Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: davidpt40 on November 30, 2002, 11:24:29 AM
-
I took a class in biological anthropology this semester and thoroughly enjoyed it. The basis of the class was the origin of humans. The evidence supporting human evolution from apes is astounding. About 1 million years ago, the ancestor of modern human (australopithicines) truely was a fur-covered bi-pedal (upright walking) 4 foot tall ape creature. About 120,000 years ago, our closest ancestor, arachaic homo sapian came on the scene. The neanderthal was an archaic homo sapian. Then around 30,000 years ago, our good friend modern homo sapian came about and things have been getting better ever since.
-
What do you mean? Only a complete imbecile wouldn't accept evolution as the most viable theory to explain were humans come from.
There that should be a good start. :D
-
Did everything evolve from cells in the primordial soup? I've heard the arguments for animal evolution. My question is, how did trees evolve from the same soup?
I'm sure the question is easy to answer. Only I've not heard much about that subject. Any biology professors out there? Please excuse me, I'm just trying to find out about the division process in evolution between plant and animal life, and why one went one direction from the other if the whole process was random.
How can a tree evolve from the same common source as a bird, for example?
Les
-
What Thrawn said.
-
An imaginary being said:
LET THERE BE LIGHT!
And we evolved from there. :D
-
I wouldn't say imbecile but ...:)
What Thrawn said.
-
Thrawn said:
What do you mean? Only a complete imbecile wouldn't accept evolution as the most viable theory to explain were humans come from.
Nice..... you just called all Christians imbeciles.
-
Creation
In the beginning there was the void. And the void was called Ginnungagap. Along with the void existed Niflheim the land of fog and ice in the north and Muspelheim the land of fire in the south.
In Niflheim there was a spring called Hvergelmir from which the Elivagar (eleven rivers - Svol, Gunnthra, Fiorm, Fimbulthul, Slidr, Hrid, Sylg, Ylg, Vid, Leiptr, and Gioll) flowed. The Elivargar froze layer upon layer until it filled in the northerly portion of the gap. Concurrently the southern portion was being filled by sparks and molten material from Muspelheim.
The mix of fire and ice caused part of the Elivagar to melt forming the figures Ymir the primeval giant and the cow Audhumla. The cow's milk was Ymir's food. While Ymir slept his under arm sweat begat two frost giants, one male one female, while his two legs begat another male.
While Ymir was busy procreating Audhumla was busy eating. Her nourishment came from licking the salty ice. Her incessant licking formed the god Buri. He had a son named Bor who was the father of Odin, Vili, and Ve.
For some reason the sons of Bor decided to kill poor Ymir. His blood caused a flood which killed all of the frost giants except for two, Bergelmir and his wife, who escaped the deluge in their boat.
Odin, Vili, and Ve put Ymir's corpse into the middle of ginnungagap and created the earth and sky from it.
They used Ymir's body as a ground for the new world. His blood became the sea (Where all the Rimtusarnas but Bergelmir and his wife drowned). His skull became the sky. The bones in his skeleton became mountains, his brain the clouds and his tissues were ground in the great mill 'Grottekvarnen', around whose main axis the universe turned, to become the dirt. The mill was driven by the giantesses Fenja and Menja. Ymirs eyebrows became a wall against the inhabitable surroundings. This new world was called Midgård.
They also created the stars, sun, and moon from sparks coming out of Muspelheim.
Once when Odin and his brothers where out taking a walk on the shore of the sea in Midgård, they happened upon two logs lying on the beach and created the first two humans Ash (Ask) and Elm (Embla) from them. They set them free from the earth and gave them blood, power of motion, intelligence, will, fantasy and spirit. Ash and Elm were formed after their own appearence. From this couple the whole of humanity evolved. The fate Urd gives every human a being called Fylgia at birth . This being is to follow every human throughout his/her life.
-
I've taken a few anthropology classes too, and I believe!
BTW, check out the thread' "E vs. C" thread. I think Midnight Target started it. I believe its the giggest O' Club thread ever.
eskimo
-
Plants split off from animals a looooong time ago. However, even plants and animals share a common ancestor. Scientists are able to determine this because (1) every living thing on earth uses the same DNA/RNA coding system (2) every living thing uses glycolysis.
Did everything evolve from cells in the primordial soup?
Pretty much. Some RNA was 'electrified' in the early days of the Earth and this was the first living creature.
-
How can a tree evolve from the same common source as a bird, for example?
[/B]
Exacly like you say, evolving, ancient cell´s information (stored in either RNA or DNA) started mutating, and enviromental preassure started selecting the most favorable mutations, a small change in genetic information made a tiny diferent membrane protein that allowed the cell to be more resistant to toxic agents, or more effective when using energy, etc etc etc; give that enough time and the branching options will give you anything from little birds to trees to AH HO whiners.
-
Yep evolusionist here but..
which therory do you go with for humans:
1: savanna ape i.e man came down from trees and learnt to stand up so he could see better hold tools etc
2: Aquatic ape theory : i.e early man returns to water and became semi aquatic, upright posture came from swimming and needing the face out the water to breath (were a chimp would have difficulty keeping its face above water) also hair loss.
ever woundered why we love water so much? and all other apes hate water? :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Thrawn said:
Nice..... you just called all Christians imbeciles.
Nah. Not all christians believe creationism is the most viable theory.
-
Aquatic Ape theory is not widely accepted. I don't know a whole bunch about it, but here goes:
Evidence FOR aquatic apes-
Humans are only animals that can hold their breath (good for diving underwater).
Humans have subcutaneous fat that is the best insulation in water.
Evidence for savanna ape :
Humans can hold their breath because they communicate verbally (you cant talk and breathe at the same time).
Humans have subcuataneous fat because it provides a tremendous source of energy for locomotion. Highly trained athlethic modern humans burn a 50/50 ratio fat-carbo ratio while running, and a even higher fat to carbo ratio while walking.
Just from what I know, I believe whole-heartedly in the savanna ape theory.
-
Originally posted by Blank
Yep evolusionist here but..
which therory do you go with for humans:
1: savanna ape i.e man came down from trees and learnt to stand up so he could see better hold tools etc
2: Aquatic ape theory : i.e early man returns to water and became semi aquatic, upright posture came from swimming and needing the face out the water to breath (were a chimp would have difficulty keeping its face above water) also hair loss.
ever woundered why we love water so much? and all other apes hate water? :)
Aquatic ape all the way, or at least a very important aquatic era, otherwise how do you explain human babies being the only non-aquatic mammals who can swim, hold their breath and float (due to special fat distribution), nature doesnt provide special features for no reason.
-
Wrong
Originally posted by davidpt40
Evidence FOR aquatic apes-
Humans are only animals that can hold their breath (good for diving underwater).
Evidence for savanna ape :
Humans can hold their breath because they communicate verbally (you cant talk and breathe at the same time).
-
Originally posted by Kanth
Wrong
Talking explain holding breath ability, how do you explain babies being the only non aquatic mammals to be able to swim the second they are born?.
-
Humans are only animals that can hold their breath (good for diving underwater).
Sorry, I forgot to drink my coffee. Humans are the only apes that can hold their breath.
Like I said, I'm not very well versed on the aquatic ape theory. But I do know its not widely accepted and there are better theories out there.
-
every group of people in history has some wacky creation story from the native american thing where some bird lays an egg or whatever to the indian buddhists thinking the wolrd was in a giant lotus flower but come on obviously those are nonsense just like the garden of eden thing but getting back to reality....
of the theories in the makes sense category, the evolution theory seems like a winner.... but it still seems incomplete to me. not that i know much about it admittedly but what i have heard seems reasonable.
i'd like to hear a more complete account of our evolution before i sign on all the way. not that creation is a contender obviously but maybe evolution is a little different than the way it is presented today. i'd love to see what 'they' say in 50 years.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nah. Not all christians believe creationism is the most viable theory.
shouldn't they though if it's a part of their belief system?
-
The proboscis monkey, while not an ape, spends a lot of time upright and likes to be in and around water .
-
(http://www.mindysmem.org/gfx/PROBOSC6.JPG)
-
This is also a form of evolution, since most monkey's do not like water it's the only place for the dick-nosed monkey to get away from the ridicule.
baboons don't need to go into the water because altho they have a funny looking ass, no one will comment on it because of the high probability of shorter lifespan.
Kinda like how it works with male and female humans.
Originally posted by Samm
The proboscis monkey, while not an ape, spends a lot of time upright and likes to be in and around water .
-
I belive that god created all life on earth....Well duh...But he helped us along...We coulda been like monkeys with alot hair but "Evolved" into not needing it..
*I didnt read all of thread*
-
Originally posted by mrfish
shouldn't they though if it's a part of their belief system?
It doesn't have to be, christians practice their religion in many was and can be very different in there beliefs. Some christians worship Christ but don't even believe in his devinity.
-
so take the parts you like - discard the rest? willowy....
-
This is exactly why there is more than one religion and exactly why there is bloodshed over that fact.
who's right? :)
Originally posted by mrfish
so take the parts you like - discard the rest? willowy....
-
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:22-23)"
not a lot of room for literary license there - you'd have to do some pretty fancy gymnastics to reconcile that with science. instead of all this wimpy half-assed "well god was being figurative" crap i'd like to see the christian who straight up has the sack to say "that's it exactly, that's the way it happened."
;)
-
Oh here we go, Galileao vs the church thread again .
-
Christians don't have to believe in a literal translation of the bible in order to worship Christ as their saviour.
-
Christians don't have to believe in a literal translation of the bible in order to worship Christ as their saviour
So they believe in a God that is all powerful, but didn't create man or the earth?
Sorry, but the basis of Christianity is that God created man and Jesus is the salvation of man.
-
y'all should have a look at a Talmud sometimes - there are airtight arguments in there showing that all scientific evidence is consistent with Genesis (no information on inexplicable the appeal of phil collins)
-
Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So they believe in a God that is all powerful, but didn't create man or the earth?
Sorry, but the basis of Christianity is that God created man and Jesus is the salvation of man.
