findings.
Don't get me wrong, I am one of those Christians who accept that there is "EVOLUTION" in so much that this word refers to a change in adaption towards the environment. I cannot, however, accept that man came from apes. Meaning, I cannot accept that evolution causes a jump in specie to specie, ie a canine will remain a canine and a feline will remain a feline.
Whether I accept the account of Genesis at face value is another matter. I accept that God created the world, which by itself, is a very simple concept. However whether I accept that the "7 Days" describe in Genesis is from Sunday to Saturday as in an earth week is also another matter.
In another thread with a relatively similar topic, I'd stated that the Bible mentions something to the effect that one day to God is thousands of years to men (I forgot the verse).
Also there should not be any debate whether the first men looked more like a caveman or Mr Universe. Scientific evidences has enough records to show that our ancestors do not look like us. Hence, we do evolve, from a primitive man to a modern man.
Scientific findings, however, do not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Big Bang caused the first organism to grow, or did we come because of some extraterrestrial seedings.
It so happens that Christians, like me, choose to believe that there is a higher being who created us, possibly via a simple organism. If one is too look at the Genesis account, one can wonder how an ancient piece of document can give the reading the correct order of "evolution" the last of which is homo sapien.
Whether we offend any one with this believe, really, is totally immaterial. It is ok for anyone to disagree with this stand. Had this debate been taken place in another forum, it would not have mattered to me. However, this being Eternal Hope, and while we agree the right that each forumite may hold different views on the Christian stand, there should at least be the respect that this IS a Christian forum.
My last point: Creationists do spend time to prove their ideas, if you bother to look objectively. There are books at most good bookstores (normally under the religious section) that contain such writing. And as you had aptly mentioned: EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN, BUT IT IS STILL UP TO THE PERSON TO ACCEPT OR DENY IT.... -
There will be a video screening 'Icons of Evolution' this coming Thurs.
as it is a private event....those who are curious about what are the frauds tt used to support evolution has been exposed and other questions concerning Creation.
pls PM me and i will tell you the details. thanks.
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
This is the crux of all the points on any argument! EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN, BUT IT IS STILL UP TO THE PERSON TO ACCEPT OR DENY IT....
Yes, while Evolution is a proven fact, people (especially non-biologists who are not in anyway experts in the said field) still argue that it is not true. Talk about stubborness to the extreme.
quote: "On one hand, Christians will insist on the truth according to the Bible, on the other, the evolutionist will quote scientists who from time to time disagree with each other on the findings."
We are abit off topic here, but anyhow -
That is why mankind is continually learning and exploring. Scientists, from time to time, finds a better "model" or a new discovery and, after being proven correct, will CHANGE & LEARN. Open-mindedness.. a trait seldom seen in staunch Christians, esp if it might contradict with their beliefs or what is said in the Bible - the "book of all truths". Yet, in all discussions, people need to be open-minded for any "discussion" to be possible at all. If one person insists till no end, and refuse to accept a FACT when the FACT is PROVEN TRUE, then there is no point in discussing for that said person.
Lets move back on-topic.
quote:
"Don't get me wrong, I am one of those Christians who accept that there is "EVOLUTION" in so much that this word refers to a change in adaption towards the environment. I cannot, however, accept that man came from apes. Meaning, I cannot accept that evolution causes a jump in specie to specie, ie a canine will remain a canine and a feline will remain a feline."
Which is a perfect example of a non-biologist's impression of what evolution really means. Adaptation IS NOT evolution. For example, I travel from Singapore and arrive in Antartica. My body slowly ADAPTS to the cold weather. Did I just evolved? No.
Please NOTE: Man did not come from apes, we share the same ancestory.
Evolution does NOT occur in one generation. It is a gradual change in the GENE over several generations.
Your refusal to accept the fact of changes of species contradict with what you said below - where u accept the fact that man evolved from prehistoric man. Are Peking Man and Modern man the same species? No. We are the evolved form.
Are you saying that Evolution suggests that a canine can be evolved from feline parents? Evolution has alot to do with genes. A canine's genes are very different from a feline's, and genes depend alot on inheritance. Drastic changes like this would take even more generations to be complete. Furthermore, both species are each on their individual ways in the path of evolution. I can go on forever, but it is clear that you are very mistaken about what evolution means.
You were probably trying to say man and apes are different species. My question to you is: Do Chimpanzees, Apes, Baboons share the same ancestory? Yes. But how could that be? They are different species "now". The keyword is "now". What about aeons ago?
quote:
"Whether I accept the account of Genesis at face value is another matter. I accept that God created the world, which by itself, is a very simple concept. However whether I accept that the "7 Days" describe in Genesis is from Sunday to Saturday as in an earth week is also another matter."
Whether you believe the Bible or watever, is NOT the issue here. You like to move out of topic.
quote:
"In another thread with a relatively similar topic, I'd stated that the Bible mentions something to the effect that one day to God is thousands of years to men (I forgot the verse)."
Actually, I do agree with you that the 7 days might not be Earth days, like most people would interpret.
However, again, this has got nothing to do with the topic. Let's move back on-topic.
quote:
"Also there should not be any debate whether the first men looked more like a caveman or Mr Universe. Scientific evidences has enough records to show that our ancestors do not look like us. Hence, we do evolve, from a primitive man to a modern man."