Hey, have you ever heard of a "Catholic"? There are like a billion of em on this planet...
-
Rightio Erlkonig.
I first heard about Darwin and evolution from my grade school teacher.... a nun.
-
midnight target wrote:
Evolution is a fact, not a theory
Thanks for clariflying it for us MT, now the debate is over..... I trust your decree based on your vast knowledge of the universe.
-
I believe in the principle of evolution. How it works is a mystery to me; beyond the simple idea of millions upon millions of iterations of an organism, random mutations either increasing or decreasing the organism's 'fitness' to survive and being 'selected' by the environment.
However, the physical evidence linking apes to humans would not fill a childs coffin (i.e not much protohominid remains to extrapolate from) so my jury is still out on that one.
All mammals swim in amniotic fluid, all mammals live in water for part of their life so there's no mystery in how babies swim at birth is there? And you only have to meet another ape to know a closer kinship than you get with any other animal. I mean, you look into there eyes and it's someone.
But for my money, evolution is still a theory. It's the only theory, but I would dispute it is an indisputable fact, for the time being at least.
Jeez Nuke, you're sig is great and everything , but couldn't you just post a link to it or something?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
midnight target wrote:
Evolution is a fact, not a theory
Originally posted by NUKE
Thanks for clariflying it for us MT, now the debate is over..... I trust your decree based on your vast knowledge of the universe.
It is a fact, just take a look at the historical records on the evolution of species. Darwin pretty much proved it with his studies on the Gallapagos and his journey on the HMS Beagle.
Ack-Ack
-
Nope, not this time. Read "E vs. C" as has been said before.
-
Evolution is the only theory so far backed up by strong scientific data.
Evolution IS A FACT in nature. Now, if the modern human is a product of evolution is still not certain, it is still the most credible theory. I believe it as much as I believe man has already walked on the moon.
Oh, and NUKE's signature makes baby jesus cry.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
Oh yeah? So where is the proof MT? If you claim it to be a fact, then you'd better be able to present some evidence.
-
Originally posted by weazel
An imaginary being said:
LET THERE BE LIGHT!
And we evolved from there. :D
First there was nothing
Then it exploded.
-Big Bang theory.
-
Originally posted by Blank
ever woundered why we love water so much? and all other apes hate water? :)
Uh..because we are human and they are animals?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Uh..because we are human and they are animals?
Which kingdom do humans belong to ? I forget, is plants or fungi ?
-
And the god 'Haytec' said let there be power in the server and there was and as he looked down upon it he did know twas good.
and to populate this world he did maketh aircraft of quadruple nations and he saw that it was good and just.
but the Luftwiniens did argue, 'Oh good and just god 'haytec' we are needing a divebomber.
and he listened and being a good and just god 'Haytec' did giveth a 'stuka'
and all were happy.
etc etc etc
the beginnings of a new religion :D :D
-
Originally posted by Samm
Which kingdom do humans belong to ? I forget, is plants or fungi ?
Which kingdom?
Oh, right, this is where you're gonna say that humans are animals too?
-
Hortlund we are animals.... We are just the best animals ever and the most intelligent..
If we are not animals why do we do everything else like they do? Why eat?
Why bother toejamting and pissing?
Why bleed?
Why sexual reproduction?
Why die?
Why grow old?
Why the same internal body processes?
Why do we have brains like most animals?
Why a spinal cord?
Why are we built the same way as every other animal, bones, skin, hair, why do we have fingernails and out of the same material as baleen on whales?
Why sleep, its diddlying inconvenient.
Why are we born like an animal and must grow up?
Why do human mothers produce milk just like cows and lions and dogs.
Why?
I believe in evolution, it's the only thing that makes sense.
Hortlund why do you think the Christian religious idea of creation is any more valid than some primitive tribal religous beleifs like peoples origin from crocodiles or holes in the earth?
-
Originally posted by weazel
An imaginary being said:
LET THERE BE LIGHT!
And we evolved from there. :D
Who created that imaginary being? ;)
-
Originally posted by UserName
Who created that imaginary being? ;)
I dunno...Jebus? ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sorry, but the basis of Christianity is that God created man and Jesus is the salvation of man.
Well you're half right. The basic beliefs of Christians can be found in The Apostle's Creed. The only thing said about creation is: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,"
Nothing in there about Genesis. Just that God created evering, nothing about how long it took him or how she did it.
-
So genesis is either: myth, truth, or you can cop out and say it's a deep metaphor open to interpretation written by a man who dictated what god said to him.
Actually the same could be said for the entire book .
-
Fish, you're simply looking at evolution on a mythological scale.
-
Wait a minute... you mean to tell me there are still people who dont accept evolution as fact? Wow...
-
""And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:22-23)"
well- i'm still waiting for a good christian to defend the story as is.......no one?
-
Originally posted by mrfish
""And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
Sounds like this is where Spielberg got his idea for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
-
and while we're at it, since evolution is ungodly, then all the species that exist on the earth today were represented by a pair on noah's ark right?
well converting cubits to feet, the ark was about 450 long by 75 wide by 45 high. (some cubit conversions would put the ark at up to 500 feet long but not more than that)anyway, that's 1,518,750 cubic feet. would someone like to argue that all of the species on the earth today could fit into such a volume?
-
mrfish, I'm sorry but your attempts to pigeon hole christianity in to a nice little package, so you don't have to deal with them as individuals is going to come to naught. They are individuals and their ways of worshiping thier god is many.
I've seen this same type of toejam with people who say Islam, as a whole is bad. It's diddlying roadkill.
-
I beleive in God(christianity).
I can see why it can seem pretty wild, but no more than the theory of fish jumping ashore, growing legs, shedding their scales, growing hair, turning into apes somehow and then into humans.
People forget the Historic and Archeologic evidence of the Christianity.
Look at the city of Jericho, which the bible states the walls fell Outwards, not as they would have if seige weapons had been used pushing the wall inwards, the city was descovered with the walls fallin outward.
The flood, allmost every anceint civilization has tales of a great flood, sceintists beleive most of the deserts such as in North america were once covered by water.
The Assyrian Empire which the Bible talks about, we had no clue it even existed untill recently, when it was discovered as described in the Bible.
Path of Migration? It is just a coincidence that we started around the middle east and migrated to & through Europe, Africa, Asia and eventuelly to the americas as in the Bible with the tower of Babel?
There are countless numbers of "Links" between history,geography,archeology and the Bible, and they are all just coincidences?
What about evelution?
What made man evolve? He thought he could see better if he stood up, so his bones naturally began to take that shape and just somehow passed down to later generations?
Why arent we still evolving? Everything just stopped Evolving for no reason? And there are no more "Inbetween" evelution species left like half man half ape, or fish with legs??
The population, would the world not be much much much more crowded if the earth was millions/billions of years old? I mean think about it, look at how much the population has increased in the last 2000-3000 years!
Why were humans the only species lucky enough to be somewhat inteligent? No other animal even comes close to how incredibly smart humans are (well compared with animals, I know some pretty stupid humans :D)!
How about the universe? two somethings collided and made a big explosion that somehow created all you see around you? where did they come from?
Interesting how we are programmed to think "Beggining - End" as that is how everything happens, everything in our world is born, and eventuelly dies etc.
But that is not so, time is endless both ways never was a begining nor will there be an end, amazing how hard it is to imagine because we are just so use to it start and finish!
To be Christian you must believe in the Bible.
Most Religions like Catholicism orriginated when rome converted to christianity, of course many people did not want to convert so they simply "added to" or "slightly modified" the orriginal beleifs, and then the church became in power, since only the Preists could read from the bible (because they claim only they could properly "interprut" it) they were sort of able to keep the people "dumb", so the Church had full control/power over the people. And then more people finnally started reading it themselves, finding it much different than how the Catholic church had been teaching it. When it was translated so the average person could read it people started learning to read, write etc. and there for starting the Renaissance.
I love history, it is just so facinating! "To understand the world today you must know the world of yesterday"
-
they tell us that
we lost our tails
evolving up
from little snails
i say it's all
just wind and sails
are we not men?
we are DEVO!
we're pinheads now
we are not whole
we're pinheads all
jocko homo
are we not men?
D-E-V-O
monkey men all
in business suit
teachers and critics
all dance the poot
are we not men?
we are DEVO!
are we not men?
D-E-V-O
god made man
but he used the monkey to do it
apes in the plan
we're all here to prove it
i can walk like an ape
talk like an ape
do what a monkey do
god made man
but a monkey supplied the glue
we must repeat
o.k. let's go!
-
so does that mean you believe the stories or not thrawn? if not, then why did god put them there? does he often ramble on about stuff he really doesn't mean? do you think god maybe has a drinking problem?
does your unique, "self-help-section-at-borders-books" approach to christianity involve throwing out the parts you don't like to make it more pallatable or to avoid logical disconnects ?
is there ANY christian out there reading this bbs that believes the clay/rib story of creation and the noah's ark story as written or are you all in the "figurative" camp?
can i get a witness or what!?!?! if not a witness can i at least get a friggin halelujah!
-
Originally posted by mrfish
"can i get a witness "
That's a good song,but here's one better.
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
-
I believe Evolution was a great Beatles song....
You say you want a evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for weazels with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want keep the Second, Fred
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
-
Evolution and christianity do NOT have to be at odds with each other. My biology professor, who is an evolutionary biologist, is also on the board of directors at his church.
What does it matter if Genesis is symbolic, or even if it is erroneous? Heck, the entire old testament does not even matter. As long as a person believes what happened in the New Testament is true and factual, they can still be considered a Christian.
Not to get off on a religious rant here, but this life would be pretty sucky if all you did was live for a few years,die, and thats it.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
[.
"Not to get off on a religious rant here, but this life would be pretty sucky if all you did was live for a few years,die, and thats it."
That's why God was invented.
Gotta keep the masses doped on violence,religion and TV.
-
You fellas gotta listen to THE PROPHET George Carlin and his views on religions ;) ;) ;)
-
Why arent we still evolving? Everything just stopped Evolving for no reason? And there are no more "Inbetween" evelution species left like half man half ape, or fish with legs??
evolution takes along time unless its a freak mutation, and as such we are still evolving. I think the average heigh and lifespan of a human has increased (dont quote me on that)
inbetween species of half man/ half ape well you look fossil record and there are quite a few, all died out though, remember neanderthal man and the first modern humans were around at the same time but like everything else we wiped them out i.e survival of the fittest/evolution.
fish with legs - please see 'mudskippers' ,'coelacanth' or for a nice example try a frog which obviously cant exist as it starts its life with gills swimming in water like a fish then grows legs and walks on land breathing our air, crazy little fella :D
-
y'all come on!
Fish is trying but he can't do it alone.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
is there ANY christian out there reading this bbs that believes the clay/rib story of creation and the noah's ark story as written or are you all in the "figurative" camp?
can i get a witness or what!?!?! if not a witness can i at least get a friggin halelujah!
Absolutely. I believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Holy word of God. And all that it contains is true.
But I will not be drawn into this discussion, it would take way more time than I have to and quite honestly, I have been down that road before and know what the end result is. No need for a repeat:).
-
Originally posted by Blank
evolution takes along time unless its a freak mutation, and as such we are still evolving. I think the average heigh and lifespan of a human has increased (dont quote me on that)
inbetween species of half man/ half ape well you look fossil record and there are quite a few, all died out though, remember neanderthal man and the first modern humans were around at the same time but like everything else we wiped them out i.e survival of the fittest/evolution.
fish with legs - please see 'mudskippers' ,'coelacanth' or for a nice example try a frog which obviously cant exist as it starts its life with gills swimming in water like a fish then grows legs and walks on land breathing our air, crazy little fella :D
The average lifespan for a human has increased. That has got verly little to do with evolution though, and more to do with improvements in our ability to care for our sick and wounded.
You wont find any "mid-stages" in the fossile record. That is something that has frustrated evolutionists since 1800-whatver when Darwin came up with his theory. You will find a lot of different species, but you wont ever find any mid-stage creature.
I must have missed your point about the frogs. So they are born with gills and then they live on land..so what? What, in your opinion does that prove? Isnt it the same with a human baby? In the womb it lives in water, then it is born and starts to breathe air.
-
I must have missed your point about the frogs. So they are born with gills and then they live on land..so what? What, in your opinion does that prove? Isnt it the same with a human baby? In the womb it lives in water, then it is born and starts to breathe air
Human fetuses don't have gills, they get their oxygen through the placenta from the mother.
Amphibian young hatch from eggs, swim like fish with external gills and eat algae. gradually they grow legs and their gills atrophy, they then climb out of the water, but must return to water to breed.
Remember, Humans share 97% of their DNA with chimps, and something like 50% of their DNA with bananas; makes you think huh? Not sure what about though...
Evolution is a nice theory, it fits the observable facts quite well, but is by no means complete or exhaustive. I suspect that the general principle of natural selection does work but the detail is going to be a lot more complex, possibly incomputable.
Humans are animals. Those of us not blessed with direct religious experience can have no other conclusion. I am still waiting for a religious experience I do not induce in myself (entheogenesis) so that I can make a direct qualitative comparison.
-
"Believing" in evolution is no more scientific than believing in God. Evolution is not a belief system, it is not a religion. Evolution is a scientific theory (the word "theory" does not mean what most lay people think it means, it is not synonomous with "rough guess") and as such it will be the main line of biological research regarding origins until there is data that breaks the theory. It does not include any moral instructions, impicit or otherwise. It makes no comment on the existance or non-existance of higher powers.
Evolution is currently the explanation that best fits the available data. The macro concept of evolution is as close to scientific fact as we can get. The micro concepts are constantly being altered and updated as new data changes our understanding.
All of this is, of course, contingent on the fact that nobody has found any data to prove evolution wrong.
-
Originally posted by weazel
An imaginary being said:
LET THERE BE LIGHT!
And we evolved from there. :D
Some even stopped before ;)
PS: Scientific knowledge is valid. Until proved wrong. Atoms are unsplittable. The speed of sound is a limit. 640k ought to be enough for anybody. Don't even try to imagine what's next.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
so does that mean you believe the stories or not thrawn? if not, then why did god put them there? does he often ramble on about stuff he really doesn't mean? do you think god maybe has a drinking problem?
does your unique, "self-help-section-at-borders-books" approach to christianity involve throwing out the parts you don't like to make it more pallatable or to avoid logical disconnects ?
is there ANY christian out there reading this bbs that believes the clay/rib story of creation and the noah's ark story as written or are you all in the "figurative" camp?
can i get a witness or what!?!?! if not a witness can i at least get a friggin halelujah!
If your talking about my post I suggest u read it much more carefully because you are obviously confused. I was speaking of Catholicism "branch out" of Christianity at the end.
You either believe in the Bible 100% or u don't beleive in Christianity.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You wont find any "mid-stages" in the fossile record. That is something that has frustrated evolutionists since 1800-whatver when Darwin came up with his theory. You will find a lot of different species, but you wont ever find any mid-stage creature.
Archeopteryx
-
My theory is that entropy explains it all. The unescapable trend from order to disorder. We are actually devolving from a higher life form, and lower SAT scores, political correctness, and the trek from Mozart to Eminem are evidence that I am right.:D
-
right on brother ammo! at least someone still has some cahones around here. i'd rather be at odds with an all out christian than submerged in this lukewarm sea of sissiness.
as far as your hesitance to debate your own religion's assertions, all this bbs's christians keep playing that "i'd only get bashed card" of martyrdom which is a little dissappointing and suggests to me that the real problem is that you're out of ammo - but at least you own up in general ;) my regards
"What does it matter if Genesis is symbolic, or even if it is erroneous? Heck, the entire old testament does not even matter. As long as a person believes what happened in the New Testament is true and factual, they can still be considered a Christian.
you christians gonna sit back and take that? the only things made irrelevant about the old testament were some of the dietary, temple and sabbath laws not the whole thing!!!!
the very authority of your religion rests on the messianic prophecies of the old testament - isaah if i recall but i'm working on memory here - i would hardly consider it irrelevant.
more fun anyone?
since the noah story is pivotal in any debate about E vs C maybe someone can explain how the polar bears, penguins and species native only to australia and south america got on the ark which was presumably built in the middle east. and how they were let of on seperate continents while you're at it...
it must have taken noah years to collect all those species- oh wait, we can just play the divine intervention card and say the polar bears were divinely inspired to walk down to judea one day right - as if in a trance, they suddenly decided to call up el al and price a ticket to tel aviv-
"look hezekiah, is that a polar bear?"
"vhat the...oy vay!"
they musta flipped their yalmukahs when they say that :)
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Not to get off on a religious rant here, but this life would be pretty sucky if all you did was live for a few years,die, and thats it.
Why do you say that ?
-
Creation isn't theory at all. It's hypothesis.
AFAIK, evolution is fact. Natural selection on the other hand, is theory.
-
since i know i'm not going to get any meaningful dialogue with any christians i'll end my part here.
as soon as your positions are exposed for being nonsensical you run to the realm of "well if you only had faith it'd all magically make sense"
roadkill- evolution is mankind at it's best. people from all backgrounds and walks of life trying to find out from the facts what really happened. there are no good guys and bad guys and no value judgments from evolution, just us working together as a species to figure it out through science, which espouses no absolutes, what really happened. it's far more magical than your child's stories of angels and hell and rib bones....
all christianity and every other religion for that matter represent is a type of friction working against our advancement as a species. thus my frustration. maybe someday you'll let go your blankee and come help us figure out what's really going on.
-
Natural selection(evolution) is not a theory . It is why european descendants are the most resistant to HIV and why Africans are the most resistant to malaria . And why mosquitos are more resistant to pesticides then they were five years ago . And why we need new flu vaccines every year . The problem is that people, myself included, cannot comprehend how long a period one million years is, let alone 500 million .
It's similar to my practice of not tipping homely waitresses . Soon the uglier variety will get discouraged and move on to other better paying jobs and become more financially independant . While the good looking waitresses will be encouraged by the extra income of the tips to remain a waitress and consequently stay in a lower tax bracket . This has the end effect of making goodlooking waitress more attracted to schmoes like me . So now if you see me not leave a tip, you needn't ask why .
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Archeopteryx
Yes?
-
Originally posted by mrfish
since i know i'm not going to get any meaningful dialogue with any christians i'll end my part here.
Since you have that attitude it seems pointless to try to argue with you. Thanks for shutting up.
-
Mr. Fish, while I am tempted to go again, I can't really add anything that didn't appear in the last great thread ("E. vs. C"). Whether you feel any of that was up to standard is your call.
I feel like I am in the same old debates with the same people over and over. Just too busy and too tired at the moment to enter another megathread.
-
Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing.
Natural selection is a theory to explain the mechanism that made evolution possible.
-
Well Hello Steve!
If you are claiming that the fossil record does not include any intermediates then you have not done your homework sir.
In fact one of the most complete of all the fossil records is for the species Homo Sapiens... Check it out.
(And take that weak watermelon to some other playground):p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well Hello Steve!
If you are claiming that the fossil record does not include any intermediates then you have not done your homework sir.
In fact one of the most complete of all the fossil records is for the species Homo Sapiens... Check it out.
(And take that weak watermelon to some other playground):p
Granted, there are some holes in the evidence... land mammals to whales, reptiles to mammals... etc.
Still, the evidence supports the fact of evolution.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The average lifespan for a human has increased.
Actually they've discovered that lifespan is genetic . At a point in our life our bodies are programmed to slow cellular division . At about 19 years the cellular reproduction slows and cells are dieing faster than they can be replaced . It's why some species of parrot for example only live an average of 30 years and why a defferent species will live an average of 80 . Many animals will die when they reproduce, and it's not because of some trauma incurred from the reproductive proccess . This is not limited to the animal kingdom . Most interesting is a type of tree that will not die unless killed .