GREAT! At last, an agreement on the FACT that there is Evolution. Rather, it is the acceptance of a known fact.
There is hope indeed.
quote:
"Scientific findings, however, do not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Big Bang caused the first organism to grow, or did we come because of some extraterrestrial seedings."
Again Off-topic, but for the sake of everyone
We are constantly learning all that is around us, there are too many things for us to learn. Thankfully, recent scientific advances are making big strides. Do you know that many modern inventions are made very very recently, considering the age of mankind? We are still very early in our understanding of the world around us.
All those "doubts" you mentioned are beyond what we know now. However take note that it DOES NOT in any way affect what we already know. There is no point in discussing something which we do not know. Similarly, it is always easier to say "oh it's made that way" without finding out more about it, but does that mean it is the right way and attitude? Having an inquisitive mind helps us strive to understand more, unlike accepting things the way it is without questioning its credibility.
quote:
"It so happens that Christians, like me, choose to believe that there is a higher being who created us, possibly via a simple organism. If one is too look at the Genesis account, one can wonder how an ancient piece of document can give the reading the correct order of "evolution" the last of which is homo sapien.
Whether we offend any one with this believe, really, is totally immaterial. It is ok for anyone to disagree with this stand. Had this debate been taken place in another forum, it would not have mattered to me. However, this being Eternal Hope, and while we agree the right that each forumite may hold different views on the Christian stand, there should at least be the respect that this IS a Christian forum."
It does not matter if you belief in your religion, christian or buddhist or w/e. Evolution is a PROVEN FACT, whether you want to chose to belief or not does not make it go away.
Prior to Newton, mankind did not understand or even realise gravity. Does it mean before Newton told us about gravity, there is no such thing?
quote:
"My last point: Creationists do spend time to prove their ideas, if you bother to look objectively. There are books at most good bookstores (normally under the religious section) that contain such writing. And as you had aptly mentioned: EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN, BUT IT IS STILL UP TO THE PERSON TO ACCEPT OR DENY IT...."
The fact that these "books" are found in the religious section should ring a bell. Why aren't they found or taught in Universities (respectable universities)?
Why do biologists, who are the experts in this field, believe otherwise?
Are you saying non-biologists know better? The problem with all these discussions is they are started by people who know next-to-nothing about the topic, yet they somehow suddenly "know" it better than the experts themselves. -
Buddhist literature clearly bears witness to the fact that the Lord Buddha, with his supernormal vision, purified and perfected this understanding of the virtually limitless extent of the universe as well as the incalculable length of time required in the past, present and future for the cycle of arising and passing away of spheres of phenomenal existence to run their course. According to Lord Buddha, the beginning of the whole of phenomenal existence of which the universe known to science is but the lowest of thirty-one planes, is incalculable; it has no perceptible beginning.
The material universe consists of an infinity of world systems scattered through boundless space, each coming in to existence and passing away through beginningless and endless time.
In an attempt to provide his disciples with some idea of the vast amounts of time required for the unfolding of their life-patterns, the Buddha declared that the amount of mothers' milk drunk and tears shed during their previous existences was greater than the waters of the four mighty oceans.
The grandeur, the broad horizons and the limitless vistas contained in the Buddhist conception when contrasted with the narrowly geocentric conceptions found in Semitic religious literature, especially the Bible, can in the words of one prominent author, "seem like stepping out from a windowless cabin and gazing up into the star-filled midnight sky."
A world period of virtually incalculable length is referred to as a kalpa or maha-kalpa. This kalpa is divided into four shorter periods, each of which is so long that it cannot be measured even in terms of thousands of years. During the first period of a kalpa, the previously exisisting world system is completely destroyed or resolved into its constituent elements. The majority of beings residing in its various planes of existence are reborn into the Brahma world, the highest and subtlest plane of phenomenal existence, which is exempt from destruction or dissolution. As the second period of the kalpa commences, we find that the residual energy of matter, representing total objectivity, and the Brahma world and its inhabitants, representing complete subjectivity, are isolated from each other at the opposite poles of phenomenal existence. This absence of interaction continues until the third period of the kalpa is well under way. During this period the world system re-evolves from the residual energy of matter, while most of the beings return from the Brahma world to reborn on a dark and water covered earth. This does not seem to inconvenience the mind-generated beings, since they continue to live much as they had formerly in the Brahma world, self-luminous, nourished by rapture and not divided into different sexes.
With the passage of an immense length of time, conditions begin to change. A scum, with the character of boiled, milky rice, begins to accumulate on the cooling earth, and the terrestial inhabitants begin to taste it and enjoy the sensation. This new sense pleasure leads to craving and an ever increasing dependence on the scum for nourishment. The earthly residents find that their formerly light, ethereal bodies become gross and solid and more differentiated in shape and appearance. Gradually, the waters covering the earth subside; the mists disperse and the sun and moon are clearly revealed in the heavens.