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well Hello Steve!
If you are claiming that the fossil record does not include any intermediates then you have not done your homework sir.
In fact one of the most complete of all the fossil records is for the species Homo Sapiens... Check it out.
(And take that weak watermelon to some other playground):p
Umm..ever heard of "the missing link" MT?
But ok, I'll play along, since the fossil record for humans is the most complete one, can you please draw a line from homo sapiens sapiens back to the branching off from the apes around 6 million years ago. Most people agree that there is no such path, but there are several holes or "missing links".
But lets stick to the well explored fossile record for the humans. You tell me MT, how many in-betweens have they found? Lets take an interesting period in time, lets say 100 000 years ago. According to the evolutionists, there were three different species of humanoids at that time. Homo Sapiens, Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Heidelbergensis. Thats 3 different species that allegedly evolved in this pattern
Heidelbergensis --> Neanderthalis --> Sapiens
We have found fossiles from the three different species, now I ask you. Have we found any half neanderthal -half Sapiens? or something like that?
(just for clarity, I am claiming that the fossil record does not include any "inbetween-stages" all we have found in the fossil record are different species. We have not found "the in-betweens")
-
As for "midstage" creatures, well that's almost every creature that has ever existed . Some living example off of the top of my head . A mammal that lays eggs, fish that are endothermic, fish with lungs, alligator has a four chambered heart . That lobe finned fish that I'm not going to attempt to spell . Oh and then there's all the species of early man .
-
Originally posted by mrfish
right on brother ammo! at least someone still has some cahones around here. i'd rather be at odds with an all out christian than submerged in this lukewarm sea of sissiness.
as far as your hesitance to debate your own religion's assertions, all this bbs's christians keep playing that "i'd only get bashed card" of martyrdom which is a little dissappointing and suggests to me that the real problem is that you're out of ammo - but at least you own up in general ;) my regards
"What does it matter if Genesis is symbolic, or even if it is erroneous? Heck, the entire old testament does not even matter. As long as a person believes what happened in the New Testament is true and factual, they can still be considered a Christian.
you christians gonna sit back and take that? the only things made irrelevant about the old testament were some of the dietary, temple and sabbath laws not the whole thing!!!!
the very authority of your religion rests on the messianic prophecies of the old testament - isaah if i recall but i'm working on memory here - i would hardly consider it irrelevant.
more fun anyone?
since the noah story is pivotal in any debate about E vs C maybe someone can explain how the polar bears, penguins and species native only to australia and south america got on the ark which was presumably built in the middle east. and how they were let of on seperate continents while you're at it...
it must have taken noah years to collect all those species- oh wait, we can just play the divine intervention card and say the polar bears were divinely inspired to walk down to judea one day right - as if in a trance, they suddenly decided to call up el al and price a ticket to tel aviv-
"look hezekiah, is that a polar bear?"
"vhat the...oy vay!"
they musta flipped their yalmukahs when they say that :)
Why are u ignoring my posts?
Anyway, as for noah & the arc thing, well does ice not float?
Perhaps the great Ice sheets just rose allong with the water, they could still eat cuz its not like all the fish died.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Granted, there are some holes in the evidence... land mammals to whales, reptiles to mammals... etc.
Still, the evidence supports the fact of evolution.
There are more than some holes in a great big line of evolutiuon. Science has been able to identify a myriad of different species through the fossile record, but it has been impossible to "connect the dots" if you know what I mean. That is why it is wrong to say that "there are some holes" it would be more correct to say that "there is a big hole, and that is our evidence."
-
Originally posted by Samm
As for "midstage" creatures, well that's almost every creature that has ever existed . Some living example off of the top of my head . A mammal that lays eggs, fish that are endothermic, fish with lungs, alligator has a four chambered heart . That lobe finned fish that I'm not going to attempt to spell . Oh and then there's all the species of early man .
Those are not mid-stage creatures. Those are separate species.
All you guys have is alot of theories.
Horse -> giraffe is a good example. Everyone knows the theory. Some ancient horse-type animal lived on the savannah and began to focus on eating tree leaves. Over millions of years its neck grew longer, and its body was more and more adopted to eating from the tall trees.
Well, thats the theory.
What have the scientists found so far?
Horses, and giraffes. Nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
There are more than some holes in a great big line of evolutiuon. Science has been able to identify a myriad of different species through the fossile record, but it has been impossible to "connect the dots" if you know what I mean. That is why it is wrong to say that "there are some holes" it would be more correct to say that "there is a big hole, and that is our evidence."
That means absolutely nothing.
The fact that we lack all the data is not in and of itself data that contravenes the Theory of Evolution.
To beat evolution you need to come up with data that breaks it, not come up with data that isn't present and unknown.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Umm..ever heard of "the missing link" MT?
(just for clarity, I am claiming that the fossil record does not include any "inbetween-stages" all we have found in the fossil record are different species. We have not found "the in-betweens")
Ever species of man is an "inbetween" species, so now you want to find species between the inbetween species ? And then will you want species identified between even those ? Every homo sapiens is genetically different, so if you wanted to divide it down minutely as you can, everyone of us is a different inbetween species. It just depends on nature and a bit of chance to determine which cellular configuration (species if you like) will outbreak and bloom and dominate an era . Without physical adversity from the natural world a species will remain unchanged like the shark, and possibly the shiny new homo sapiens .
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Since you have that attitude it seems pointless to try to argue with you. Thanks for shutting up.
that's a nice parting shot tough guy but you were just as cowardly as the others when i asked if you believe in the creation story as written. since you are suddenly stricken with bravado maybe you can step up and answer my question:
did god make man from a handful of clay and then make woman from that man's ribcage after putting him in a deep sleep? and then all human life proceeded from that initial pairing? is that the alternative you are arguing yes or no?
instead of a sniper attack after i bow out how about a straight answer
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That means absolutely nothing.
The fact that we lack all the data is not in and of itself data that contravenes the Theory of Evolution.
To beat evolution you need to come up with data that breaks it, not come up with data that isn't present and unknown.
No, it is the other way around. Evolution is a theory. It is up to the one presenting the theory to prove that it is correct.
But at least we agree that there are no evidence in the fossil record for the evolutionists. At least nothing found so far.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Those are not mid-stage creatures. Those are separate species.
All you guys have is alot of theories.
Horse -> giraffe is a good example. Everyone knows the theory. Some ancient horse-type animal lived on the savannah and began to focus on eating tree leaves. Over millions of years its neck grew longer, and its body was more and more adopted to eating from the tall trees.
Well, thats the theory.
What have the scientists found so far?
Horses, and giraffes. Nothing more.
Most untrue, there were many species of prehistoric quadraped herbivore mammals with neck legnths varying from shorter than a horses to longer than a giraffes .
-
Evolution is a theory.
As soon as you call it a fact, you ignore the whole scientific process and you've started a new religion, with a new creation myth. Science must always be open to the possibility that any of its models of reality may be wrong. Nothing is a fact as far as proper science is concerned.
Only religions insist that their model of reality is "true" or "a fact" -and thereby affirming that they can't be wrong.
While we're on the subject - creationism can't be a scientific theory either - because it relies on a god creating everything. The existence of this god is eternally unprovable (and you get into trouble if you try) according to the xians - so the theory falls down flat, in scientific terms - "No really, man... this guy who we can't prove exists made it all" don't cut it in science. The big bang on the other hand is merely indeterminate: maybe one day someone will be able to go there and see it - or maybe we'll find out what happened before it.
-
Originally posted by Samm
Ever species of man is an "inbetween" species, so now you want to find species between the inbetween species ? And then will you want species identified between even those ? Every homo sapiens is genetically different, so if you wanted to divide it down minutely as you can, everyone of us is a different inbetween species. It just depends on nature and a bit of chance to determine which cellular configuration (species if you like) will outbreak and bloom and dominate an era . Without physical adversity from the natural world a species will remain unchanged like the shark, and possibly the shiny new homo sapiens .
I must admit that this is the first time I have ever heard the theory "Every species of man is an "inbetween" species". Well, I see that you want to have a discussion about the question what constitues a species?
Go right ahead if you want to and present some clever definition of what you feel should constitue a new species. Meanwhile Im gonna stick to the accepted definition.
"a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other "
-
Besides how does the whole idea of evelution suppose to work I mean, since humans allways wanted tp fly why don't we just grow wings? Imagine that.. man aces high would be funny! :)
If a horse could grow a long neck why cant we!
What about the inteligence of humans?
Not only were we somehow the only species to "evolve" (according to evelution) into intelegent beings, but we did not start really learning untill the last 6000-8000 years? (beggining of time according to the bible) , so for a few billion years we were just dumb things growing limbs and stuff, and then again by coincidence we just happen to stop evolving and start becoming civilized when the Bible states we were created (and quit smart too, not dumb cavemen banging their heads on rocks to make caves :D )
Nearly everything we cosider facts are in fact more theory than fact :D in other words, it is not a fact unless you were there to see it and can proove it, and last time I checked noone on earth is over 120 years old muchless millions of years old.
500 years ago it was just as much a fact that the world is flat as it is a fact it is round today.
-
You're not making any sense, every species that ever existed exept the first and last are inbetween other species on the timeline . And every life form that has ever existed is a species .
Oh and I should add that it's not limited to only plants and animals as the definition you posted states .
-
I think that Hortlund is just trying to be clever...
I can't beleive an educated man could hold the beliefs he is spouting here.
As to the evidence.. look around you!
If we were to postulate that life evolved, what would you expect to find? Maybe a general progression from lees complex to more complex animals and plants, with each filling an available niche in the biosphere? Well.. thats what you got!
Missing Link? You watch too many movies. Who says an intermediate step must exist anyway? Some scientists postulate that Evolution may occur in jumps. This is one of the "Theories of Evolution" often confused with the "Fact of Evolution".