With the continuation of this period of evolution, first lichenous growths, then creeping plants and finally edible grains appear. As the beings learn to subsist on these food sources, they become even more gross, losing their bright and radiant character. They eventually become differentiated into many species, as well as into male and female genders. This separation into two sexes leads to lust, passion and hatred, and the concomitant development of family grouping, and all the institutions of society. The blood smeared record of the last few thousands of years bear witness to the conditions which are typical of the last phase of the third period of the kalpa.
continue........
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/budcosmo.html -
hi Poopie-Head,
Why is adaptation not considered evolution? Darwin came about the notion of evolution because observed the differences between the Galapagos Tortoise and those on the surrounding islands. They adapted to their environment, developing thicker shells or differently shaped shells. To Darwin, adaptation to the environment is evolution. -
Hi Poopie-head
I apologise if you think that I am moving off topic... but ain't we talking about creationist vs evolutionist? A discussion on creation will definitely involve the book of Genesis, which is in the Bible, which is a book for Christians like me. So I really don't think that I have moved off topic. But it's ok if you think so.
Still I echo Sillyme's question, why isn't adaptation evolution?
Perhaps it all boils down to our definition of the word "evolution".
I am sure that evolution is a proven fact, as a matter of fact, it describes a process. The issue with creationism however deals with the fact as to WHO STARTED THE PROCESS. Being the Christian that I am, I believe that there is an Almighty God that started it. The fact that living things change according to the environment does not discount the fact that it might be probable that there is a higher being who has ownership of this process. -
Quote: Why do biologists, who are the experts in this field, believe otherwise?
Are you saying non-biologists know better? The problem with all these discussions is they are started by people who know next-to-nothing about the topic, yet they somehow suddenly "know" it better than the experts themselves.
My reply:
R U SURE?? Come let me show u "Creationist Biochemist and Molecular Biologist"
Dr John Marcus, B.A., Ph.D.
John Marcus obtained his Bachelor of Arts Degree with a Major in Chemistry at Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa in 1987. His Ph.D. in biological chemistry at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1993 involved research on enzymes. He is now a Senior Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology (University of Queensland Campus). His research involves the discovery and characterisation of anti-microbial proteins from plant sources to enhance disease resistance in agriculturally important plants. John and Amy Marcus and their two young children attend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia, Brisbane.
from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/562.asp
" Dr Raymond G. Bohlin
Creationist Biologist
Biography
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin is Director of Research for Probe Ministries, Texas (USA) and is co-author (with Dr Lane P. Lester) of the important creationist book The Natural Limits to Biological Change.
Education
He is a graduate of the University of Illinois and North Texas State University, and his Ph.D. is from the University of Texas.
Creationist Agricultural Scientist:
Raymond Jones
Dr Jones recently retired from Australia's highly respected government scientific body, CSIRO, after 38 years of service. He was Officer-in-Charge of the Davies Laboratory, Townsville, and Regional Research Leader. He is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, and the Tropical Grasslands Society of Australia. He has published about 140 research papers.
Do u know stephen hawkings...he had a wife. Also a Phd. And divorce wif him because he keep on believe and insist that God does not exist. His wife believe in the existence of God...but she has a PHD on his hand.
My biology professor in NUS ...believe in creation. and he is a famous prof. Full prof...not associate. assistant...but full prof.
SCIENCE might not ALWAYS have an answer. For example...the world reknown universities last time ( cambridge, oxford) have claim that AETHER exist. All physics books taught about aether and thier existence as being something relative to the earth's movement. But what happen in the end? Albert Einstein proof them wrong.
Albert Einstein, though he is not a christian but once mention " God do not play dice". My PHYSICS prof interprete it has the existence of nature is not by probability.
This is not quantum world whereby tunneling of electrons depends on probability...even though...there is still an EQUATION governing it.
So..getting A in a stack of card is just having a probability of 4/52 which is 7.7%. This is not a too low probability. If u say double A's, just say that u r playing 5 cards( already very little), what is the probability of getting doubles A's out of these 5 cards? It is [ C(5,2) x C( 47, 3)] / [ C ( 52,5)] = 0.0624. It has a percentage of 6.24%. But probability of 1 supreme being over the others is 1/ 3-5 million ( total no. of species)....and u know what is the value. it is 0.00002% -
That's y i post up a webpage. to define evolution, which is at http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htmOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Hi Poopie-head
I apologise if you think that I am moving off topic... but ain't we talking about creationist vs evolutionist? A discussion on creation will definitely involve the book of Genesis, which is in the Bible, which is a book for Christians like me. So I really don't think that I have moved off topic. But it's ok if you think so.
Still I echo Sillyme's question, why isn't adaptation evolution?
Perhaps it all boils down to our definition of the word "evolution".
I am sure that evolution is a proven fact, as a matter of fact, it describes a process. The issue with creationism however deals with the fact as to WHO STARTED THE PROCESS. Being the Christian that I am, I believe that there is an Almighty God that started it. The fact that living things change according to the environment does not discount the fact that it might be probable that there is a higher being who has ownership of this process.
I better copy and paste
A note on terminology:
Evolutionists have recently defined evolution as "a change in the gene pool of a population over time." By this definition, EVERYONE is an evolutionist. The truth of the matter is that this definition is so general that it adds nothing to the creation/evolution debate. Not only does this definition have nothing to do with macroevolution (of which the debate is solely focused), but many would say that it is even a poor definition of microevolution (which is part of the evolution AND creation models).
By this definition every time an individual organism is born or dies evolution occurs (because the gene pool has changed). Of course by this definition, "evolution" is an obvious indisputable fact -- which is exactly what many evolutionists want so that they can lay the groundwork that leads the general populace to blindly accept everything else they call evolution or evolutionary processes. After all, its an obvious fact, right?
In this FAQ, I will use the definition for evolution that most of the world uses, that is, evolution in this FAQ refers to macroevolution. When I say "evolutionist" I refer to anyone who believes that macroevolution has occurred. Websters defines these words as follows (not that these are the best definitions, but they will hopefully clarify things a little):
microevolution n. small-scale hereditary changes in organisms through mutations and recombinations, resulting in the formation of slightly differing new varieties
macroevolution n. large-scale and long-range evolution involving the appearance of new genera, families, etc. of organisms
evolution n. an unfolding, opening out, or working out; process of development, as from a simple to a complex form, or of gradual, progressive change, as in a social and economic structure
That's y..i dun wan a clash of terminology. -
The God Idea
Was there a "beginning" -- "of course there was, the Bible says so!"-- Or is a beginning or "First Cause" even necessary?
If you consider that at one time you were not, then what has brought you into existence as this being known by the name you care called?
The usual answer is that a God or impersonal Power created this universe, this planet, and the beings on it.
Considering the above, a further question can arise: Where has this God or other power come from? If the reply is that He (or in some cases, "She"!) is eternal then why did He decide at some point in time to bring all this into existence? What for? His pleasure? Our tribulation? If the answer can be given in either way, He can hardly be called Compassionate. An answer to all such inquiries which kills further investigation of this subject, is that he ways of God are inscrutable and we should accept this as fact without any need of investigation.
It is interesting to examine and observe how people relegate the God to the distant past of Creation or to the distant future of Judgement. This means that He has little relevance in and to their daily lives, for if He did, those very people who claim to have unshakable faith in this God would live different lives and leave the rat race, the competitions, the politics of violence, warfare, and social injustice.
Perhaps "He" is a belief that arises out of a very real need for security, or maybe even a craving for some authority figure like a father -- or for the New Agers who prefer "goddess" -- a mother, or even a craving for eternal life. But when it comes to everyday living, the God idea really takes second place and the evidence lies in the very behavior an actions of people all over the planet.
Where is God intervening in the unspeakable crimes against humanity that are perpetrated and viewed on TV like a regular daily show? This is a fair question, if you assert, which you probably do if you are a "believer", that we are all made in God's image. Put the actions with the image, together, and that is one nasty God! Put forward "belief", and "doubt" will be found, too.
From a Buddhadharma perspective, even if "He" does exist, what practical difference does it make to one's life here and now? Is not the distant past and the distant future, strictly irrelevant to us in the present -- in the here-and-now?
It is always the present, which is important in the Dhamma, not the past, often compared to a dream, and certainly not the future, which we can liken to a mirage seen by one thirsty in the desert.
What I do NOW, how I react/respond NOW -- these things are infinitely more relevant than speculations over distant events. (And notice there is a difference between "react" vs. "respond".)
These are said by Buddha to be the "tangle of Wrong Views", "wrong" since no firm conclusions can be reached on the bases on which they are reared. And what are these? Blind faith is one and craving is the other. Ignorance is the root.
Moreover a hornet's nest is stirred up whenever opposing sets of "beliefs" come into conflict, and so-called "religious" wars and persecutions are a pointer to how strong the attachment can be to Wrong Views. Why be tangled up in them? Why get stung when the venom as well as the stinger is avoidable? Take a look at the atrocities that are ongoing and given such insidious and guileful a term as "ethnic cleansing". Religious differences play a bigger role than political ones in many cases.
When Buddha was asked about the length of an eon, He answered, "No beginning can be seen to beings, blinded by unknowing and driven by craving who are hurrying through the round of birth-and-death". Thus for the practitioner of the Buddhadharma, i.e., the "Buddhist", "in the beginning" has no meaning, and no point in time can be found when there was a Creation. Nor is there found any Creator (though we create things through cause and effect (kamma) and bring about a seemingly continuous sort of creation.
The Buddhadhamma-Vinaya practitioner knows well at some point, sooner or later, that unknowing and/or ignorance is the seed of (karma) kamma sprouting into the various stressful and unsatisfactory experiences termed "dukkha". "God" is a concept, a mix of ideas -- as evidenced by so many traditions holding the view of a god or gods under a Supreme Being or Creator God. "Buddhism" does not lump these ideas together calling them "God". If one speaks of "eternity", it is dealt with as it is -- Dharma; if one speaks of judgement and retribution -- Karma; if you want to know about beings -- there are other sentient beings seen and unseen through out the cosmos. And this area is more scientific and better explained than even some so called Buddhists know!
And since this matter deals with ideas, it is not more puzzling to comprehend an infinity of birth-and-death rounds rooted in unknowing than it is to communicate about a "Creator" who was never born. Indeed, the former has great advantage over the latter since unknowing is in one's very own heart and may be removed by education, investigation, and directly experiencing Reality as it is.