Here is a little help in learning about transitional fossils:
There is a list of over 100 sequences of fossils in
Paleontologic evidence and organic evolution, Roger J. Cuffey. Originally published in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 24(4). Reprinted in Science and Creationism
Here is a picture of just one. This is proof of change, and the transmutation of species to species over time. Now what?
-
Originally posted by Samm
Most untrue, there were many species of prehistoric quadraped herbivore mammals with neck legnths varying from shorter than a horses to longer than a giraffes .
And were those ancestors to the giraffe? Not really huh?
Here is the dilemma you face:
A full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute? Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get that much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would pretty much blow the head up every time the giraffe bend down. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.
Now, how do you propose these valves evolved? Natural selection cannot help because the valves are useless until functional.
-
Originally posted by cajun
If a horse could grow a long neck why cant we!
Kill off all but the 25% longest necked people, let them breed for a few thousand years and come back and kill off 75% of the population who's necks are shorter than only 25% of the population . Let them breed for a few thousand years and do it again . Repeat this proces for a few million years and you'd end up with some long necked mofos .
That's artificial natural selection . It's why domestic strawberries are so much larger than wild ones. They've been geneticaly altered through artificial natural selection .
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here is a picture of just one. This is proof of change, and the transmutation of species to species over time. Now what?
Exactly what am I looking at here MT?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And were those ancestors to the giraffe? Not really huh?
Yes of course they were the ancestors of giraffes .
-
Do you know what archeopteryx is Hortlund?
It is the link between birds and dinosaurs. Does it prove anyhting? No, it doesn't. What is does, though, is provide some pretty credible evidence concerning evolution.
You were asking for an example of an inbetween species and I gave you one.
Now, concerning this "debate." It is impossible to argue evolution vs. creation. Why? One is based on scientific theory (which I truly have become even more convinced that most people have no idea what true scientific theory is and how it works), while the other is based purely on faith and religion. Are science and religion mutually exclusive? Yes and no. In some ways it is completely impossible to put one versus the other looking for a total truth. It will never happen.
I am not going to argue one versus the other, particularly since I do not have the background that provides me with a good knowlege of creation and the bible. I do know evolution from classes I took in college (I was a biology major). Most people who claim to speak for or against evolution have no idea what evolution is, how it is explained, the different types of evolution, etc.
This debate is old, tired, and "unwinnable" from either side. There are better and more interesting arguments in evolutionary thought. You should see the debates and arguments of punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism. The old debate about dinosaurs being cold or warm-blooded (which in some places, still goes on). If you want a good book to read about that, try "The Dinosaur Heresies." I forget the name of the guy who wrote it (Its in a box at my parents house), but it very interesting and well written.
Sorry this post got a little long, I wasn't planning on it. You can all continue with the debate, I have heard it before and much better a few years ago in college.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
As to the evidence.. look around you!
If we were to postulate that life evolved, what would you expect to find? Maybe a general progression from lees complex to more complex animals and plants, with each filling an available niche in the biosphere? Well.. thats what you got!
[/b]
Actually it is the other way around. If everything comes from the same molecules, and then mutates and evolves with the same goals, and prerequesites for survival, we should have less different species than we have now.
Missing Link? You watch too many movies. Who says an intermediate step must exist anyway? Some scientists postulate that Evolution may occur in jumps. This is one of the "Theories of Evolution" often confused with the "Fact of Evolution".
How big are these jumps? And after one of these jumps how does the species continue to survive? Are you suggesting that mother cow suddenly gives birth to baby whale, and little baby whale happily crawls down into the ocean and swims along.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Now, how do you propose these valves evolved? Natural selection cannot help because the valves are useless until functional.
You mean vascular aortic valves ? We have them too, just not as robust as the girraffes for obvious reasons . You see girraffes that didn't have sufficient cardio vascular systems did not eat very well, as a result the did not breed well, as a result only the genes of giraffes with sufficient cardio vascular systems passed on their genetic material .
-
Originally posted by Samm
Yes of course they were the ancestors of giraffes .
You posted this:
Most untrue, there were many species of prehistoric quadraped herbivore mammals with neck legnths varying from shorter than a horses to longer than a giraffes.
If you insist on these species all being ancestors to the giraffes, then please educate me on why their necks first grew, and then became smaller again?
-
Originally posted by Samm
You mean vascular aortic valves ? We have them too, just not as robust as the girraffes for obvious reasons . You see girraffes that didn't have sufficient cardio vascular systems did not eat very well, as a result the did not breed well, as a result only the genes of giraffes with sufficient cardio vascular systems passed on their genetic material .
I believe the question was "How did they evolve"? Here you cant use natural selection to help the process. And your home made theory that the Giraffes with insufficient cardio vascular system did not eat well doesnt really answer the question on how it came into existance in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
How big are these jumps? And after one of these jumps how does the species continue to survive? Are you suggesting that mother cow suddenly gives birth to baby whale, and little baby whale happily crawls down into the ocean and swims along. [/B]
I think you may missunderstand the theory. There are no jumps, some specimens of homo sapiens are very different from the average homo sapiens sapien(modern man), while some specimens of homo sapiens would be very similar, and fewer still indestinguishable from homo sapiens sapien . Every living thing is a mutant, every linving creature has mutated characteristics, me, you, the fungus on our feet and in our digestive tract .
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I believe the question was "How did they evolve"? Here you cant use natural selection to help the process. And your home made theory that the Giraffes with insufficient cardio vascular system did not eat well doesnt really answer the question on how it came into existance in the first place.
Are you purposely being this way ? The process of natural selection IS evolution . Animals with weak cardio vascular systems don't breed well, in fact they rarely reach sexual maturity, thus their genes are filtered from the pool . Pre girraffes with longer than average necks ate better and prospered . Stretch this proccess out for a few hundred million years and you get long necked animals feeding on tree tops .
All mammals have the same number of neck vertebre btw. Mouse, whale, monkey, girraffe, all have 7 neck vertebrea .
-
Would this be a good time to bring up skin pigment and eyelid thinkness?
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Would this be a good time to bring up skin pigment and eyelid thinkness?
Don't forget facialmaxilla or cheeck vasculature :)
-
Maybe a good time to bring up a few other things too.
Like our own jawbones.
Compare it to a Homo Sapien that lived 5,000 years ago and you'll find our lower mandible getting gradually smaller over the course of those years because our food is easier to eat, requiring less chewing. One of the reasons modern man in the western world is having dental problems. Our teeth are evolving slower than our jaw bones.
Gatso
-
Evolution is fact not theory.
There's a mountain of evidence in numerous scientific disciplines.
There are major lifeforms on this planet that were not represented in the past. Fact.
There were no mammals 250 million years ago. Fact.
There are major lifeforms of the past that are not represented today. Fact.
All living forms come from previous living forms. All present forms of live cme from ancestral forms that were different. Fact.
You might as well argue that the sun revolves around the earth if you're going to ague that evolution is not fact.
Now... you want to talk about natural selection... that's an entirely diffferent argument.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You might as well argue that the sun revolves around the earth if you're going to ague that evolution is not fact.
They did that allready, remember Galileo was imprisoned .
-
Evolution is a theory. You can't be a biologist without understanding and accepting evolution. Creationism is NOT even a science. Something has to be testable and experimentable in order to a science. How do you test Creationism?
There have been many transitionary fossils found of 'ape men'. Neanderthal, homo hablis, homo afarensis, homo erectus, australopithicus, and many many others.
It is an extremely extremely extremely rare occurance that a fossil be made in nature. Only under certain conditions and situations will a fossil even begin to form. Think about how many animals have lived on earth, and then think about how many fossils we have.
Scientists have actually gotten bacteria to evolve. I don't know the details of the experiment, but over hundreds of generations, bacteria evolved new traits (characters).
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Evolution is a theory. You can't be a biologist without understanding and accepting evolution. Creationism is NOT even a science. Something has to be testable and experimentable in order to a science. How do you test Creationism?
There have been many transitionary fossils found of 'ape men'. Neanderthal, homo hablis, homo afarensis, homo erectus, australopithicus, and many many others.
It is an extremely extremely extremely rare occurance that a fossil be made in nature. Only under certain conditions and situations will a fossil even begin to form. Think about how many animals have lived on earth, and then think about how many fossils we have.
Scientists have actually gotten bacteria to evolve. I don't know the details of the experiment, but over hundreds of generations, bacteria evolved new traits (characters).
You're mixing up some things... Evolution is fact. How does evolution occur? The answer to this is theory.
Look at your own post... Scientists have observed the evolution of bacteria. This is a factual statement, not a theoretical one.
-
Originally posted by Samm
Kill off all but the 25% longest necked people, let them breed for a few thousand years and come back and kill off 75% of the population who's necks are shorter than only 25% of the population . Let them breed for a few thousand years and do it again . Repeat this proces for a few million years and you'd end up with some long necked mofos .
That's artificial natural selection . It's why domestic strawberries are so much larger than wild ones. They've been geneticaly altered through artificial natural selection .
Now how do you suppose it allways works that way, I mean only the taller monkeys survived? and then only the taller of the tall monkeys survived and on and on and on with every single species?
Lets figure out the chances of that.
there is a 50/50 chance of a tallmonkey and a short monkey surviving, lets say the tall monkey wins the first round, whats the chances of him winning again? since its 50/50 chance u half it, he now has 25% chance of wining, now lets say he was lucky enough to win AGAIN, now he has a 12.5% If he magically wins that round then he now has a 6.25% chance of winning and on and on and on!
Now do the same thing with the chances of each species winding up like this and u got pretty slim odds.
-
I'm sorry but I don't know what your talking about cajun . You believe there is some natural force that makes life more difficult for shorter monkeys ?
-
Originally posted by cajun
Now how do you suppose it allways works that way, I mean only the taller monkeys survived? and then only the taller of the tall monkeys survived and on and on and on with every single species?
Lets figure out the chances of that.
there is a 50/50 chance of a tallmonkey and a short monkey surviving, lets say the tall monkey wins the first round, whats the chances of him winning again? since its 50/50 chance u half it, he now has 25% chance of wining, now lets say he was lucky enough to win AGAIN, now he has a 12.5% If he magically wins that round then he now has a 6.25% chance of winning and on and on and on!