It is complex sets of conditions that give rise to dependent events, though the co-dependent arisings may not be clear to one's own awareness. Thus, all dhammas (paramattha dhammas) come into and go from existence in this way. One does not have to seek a beginning, nor does a "Maker" or "Creator" need be sought after.
In the Visuddhi Magga, XIX, translated by Nyanamoli Thera, we have this verse:
"No god, no Brahma can be called
The Maker of this Wheel of Life:
Just empty phenomena roll on
Dependent on conditions all."
The cosmology found in the Buddhadhamma not only takes into account the existence of innumerable systems of worlds grouped into what we should call galaxies, but has equally vast conceptions of cosmic time.
What did Lord Buddha really have to say about God? At times, He did remain silent on this topic. But there is an account given by Him on the genesis of the "Creator" and this should settle the issue. But before going on with that, we should note that Buddha was not an agnostic (one who does not know). In fact, He was a gnostic or 'one who knows' (in Pali: "janata") and was also called "Sabbannu", the 'All-knower". This means that to whatever subject Lord Buddha attended to, He knew all the contents of that subject. It does NOT mean that He always knew everything about every subject all at once, for this very claim was one He emphatically and specifically denied about himself. Now, to settle this question of "God" we can investigate. It happens that in the beginning of a new cycle (after one of the periodic cosmic collapses), a being according to his or her kamma (karma) is reborn into a heavenly realm or state where no other beings are to found. (That one's kamma being a condition for the arising of that particular heavenly experience.) That one does not remember her or his past life among other "gods" in the "higher" heavenly realms, and comes to believe during the passing of ages that s/he has lived there forever. With the passing of immense time spans, that one wishes for the company of others and then, since according to their kamma some other beings appear in that realm, s/he comes to believe that they were produced by her or his will. From this s/he goes on to glorify herself or himself, her or his supposed "creation" and this aids that being's vanity since such a being does not remember the past life it was subjected to and so imagines that it is a creature of Brahma. One of these great Brahmas called by the name of Baka, was made to see the emptiness and futility of his claims to eternal existence and creatorhood when Lord Buddha while in meditation paid a visit to that realm.
And not only that, the "Buddhist" attitude to Brahma or God or "the Creator" is fairly if somewhat seemingly acridly summed up in these translated verses:
"He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limit can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are all his creatures condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood -- truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma one the unjust among
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong."
-- Bhuridatta Jataka, No. 453
Consider this: the greater the power of a so-called God then the less will be the ability of the human being to do skill or do the unskillful (as found in pre-destinarian doctrines). Thus the provocation for the following:
"If there exists some lord all-powerful to fulfill
In every creature bliss or woe, and action good or ill,
That Lord is stained with sin. The human being does but work his will."
-- Mahabodhi Jataka, No. 528 -
Phew this discussion getting very long-winded. However, many doubts / points are still repeating itself.
quote sillyme:
"Why is adaptation not considered evolution?.... "
quote Chin Eng:
"I am one of those Christians who accept that there is "EVOLUTION" in so much that this word refers to a change in adaption towards the environment..."
"Still I echo Sillyme's question, why isn't adaptation evolution? "
Adaptation is one of the factors causing evolution. I have already touched on this topic and given a fairly simplified analogy in my previous post. Anyway, in this context, its not an important aspect in our discussion.
I agree with Chin Eng that 'Perhaps it all boils down to our definition of the word "evolution". '
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
"It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."
"Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. "
"Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. "
quote TrU PeAce (^0*)v:
"That's y i post up a webpage. to define evolution, which is at http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm ...
Evolutionists have recently defined evolution as "a change in the gene pool of a population over time." By this definition, EVERYONE is an evolutionist. The truth of the matter is that this definition is so general that it adds nothing to the creation/evolution debate. Not only does this definition have nothing to do with macroevolution (of which the debate is solely focused), but many would say that it is even a poor definition of microevolution (which is part of the evolution AND creation models).
By this definition every time an individual organism is born or dies evolution occurs (because the gene pool has changed). Of course by this definition, "evolution" is an obvious indisputable fact -- which is exactly what many evolutionists want so that they can lay the groundwork that leads the general populace to blindly accept everything else they call evolution or evolutionary processes. After all, its an obvious fact, right? "
So is it generally accepted in this discussion that micro-evolution is a fact?
If so... (more on this in my upcoming post )
"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails. "
"Conclusion
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change. "
quote:
"My biology professor in NUS ...believe in creation. and he is a famous prof. Full prof...not associate. assistant...but full prof.
SCIENCE might not ALWAYS have an answer... "
Your professor is a Christian? Sorry for off-topic, dont really need to know.
I'd like to know if he refuse to accept that evolution is a fact and not some imagination.
Science MIGHT not always have an answer. Yes, we already know that. Do not keep harping on the fact that we dont have ALL the answers (which is obviously true at this point). It does NOT in any way REMOVES the FACTS that are ALREADY KNOWN (which is equally obvious - at least it is, to me). Unless evidence show otherwise, do NOT IMAGINE it to be false.
In response to your Maths lesson on probability:
quote:
"8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite : natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE. " Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
TBC... -
quote TrU PeAce (^0*)v:
"R U SURE?? Come let me show u "Creationist Biochemist and Molecular Biologist"
Dr John Marcus, B.A., Ph.D.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/562.asp "
His works are very interesting. There are some valid "doubts" since both the Creationists and Evolutionists give different information.
I find it pointless for us to debate over this subject as they have been debated many times by the experts themselves.
There is a website which answers many of the Creationists claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
I'll quote some interesting answers or points to ponder about:
Claim CA114:
There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past.
Response:
The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, and no valid arguments against it.
Many of the scientists in the above list lived before the theory of evolution was even proposed. Others knew the theory, but were not familiar with all the evidence for it. Evolution is outside the field of most of those scientists.
A couple hundred years ago, before the theory of evolution was developed and evidence for it presented, virtually all scientists were creationists, including scientists in relevant fields such as biology and geology. Today, virtually all relevant scientists accept evolution. Such a turnabout could only be caused by overwhelming evidence. The alternative -- that almost all scientists today are thoroughly incompetent -- is preposterous.
Even if they did not believe in evolution, all these scientists were firmly committed to the scientific method, including methodological naturalism. They actually serve as counterexamples to the common creationist claim that a naturalistic practice of science is atheistic.
Evolution is entirely consistent with a belief in God, including even special creation. "Special creation" need not refer to the creation of every animal; it can refer simply to creation of the universe, of the first life, and/or of the human soul, for example. Many of the scientists above were not creationists in the sense Henry Morris uses the term.
----------------------------------------------------
Claim CH350:
The created kinds are distinct; evolution between them is impossible. "Creation of distinct kinds precludes transmutation between kinds."
Response:
Creationists have been unable to specify what the created kinds are. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the 12-spotted ladybug could be placed in the 12-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It doesn't match what creationism predicts.
Fixity of kinds is based on the philosophy of Plato, not the Bible [Dewey 1910]. Nowhere does the Bible say that kinds themselves can't change and diversify. Reproduction "according to their kind" is entirely consistent with evolution, as long as it is recognized that kinds are not fixed.
Although major changes from one "kind" to another don't normally happen, except gradually over hundreds of thousands of generations, a sudden origin of a new kind has been observed. A strain of cancerous human cells (called HeLa cells) have evolved to become a wild unicellular life form. [Van Valen and Maiorana 1991]
According to Morris, fungi weren't part of the original creation. They weren't among the categories listed in Genesis 1, and as decayers they wouldn't have their form until after the Fall. Thus, Morris' own theology requires new kinds to originate after the creation
---------------------------------------------------- -
Claim CB801:
Complaints about creationists not defining "kind" are unfair since evolutionists can't define "species" consistently.
Response:
Species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret. The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so it becomes problematical how many species to split them into.
Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated, and that there should be a clear and universal definition of "kind"/species. Since there is not, creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain.
Different definitions of species serve different purposes. Species concepts are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, and as theoretical concepts, for modeling and explaining. There is a great deal of overlap between the two purposes, but a definition that serves one is not necessarily the best for the other. Furthermore, there are practical considerations that call for different species criteria as well. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because those traits don't fossilize.
--------------------------------------------------------
Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Response:
We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence [Theobald 2004]. (See also evolution proof.)
As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution.
Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism. [Shapiro et al. 2004].
There are many transitional forms which show that macroevolution has occurred.
Too many questions answered well.
Take a look at this website for your doubts:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
Basically points worth taking note:
- New species have been observed. This is a FACT. If Creationism were correct, the "new" species would have "already" existed.
- If Creationism were correct, species should be distinct, yet we have intermidary species (which actually favors the Evolution theory)
- No new phylum, order, or class* have been observed. If they have been, it would be Creationism, since Evolution works almost exclusively by gradual changes.
-Evolutionists agree that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect which Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.
*the higher divisions of organisms -
I am back... why r they creating a new thread on evolution where the old thread is still in existence ? Why is everyone asking the same old questions again ? Hmm...
-
Sorry for not posting this earlier, I was reading other interesting articles regarding this topic.Originally posted by NeonTetra:http://www.answersingenesis.org/
you can discover more about this topic in the above website. I have read some articles that revealed the fraud behind some scientific data....
The theory of Melanism of B. betularia,the peppered moth does not hold actually and has been commented by the jornal Nature. The moths were dead and glued to tree and photos taken such that textbooks teaches and show this theory full of error. Other interesting discoveries can be found in the website above.
This is not some rubbish website aimed to shoot down science but to reason creationist theory as stated in the Bible in the light of science. Science in no way is enemy of God, just that some made it so.
Now...not jus abt science theories, this website also hopes to answer some questions abt the Bible which u simply dun understand y.
The link below seems to be the evolutionists' answer:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB600 -
I believe a bit of Intelligent Design was touched on in the other thread when the "watchmaker" was mentioned.
Here's an interesting document about Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design - The Scientifc Alternative to Evolution -
I believe a bit of Intelligent Design was touched on in the other thread when the "watchmaker" was mentioned.
Why don't u tell us in your own words wat is all this about ? U must have read it yourself isn't it ? Tell us a summarized version about it.
Here's an interesting document about Intelligent Design.