Now do the same thing with the chances of each species winding up like this and u got pretty slim odds.
Its not always a 50/50 chance. Being the tall monkey may mean that YOU are the monkey that always eats first because you may be better equiped to gather food or take food away from the short monkeys (and quite possibly the most likely to survive). Being the tall monkey may also mean that your just big enough to intimidate that cheetah that lives in your neck of the jungle (they tend to play it safe and go after the smaller and weaker). Being the tall monkey may also mean that all the monkey chicks dig you because, your..., well..., BIG. This means that YOU are the monkey that gets to pass on his genes, while the smaller monkeys have to... spank you-know-what.
eskimo
-
Sisters X-Bf was 6 foot 10 and 20 stone. I can conclusively say that being a big monkey gets you served at a bar faster than a small monkey does.
Gatso
-
that's a nice parting shot tough guy but you were just as cowardly as the others
The thing I really grow tired of is responding to you with respect and getting these types of responses. I don't owe you anything where religion is concerned- you by your own admission have been well-schooled. I think you're wrong about your interpretations, but there isn't a single thing I can say to change your mind. I do respect your difference of opinion, however, and don't feel the need to call you names because I don't think like you.
I'm only human- sometimes I don't feel the point in engaging in a discussion where respect is one-sided.
But for giggles, here's what I think about the creation of man, and whether or not the translation should be taken literally or not- I don't know, I wasn't there. There is certainly ample reason to look at it either way... Jesus said "not a single word spoken by my father is changed", yet Jesus quite often spoke figuratively. The point is, it isn't very clear either way. Turn that into anything you want.
As far as the persecution complexes are concerned, it's pretty fair to say you have a hardon for Christians and Christianity in general. In other words, I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me. ;)
-
The question is, if an american fetus evolved into a liberal would they still want the right to bear arms...and Palistine.
Whee whee whee. Cripes lets talk about breasts or something.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Its not always a 50/50 chance. Being the tall monkey may mean that YOU are the monkey that always eats first because you may be better equiped to gather food or take food away from the short monkeys (and quite possibly the most likely to survive). Being the tall monkey may also mean that your just big enough to intimidate that cheetah that lives in your neck of the jungle (they tend to play it safe and go after the smaller and weaker). Being the tall monkey may also mean that all the monkey chicks dig you because, your..., well..., BIG. This means that YOU are the monkey that gets to pass on his genes, while the smaller monkeys have to... spank you-know-what.
eskimo
I see your point (and I thought about it when I was posting that message), but then how would we have evolved from strong 200-500 lbs apes/gorillas to weak humans?
But even if the chances were say 90%, figure that up and u still have pretty slim chances.
-
Originally posted by Samm
Which kingdom do humans belong to ? I forget, is plants or fungi ?
Only humans from New Jersey are occaisionally classified as Fungi.
DuBe
-
Originally posted by cajun
I see your point (and I thought about it when I was posting that message), but then how would we have evolved from strong 200-500 lbs apes/gorillas to weak humans?
But even if the chances were say 90%, figure that up and u still have pretty slim chances.
What advantage do humans have over apes? (Or all other creatures on this planet?) What has made us so successful as a species? Our freaky big brains perhaps?
Yes, we are the smart monkeys.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by cajun
I see your point (and I thought about it when I was posting that message), but then how would we have evolved from strong 200-500 lbs apes/gorillas to weak humans?
But even if the chances were say 90%, figure that up and u still have pretty slim chances.
Actually, I may be wrong but if I remember correctly modern man, homo sapien sapiens, is larger than any of his recent ancestors . I still don't know what you mean with 50/50 and 90% and all that .
Everytime a person dies doing something stupid, or a panda starves to death, that's natural selection, that's evolution .
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, it is the other way around. Evolution is a theory. It is up to the one presenting the theory to prove that it is correct.
But at least we agree that there are no evidence in the fossil record for the evolutionists. At least nothing found so far.
You either completely fail to understand basic scientific method, are intentionally dishonest or are an idiot.
I'm betting on the first option as it seems to be the common denominator linking all the creationists I have talked to. Science is not conducted via the legal system. Inane refutations like yours carry no weight in science.
Point the first, no, that is not the way it works. In science when a theory has been put forth for peer review, as the Theory of Evolution has been, it is then that it can be disproven by finding data that breaks the theory. In the case of the Theory of Evolution no such evidence has yet been found.
Point the second, no we did not agree that the is no evidence in the fossil record. We agreed that the fossil record in human posession is incomplete. There is some supporting data in the fossil record.
All that aside, the strongest evidence in in the form of molecular biology and observed evolution.
-
BTW,
You can't apply chance (like you have described) to the survival of the fittest componant/theory of evolution. Big changes don't always take place by random chance. They change a little bit at a time.
Things slowly adapt to fit their surroundings.
On mountains in Alaska you will find spruce trees that are surprisingly stubby and stout. Up high, they are the only trees to be found. Why? Because they are the only trees that can survive huge snow and wind loads. All of their taller ancestors were regularly crushed and blown over by snow and wind. They've been conditioned over millions of years, the short tough, stubby one's surviving and passing on their genes that are better suited for the harsh, cold, mountain climates.
There are artificial ways that you can see how evolutionary changes take place. Look at any breed of dog. Each breed was bred for specific traights. Breeders sought out dogs that exibited specific desirable traights that were best suited for certain jobs. Only those dogs were allowed to breed. Over several generations we now have Basset Hounds, Golden Retrievers, Chow Chows, etc. All those variations, from wolves turned mans best friend!
eskimo
-
Enlightened and educated ppl must belive in Evolution. The alternative is an absurd children's story.
Random chace, DNA mutations and 2 billion years can do quite a lot of damage.
I like the story of the white moths in an English coal town. Over time, the trees and everything around got a coating of coal dust. The birds could see the moths easily. There were always a few mutations making them black. Over a 50 year period the white moths were selected out and the black ones given a safer niche. The white moths are now the mutation. They don't live long enought to reproduce.
HC
-
Cajun, its a gradual process. And btw, humans have far, far less in common (genetically) with gorillas than with "monkeys".
I'll take the small monkey vs tall monkey a bit further.
Lessay we now have mr. tall monkey who was once a small monkey. He is a big, tough, very muscular monkey (you know, arboreal muscles and such).
Now mr. tall monkey has prospered and multiplied. Call this tall (in comparison with other monkey species) prosperous monkey the australopithecus (sp?) ancestor of humanity.
Mr tall monkey, after thousands and thousands of years, through trial and error and luck begins to use tools like a sharp stone or long sticks.
More thousands of years pass. Tall monkey becomes more adept at using his tools...something that other monkeys of the time apparently did not catch on to.. but something happens to this tall monkey!
The use of tools begins to change him. First it improves his longevity and survival chances. Bone and stone tools now let him skin animals they kill, as time passes the sharp stones allows the species to CUT meat into snack size, making the need for large canines and massive jaws no longer be a survival trait.
Along the way some nutcase begins to play with fire. A primitive "industrial revolution" begins. Fire allows better tools, better food, PROTECTION, they dont freeze in the winter, reduction of calories needed to survive per day (less food needed to fight off the cold), etc, etc.
More thousands of years, these tools, now used to make clothing and basic hunting tools make our ancestors shed their animal like body hair, the jaw becomes smaller, the body leaner and less muscular and taller (height=more field of vision) and begin to walk upright. Homo erectus, homo abilis, etc etc. Cranial size is the one and only thing that seems to INCREASE in this species while the rest of its body becomes more agile,dexterous and precise, and less strong.
And you get humans. Nothing more than some stupid monkey that through thousands and thousands of years did trial and error and changed itself by changing its enviroment and its way of life through tools which ended up in turn, changing the species.
And Humans werent the only monkey to do it apparently. Cromagnon humans seem to have "split" from the tall monkey tree at the start and evolved its own way... this monkey kept its brute strength and big jaws, but its head did not grow as much as the other tall monkey. The result? The 2 met, the smarter monkey beat the crap out of them, or simply were better equipped to survive in a changing world (ice ages).
Trial, error and luck. That about sums evolution & natural selection.
-
Originally posted by hardcase
Enlightened and educated ppl must belive in Evolution. The alternative is an absurd children's story.
HC
For an "enlightened and educated person", you must be pretty stupid to make a broad statement like that. Think about it.
no offense of course
-
The ultimate question for the creationists is...
...Who created God?
-
Random chance, DNA mutations and 2 billion years can do quite a lot of damage
So can the dumbing down of America... as proven by some of the replys on this post. ;)
Evolution theory is the only exceptable answer to this post.
Creationism is faith and is not logical. Faith is the belief that something is because you believe it exists not because it is true or fact.
Plus there has been evolution to religion itself. It has changed along milleniums.Every Religion has borrowed from the one that had preceded it. From the greeks myths,christianity to catholicism to islam it's all been passed down and change to fit the need of the people. Religion is Faith it breeds Hope. Along with Reincarnation. Fear of dieing. The Human condition and our mortality brings about such faiths and notions. That is why men create there gods to reflect our selfs and our fear of our mortality.
Evolution is science not a religion because it does not breed Hope or morality. It only follows scientific reasoning. It also based on facts not faith.
-
noone created god, as I was saying it is not a start end start end as we are "programmed" to think since thats what everything around us on this world does.
The hardest thing for people to do is to think differently.
what created the "big boom" (I mean I know 2 somethings are suppose to have collided, but what created them?)
As for having to believe in Evolution to be Enlightened and Educated, well no offence but I think I am more enlighted/educated than you if you cant at least take things into cocideration, instead of just say "thats a bunch of rubbish", I've listened to stuff about evelution, I like people to challenge my oppinions, make me think why I believe in what I believe. Instead of just tuning it out like a child.