BTW, if a "watchmaker" is needed for men, a better "watchmaker" should be on the standby to create god himself. -
Hi SIS,
I think it would be better if you read it yourself, lest I misquote or summarise it wrongly (cannot cut and paste PDF file mah)
But I think for the benefit of all, I shall try within my simple mind extract the essence of the document.
Intelligence Design is a scientific approach on the subject of whether the world around us is a product of unguided events or a product of design. It however does not specify who the "designer" is (it may a divine being or alien life form).
The document lays out the different schools of thought supporting evolution and creation. It defines evolution as an unguided process. It also tries to challenge some areas which evolution has no answer for. Some examples are the abrupt appearance of fossil phyla, the fine tuning of the universe and irreducible complexity.
Taking "irreducible complexity" as an example. An "irreducilbly complex" system is a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched intersecting parts that contribute to the basic finction, wherein the removal of any parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. They then use the bacteria flagellum as an example of an irreducible complex biological system. The biological system is a high-speed motor that turns a propeller to move a bacterium towards food or away from danger. It requires at least 40, highly complex, interlocking, moving protein compoments for assembly and operation and is believed to have been a fully functioning component of the most primitive cells It will not work unless all parts are present together at the same time. Natural selection cannot build such system because, in isolation, the individual parts have no Darwinism selective value (i.e., they have no survival function that natural selection can "choose" because it works better than the original)
I think it's better to read it for yourself and derive your conclusions. -
Erm, you can copy and paste PDF files as long as they're not scanned.
-
i forgot
but then no need to cut and paste since got the document to read -
Originally posted by sillyme:
Intelligence Design is a scientific approach on the subject of whether the world around us is a product of unguided events or a product of design. It however does not specify who the "designer" is (it may a divine being or alien life form).
The text at first appears very neutral, with valid points on both sides. I was very interested, however, I realise that sometimes it convieniently leaves out some details.
This website has answers to most, if not all, the claims made by anti-evolutionists. They are very systematic and the answers make alot of sense. (maybe except one - i am still searching for. more on this in my next post)
"Intelligent design is not mainstream science. (In fact, it is not science at all.) It is not generating any research. Zero scientific research articles have been written about it. Most of the few articles that mention it at all are critical of it [Gilchrist 1997; Lane 2003]. "
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. [Davis and Kenyon 1989, 99-100]
The Intelligent Design movement rejects naturalistic explanations for origins and seeks to replace them with one or a few sudden creations by a supernatural agent who everyone in the movement identifies as the Christian God. That is creationism, plainly. "
"Intelligent design is explicitly religious as a motive for legislative change of educational standards. Legislation introduced in Michigan attempts to add "intelligent design of a Creator" to the science standards of middle and high school [Michigan HB 4946]."
"The ID movement attempts to hide its religious basis in order to give the appearance of secular objectivity [Branch 2002]. Their attempt is dishonest propaganda. "The trend among many Christian groups these days is to camouflage their creationism as 'Intelligent Design' or 'Progressive Creationism.'" [Morris 1999] And despite their claims, the movement has no science. "
quote:
"The document lays out the different schools of thought supporting evolution and creation. It defines evolution as an unguided process. It also tries to challenge some areas which evolution has no answer for. Some examples are the abrupt appearance of fossil phyla, the fine tuning of the universe and irreducible complexity."
abrupt appearance:
Since Evolution suggests gradual changes, these fossils of transitional organisms should be found.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features which connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement which is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusc's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusc's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive molluscs, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia. [Conway Morris 1998, 185-195]
Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
An ancestral echinoderm has been found, intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes [Shu et al. 2004].
Fine tuning of universe - need to be specific.
[EDIT] If u mean how could universe be so fine-tuned for life, i suggest read THIS.
quote:
"Taking "irreducible complexity" as an example. An "irreducilbly complex" system is a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched intersecting parts that contribute to the basic finction, wherein the removal of any parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. They then use the bacteria flagellum as an example of an irreducible complex biological system. The biological system is a high-speed motor that turns a propeller to move a bacterium towards food or away from danger. It requires at least 40, highly complex, interlocking, moving protein compoments for assembly and operation and is believed to have been a fully functioning component of the most primitive cells It will not work unless all parts are present together at the same time. Natural selection cannot build such system because, in isolation, the individual parts have no Darwinism selective value (i.e., they have no survival function that natural selection can "choose" because it works better than the original)"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
also http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
"The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella are known which lack these proteins. "
".... irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum. "
"Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer. " -
I've been reading quite alot recently regarding the ideas behind creationism and evolution.
Sorry, this post might be considered off-topic but they are somehow slightly related to the debate. I think it is good to read for more information.
I try to find what doubts the Creationists have on Evolution, and interestingly enough, almost all (except one that I am still searching for) are answered in the Talk Origins site.
Talk origins site is very nicely laid out and they do provide feedback for any queries.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Some interesting points to ponder:
- Creationists are Christians.
- Creationism require a belief in a Creator. Science is NOT a matter of belief.
- Creationist is not Science at all. They require no evidence, there's no way to test it, yet they have all the answers.
- The ideas behind Creationism and Intelligent Designs (esp the former) are always linked to a superior being.
- They provide no precise answers, everything unknown is due to the work of a superior being or the supernatural.