-
Cajun it wasn't two things colliding together. The big bang theory as I understand happened from one singularity. Something so compact so small that all the gavitational force gave way and it exploded into the universe we know . A singularity like a Blackhole but much more condensed.
Then there is the mutiple universe theory.
I also believe that[ the idea of god ] god was created by man to explain the unexplainable.
-
Find the fault with my statement. Secularly educated people accept Evolution. Religious based educations are filled with fairy tales.
HC
-
AFAIK, the presence of singularities has yet to be proven. I think it's just hypothesis at this point.
-
Originally posted by hardcase
Find the fault with my statement. Secularly educated people accept Evolution. Religious based educations are filled with fairy tales.
HC
I find it ignorant to assume that all people that believe that this world was a product of God himself are uneducated. You try to prove THAT. Are you saying that I am stupid? William Jennings Bryan? George Washington? Martin Luther King? Either you believe or you don't. It is rediculous to say that a Believer is uneducated (implied stupid) because of his belief.
Oh and BTW, I believe that there is more evidence supporting a divine creator than some crazy accident and then unplanned coincidence after coincidence. When you consider the complexity of life itself,a dn the ecosystems, it has "planned all along" written all over it.
-
Big bang actually.
And some scientists have come up with some good random existance math. The simplified version is the odds against existance are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 1 , after a certain period of 'time' sooner or later 'existance' will occur.
The question of who created god is no less important than the question of the universes existance in this whole argument. More often this question, when posed, leads to the creationist answer god simply exists, and answer which they quite often preclude as a possibility for the universe. IE, my god can simply exist but your universe cannot simply 'exist'. And highlights the fact that they draw use a different set of rules for whats valid as an argument for/against, and to me thats far from educated.
The other striking difference between the two communities (creationist and evolutionist) is in the answer to some of the bigger questions. In some cases the evolutionists will say "I don't know", or "we think this might have happened but we're not sure yet". Admiting they don't know is to me a far great act of faith than jumping to "its gods way". To me, a man who says "I don't know" is far more educated and enlightened.
Unfortunately the real root of the problem is, IMHO, the scale on which evolution, and the big bang theories for that matter, happen. The scale is beyond most human comprehension, the odds, timescale, and iterations involved are massive. The real issue when the argument boils down to its finer points of breaks down to the creationists not accepting scales that push their realms of thinking to the limits.
Evolution, and natural selection has been proven. Scientifically with fossils, and in current times with experiments on actively evolving animal populations (bacteria, birds, and monkeys). Those that deny it are just like those that clung to the 'earth is flat' or the 'sun revolves around the earth' ideas.
Originally posted by cajun
noone created god, as I was saying it is not a start end start end as we are "programmed" to think since thats what everything around us on this world does.
The hardest thing for people to do is to think differently.
what created the "big boom" (I mean I know 2 somethings are suppose to have collided, but what created them?)
As for having to believe in Evolution to be Enlightened and Educated, well no offence but I think I am more enlighted/educated than you if you cant at least take things into cocideration, instead of just say "thats a bunch of rubbish", I've listened to stuff about evelution, I like people to challenge my oppinions, make me think why I believe in what I believe. Instead of just tuning it out like a child.
-
Originally posted by hardcase
Find the fault with my statement. Secularly educated people accept Evolution. Religious based educations are filled with fairy tales.
HC
As I see it... evolution vs. creation isn't the same thing as god vs. no god. There are plenty of scientists with religious backgrounds. I think the term being thrown around is "intelligent design." Evolution versus creation? That fights over. Evolution is fact. Species simply didn't appear from thin air. Intelligent design versus natural selection? Put the gloves on, you're still in it.
This coming from an atheist... I must be slipping. :D
-
evolution is NOT fact. It is theory.
-
That why I added this disclaimer [ I said as I understand it. ]
and isnt saying hypothesis same as saying theory pretty close IMHO.
Theory: 1) a speculative plan 2)a formulation of underlying principles of certain observered phenomena which has been verified to some degree. 3) the principles of an art or science rather than its practice 4) conjecture; guess
Hypothesis: 1)an unproven theory etc tentatively accepted to explain certian facts.
tentatively accepted to explain certain facts.
some theories are pretty hard to prove. but yet are they are considered theories.
Plus I believe that most of the scientist would agree that all theories until proven are just hypothesisies. [conjecture; guess]
Anyway I was trying to explain that the big bang theory in current literature by many of today scientist is considered to originate from a singularity not two thing hitting together and splitting like in a atom explosion.
-
Oh and BTW, I believe that there is more evidence supporting a divine creator than some crazy accident and then unplanned coincidence after coincidence. When you consider the complexity of life itself,a dn the ecosystems, it has "planned all along" written all over it. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think that the CHAOS Theory will finnally put and end to all speculation concerning the complexity of life including the ecosystem. :D
Then if you read anything from Deepoc Chupra HMM I know I'm spelling his name wrong then the singularity exploded and expands until the Heat death and all becomes one again. Not a direct quote just paraphrasing. And god is complete.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
evolution is NOT fact. It is theory.
Maybe in the Kansas public school system, you're right.
-
Originally posted by Griego
That why I added this disclaimer [ I said as I understand it. ]
and isnt saying hypothesis same as saying theory pretty close IMHO.
Theory: 1) a speculative plan 2)a formulation of underlying principles of certain observered phenomena which has been verified to some degree. 3) the principles of an art or science rather than its practice 4) conjecture; guess
Hypothesis: 1)an unproven theory etc tentatively accepted to explain certian facts.
tentatively accepted to explain certain facts.
some theories are pretty hard to prove. but yet are they are considered theories.
Plus I believe that most of the scientist would agree that all theories until proven are just hypothesisies. [conjecture; guess]
Anyway I was trying to explain that the big bang theory in current literature by many of today scientist is considered to originate from a singularity not two thing hitting together and splitting like in a atom explosion.
Somewhere along the line, you collect enough data and the idea transitions from hypothesis to theory. Evolution is well past all of that. It is fact.
All living forms come from previous living forms. There isn't a single shred of evidence to argue otherwise.
-
I an an advocate of evolution (Im GOD believer also ya). We did evolve from the chimps to become more intelligent creatures due to evolution and biological change. Theres scientific fact though whats considered fact is a grey area in this thread.
-
You get no argument from me that Theory of Evolution is way past Hypothesis.
My reply was concerning Singularities. Not the Theory of Evolution.
And what from I read we may be pass Hypothesis on singularities also.
-
Originally posted by Griego
Cajun it wasn't two things colliding together. The big bang theory as I understand happened from one singularity. Something so compact so small that all the gavitational force gave way and it exploded into the universe we know . A singularity like a Blackhole but much more condensed.
Then there is the mutiple universe theory.
I also believe that[ the idea of god ] god was created by man to explain the unexplainable.
I'm no physicist but it seems to me that the gravitational force generated by all the mass in the known universe wouldn't simply give way even to what must have been an unimaginable amount of energy. Rather, it seems to me there would have become an equilibrium. At least until some unaccounted for additional force were added to the mix.
-
Theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with singularities. You've been smoking too much crack Griego. If it does, please explain, show a theorum, some equation or proof?
-
Originally posted by Griego
You get no argument from me that Theory of Evolution is way past Hypothesis.
My reply was concerning Singularities. Not the Theory of Evolution.
And what from I read we may be pass Hypothesis on singularities also.
I'm probably way behind the curve, but how do you measure anything or collect evidence from beyond the event horizon?
Oh... and I'm going to repeat. Evolution is not theory. It is fact. Natural selection is theory.
-
Not really sure since I'm no physicist.
All I know is what I've read about it stating It was a singularity then bang the whole universe from a singularity.
If it was a singularity then the gravitation forces must have been great. and for it to exploded and release all matter and energy to form a universe. Since matter and energy are the same only in different states.
given that E=MCsquared. then S=(MCsquared/E)Gravitational force.
S+Gravitational force = Explosion of all matter and energy
Explosion of all matter and energy = universe :)
Then S+Gravitational forces = Universe
Universe= Evolution
Universe+time=Evolution
Evolution is because the Universe is made to evolve because it's in continues motion. Motion,time,matter and energy=primordial soup
Primordial soup begining of man.
Primordial soup= the molecules that formed into the enzymes and protiens that were form by the motion and energy as the universe cooled into the state that it is in.
then out of this Primordial soup came man much later of course.
:rolleyes:
-
String Theory deals with the abstraction of something from nothingness in terms of numbers and the chances of the occurance if at all in trying to represent the universe as we know it. Your analogy of that to faith and thus its argument to (real subject of comparison) evolution is rather a bad analogy. Since evolution is a byproduct of the universe to begin with. No universe = no evolutution. Yes universe not necesarily evolution. In our case we got universe and evolution and apes and men and people who do or do not believe in GOD. Not much "singularity" in that last sentence eh?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Big bang actually.
And some scientists have come up with some good random existance math. The simplified version is the odds against existance are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 1 , after a certain period of 'time' sooner or later 'existance' will occur.
The question of who created god is no less important than the question of the universes existance in this whole argument. More often this question, when posed, leads to the creationist answer god simply exists, and answer which they quite often preclude as a possibility for the universe. IE, my god can simply exist but your universe cannot simply 'exist'. And highlights the fact that they draw use a different set of rules for whats valid as an argument for/against, and to me thats far from educated.
The other striking difference between the two communities (creationist and evolutionist) is in the answer to some of the bigger questions. In some cases the evolutionists will say "I don't know", or "we think this might have happened but we're not sure yet". Admiting they don't know is to me a far great act of faith than jumping to "its gods way". To me, a man who says "I don't know" is far more educated and enlightened.
Unfortunately the real root of the problem is, IMHO, the scale on which evolution, and the big bang theories for that matter, happen. The scale is beyond most human comprehension, the odds, timescale, and iterations involved are massive. The real issue when the argument boils down to its finer points of breaks down to the creationists not accepting scales that push their realms of thinking to the limits.