- Their claims against evolutionists are not precise most of the time. Very generalized. Many times Creationists are grossly mis-informed or they have mis-use of information in their claims.
- No Creation article has been published in scientific papers
- An extremely low percentage of the relevent scientists believe in Creationism. (< 0.15% in U.S. alone, other countries lower figures)
- Most of the scientists who reject evolution is because of religious reasons, not evidence. Evidence supports evolution.
- creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them. Read More and Here
Previously, I didnt think Creationism is so much related to Christianity, so I am not disagreeing with it based on the reason that Christianity is involved, rather I find the idea unconvincing.
Why was the debate between Creation vs Evolution started?
I found out that the reason why Creationism vs Evolution was getting so much attention. The Creationists are trying to get Creation Science to be taught in schools - as a part of the Science subject. Their arguement is that students must be informed if a certain theory (evolution) is controversial. However, the real reason behind this is to teach about Christianity under the cover of Science. Evolution is also a theory that might contradict the Christian belief, since Evolution suggests no supernatural forces at work. Thus, Evolution, along with other Sciences, would imply that the world today is not created "as is", therefore, not the work of God.
Clearing some common mis-understandings about evolution:
Evolution theory does not mean it is NOT a FACT. In everyday speech. "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."
Evolution is both a FACT and Theory. The theory part comes in as the mechanisms of how and what happens during evolution - this is the part that scientists are less certain of.
Evolution does NOT deal with how life started from non-life. That is Abiogenesis. "The first instance of life would not be anything that you or most people would recognize as "life"... a chain molecule that made a copy of itself from surrounding free-floating molecules. In one second, it had not yet copied itself, and in the next second, it did."
As far as Evolution is concerned, it does not matter if God, Zeus, space aliens, dust from space, or from comet initiated life on Earth. It does not render the Theory of Evolution untrue, because all existing evidence supports it.
Evolution and Abiogenesis are not random. They are probably a result of natural selection. "Selection" clearly means non-random.
Mankind did not evolve from apes or any of the other existing primates. We share the same ancestory. We did not evolve from any group of modern apes-- therefore apes are unaffected by human evolution. All of human evolution occured after the split.
Evolution is science most pure, devoid of any religious concepts whatsoever. It is non-theistic, but it is not necessarily atheistic.
Some topics of debate which got involved:
Abiogenesis is the science of life developing from non-life, and it is a different field from Biological Evolution. Biological Evolution kicks in after life is formed. Of course, they are still trying to create life from non-life.
Noah's Arc - Even if only a pair of each animal, it could not have enough room for all (inc. food supplies). Young Earth Creationists believed dinosaurs lived alongside man, so they should be included, meaning even more overflow. If Creationism rejects evolution, how could new species have come about (since only one of each type is brought onboard)? Other problems such as plants, fresh water fishes, insects, etc could not have survived during the flood. Some animals require specific conditions (such as low temperature) to even survive. Population growth (esp human) after the flood to present day also proved impossible. There are too many people now (or even during certain times in history) to have been descended only from Noah's family.
Young Earth Creationists are people who believed the 6 days of creation are literally 6 earth-days; and that the universe including the Earth is young (10,000 years old). This suggests that there isnt enough time for evolution. Scientists believed Earth is 4.6 billion years old (by radiometric dating). Also, if the universe is just as young, it cannot explain the time taken for starlight to reach us. Distant objects are so far that light couldnt have reached us thus suggesting an old universe.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature is a problem for the big bang (Light-travel time problem). Temperature is consistant everywhere and in all directions. However, there isnt enough time for distant objects from one part of the universe to communicate with another; yet, the different regions of the current CMB have precisely uniform temperatures. The most popular explanation is called ‘inflation', but i need to find more on this problem.
Read More
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. The majority of results are consistant though.
Read More
The fossil humerus KP 271 is an apparently human fossil from 4 million years ago, which, according to the standard evolutionary model, is well before the appearance of modern humans. Response says it is a good match with Australopithecus anamensis, but I dont find it convincing. I need to read more independant comments on this.
Read More -
Not to worry, I posted the ID document for the reading pleasure of some. You may disagree with it, I'm fine with it. In fact, the document states that ID is open to the fact that the ID theory maybe disproved to be wrong too.
By the way, other religions also support the idea of the world is created. So, loosely speaking, not all creationist are christians. -
Actually the debate between creationist and evolution goes all the way back before the US school cirruculum. I believe is started when Darwin came up with his notion of evolution.
Here's another article in Wired.com
The Crusade Against Evolution -
In the end, the idea of intelligent design still has a flaw. If everything need careful designing, then who is the one tat design the designer ? Isn't the probability and likelihood of designer such a complex designer more difficult ? He can say the probabilty and likelihood of tis cell forming or tis bacteria appearing is teribly low... but then is the likelihood of forming the designer who can manipulate these cells better ?
IMO, in the end something has to pop out from just mere chances and probabilty isn't it ? If tat something has to exists, why can't it start from human now ? Again by probability and likelihood, human to form out of chance r definitely much higher than the Intelligent designer. -
Then the human race must be suuuuuper lucky. The probability of us or anything else not existing is just toooooooo slim.
Go read the document lah... just for knowledge