Evolution, and natural selection has been proven. Scientifically with fossils, and in current times with experiments on actively evolving animal populations (bacteria, birds, and monkeys). Those that deny it are just like those that clung to the 'earth is flat' or the 'sun revolves around the earth' ideas.
I never said that if god has allways existed that the universe couldnt have allways existed. I should have worded it better, I knew someone would quote on me about that.
As for what you said about admitting you dont know, I agree with you 100% in that it is far more inteligent to admit you dont know something when you simply don't.
But I have not noticed any differance between Evelutionists and Creationists on this, if any I would think Evolutionists were more likely not to say "I don't know" but anyway..
The real root of the problem:
I agree with you on this as well, only I think the Idea of there being a god is allso a big issue, people tend to think of some fairy tail like king sitting up in the clouds and obeying your every request etc. :rolleyes:
Funny how history,archeology and geography are never brought up in this subject, only sceince, since there is so much proof of what the Bible speaks about in it.
I myself am disappointed at how some christians (especially those preeching) don't really know much about History, Archology, Geography & Sceince.
But I have listened to a few very smart people on these subjects, namely a preecher with a PHD who was talking about history,sceince etc. He made some very good points that I see in allot of churchs & people, most people go to church kind of to be entertained, more than to learn. it is funny some of the observations he made. Once he was schedueled to preach for 3 nights I forget where and the first 2 nights had really good points, and educating. but he preached moreso as if he was teaching rather than preaching. And people found him kind of boring.
So the 3rd night he decided to preach a totally meaningless message, but put every halijula,amen and scream and yell, the works.
And at the end everyone just thought it was so great.
Man I'm tired, half asleep. didnt plan on this being such a long post I doubt half of it turned out to make much sense. please forgive the 2000 typos and bad wording :)
*head falls on key board* zZzZzZzZzZz *snore* :D
-
Originally posted by cajun
what created the "big boom" (I mean I know 2 somethings are suppose to have collided, but what created them?)
Nothing "created" the Big (bang) "boom." There was no collision. The Big Bang Theory states that a sphere of almost infinate mass and infinate density expanded to create the universe. The evidence in support of this theory is in the movement of the stars. There is a measurable "center" of the universe from which all things move away. This is supposedly where the expansion occured. (yes, its much more detailed than that, but its late)
The more iteresting issue is the equivilent of "Who created God?" In other words - why did a small ball of "stuff" come together and explode? There are two possibilities which hindge on which "end theory" you subscribe to.
End Theory 1: The Big Crunch. All of the matter in the universe moves away from a central point and from eachother. As the distance from the center is increased, so is the speed of travel until a certain point. Eventually, gravity will stop the expansion of the universe and begin to reverse its effect. The result would slowly but surely pull the matter together - back into its sphere form. Nearer to the end matter would accelerate to asounding velocities and all converge back into this ball... an unmeasureable amount of time later (trillianths and trillianths of a second), the sphere would reach its critical density and explode all over again, resulting in a second, third, fourth, etc Big Bang. In theory, this process has gone on for quite some time (gross understatement) and will continue indefinately as a means of "renewing" the universe.
End Theory 2: The Big Freeze (or Chill). This theory states that all of the above regarding the Big Bang applies, but instead of the force of gravity being enough to halt and reverse the expansion of the universe, it proves too weak and the expansion not only continues, but speeds up continuously. Eventually (matter) stars become so far apart from eachother (because remember, just as stars are moving away from a central point, they are also moving away from eachother - the farther the star is from the explosion, the faster it is currently moving AND accelerating) that you would not be able to see one star while stationed on a planet orbiting another star - the night sky would be completely black. Eventually the distances would be so great the the "reproduction" of stars would prove extremely difficult and the universe would "freeze." In practice, the Big Freeze Theory maintains that the initial expansion of he universe was a one shot deal and this is pretty much it - it aint happening again.
Recent discoveries (last 10 or so years) point to the Big Freeze as the more likely option because the expansion of the universe simply ISNT slowing down. Either way, we're all gonna be dead - youve got a 50/50 chance between being incenerated and compacted or frozen and stretched.
In terms of tying this into evolution - just as different humans have different charectaristics - height, eye type, skin pigment, teeth, etc etc etc, the humans that result from one of these two end theories will be VASTLY different that we are. We'll use just the eyes for our example.
If the Big Crunch holds true - human's will EVOLVE to combat the changing environment. As the stars condense - light becomes more powerful - soon the night sky as dark is a distant memory. Just as Asains have thicker eyelides to protect them from snow glare in the Northern climates (read: Inuit, etc) Humans in this environment - where stars LITERALLY cover the entire sky - will need to shield their eyes somehow. If the brightness is so overbearing (and it will be) we will not be able to USE our eyes. As a result - the eyes would fall victim to evolution and would eventually be erased as viable sensory organs. We would have to abandon sight as our primary means of navigating life.
If the Big Freeze holds true, and stars continuously get further apart, our eyes will do just the opposite of above. Since light will be diminished, we will EVEOLVE to counter this change in our enviroment. Our eyes will become much more sensitive to light - perhaps bigger to capture more light - and withl different mechanics. Once light is totally snuffed out however, everything changes once again. Without ANY light to magnify, the eyes would fall victim to disuse just as they did in the previous theory and we would need to rely on another sensory perception to navigate the world.
Thankfully, while our eyes first attempt to cope with each change through better protection (eyelids) or increased light gathering ability (size) and then successively fall into disuse (burned out or unable to capture light that isnt there) other sensory organs will be picking up the slack at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Griego
Not really sure since I'm no physicist.
All I know is what I've read about it stating It was a singularity then bang the whole universe from a singularity.
Okay... Einstein's theory also predicts the presence of a singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite density within a black hole. From here, the theory of gravity completely breaks down and you have to read that ninety pound head stuff from Hawking that makes my nose bleed. :)
-
Then again Universes might be different in where one Universe explodes and expands and contracts and explodeds again and again.
Other universes might just expand and never contract and yet others might expand and contract ina Heat death while others become so cold noone or anything for that matter exits at all. :)
-
Yes string theory = billions and billions of little stars then evolution.
:)
-
Originally posted by Griego
Then again Universes might be different in where one Universe explodes and expands and contracts and explodeds again and again.
Other universes might just expand and never contract and yet others might expand and contract ina Heat death while others become so cold noone or anything for that matter exits at all. :)
Man, dont even get us started on multiple universes - youre opening a box you cant possibly hope to contain - and you can throw away the evolution part of the thread too. ;)
Multiple dimensions... hyperspace... cross cube... no NO!!!! MUST SLEEP!!!!! You batsard! :D
-
Okay...Einestiens theory also predicts the presence of a singularity a point of zero volume and infinite densesity within a blackhole. From here the theory of Gravity completely brakes down
Aren't you just proving my point.
Theory of Gravity completely brakes down.
Then the only assumption I can make is that when gravity brakes down in a singularity then there is an explosion that may lead into a universe being born. Or maybe I just assumed to much and just the Theory of Gravity brakes down not Gravity itself.
Must read Hawking.
Sorry Saudaukar. :) I just like to listen to people smarter than myself on a subject that I find intriguing.
-
Does this mean spurious george is divine too? :D
Originally posted by senna
I an an advocate of evolution (Im GOD believer also ya). We did evolve from the chimps to become more intelligent creatures due to evolution and biological change. Theres scientific fact though whats considered fact is a grey area in this thread.
-
Presented with that political propoganda, at my age Im at a lost for words yet sir. However I will say that I do like small chimps, they make great pets. I'd just feed them bannanas everyday and their happy. Milk and Banannas.
As for politics, shrug.
:D
-
By the way you took my statement out of context since i was replying to some one elses statement on singularities. SENNA.
but since it started in a singularity then Evolution was started from a singularity. Then Sinularity applies to Evolution also does it not.
I'm not familar with String theory must be some thing close to chaos theory. at least it sounds like chaos.
-
I disagree you can have singularity (in this case universe creation) and not have evolution.
?
:)
-
True SENNA, but since it's this universe that came out of such singularity and Evolution is possible according to Darwin. then Evolution is a byproduct of such singularities and said explosion. Or atleast in this Universe correct.
using the substitution theory.
-
Anyway much fun for me in this thread.
Thanks davidpt40
My brain just started to smoke so I must cool it off some how
beer beer hmmm I don't even like beer. :D
-
Yes but its not a requirement just so happens it occured that way in this case allowing chance for evolution to occur.
:)
-
Originally posted by Griego
Must read Hawking.
Sorry Saudaukar. :) I just like to listen to people smarter than myself on a subject that I find intriguing.
Im by no means an expert - I simply find the subject interesting as well and read on it for my own pleasure. Beyond discussing the theory and possible implications, my knowledge of the actual scientific mechanics is rather limited.
Hawking is mind boggling - but there are other authors whose names I cant recall at this time who explain much of theortical and multidimentional physics in more layman terms. There is a book called "Hyperspace" (again, lost name of author) which goes into explaing how multidementional travel/existance can be used to combat either the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze.. fancinating stuff. This of course is the ultimate in "evolutionary thought" as our third dimentional physical self would be a none issue - existance would switch to a different plain which can be mathmatically explained but IMPOSSIBLE to understand by the human mind.
It would be like asking a two dementional being on a peice of paper to explain concepts such as "up," "down," and "volume." They wouldnt be able to do it.
In theory, the third dimention could be "explained" to a two dimentional being by drawing a cross consisting of six squares. Of course, this, when "folded" properly creates a cube, and thus, volume, however this 2D being wouldnt be able to grasp "fold" because it deviated from their laws of physics. He can only visualize the constuct.
The next most complex dimention cant be understood by us either - it can be "explained" to us by drawing or constructing a 3D "cross" of 8 cubes aranged four long and four on each side of the second to the top cube. Of course, just as a 2D being cant understand the word "fold" - how could we possibly understand how to "fold" this 3D cross of 8 cubes into what the next dimention actually looks like? Our perceived laws of physics state that "folding" this object is impossible - just as the 2D being thinks of the third dimention.
In terms of its implications for surviving the end theories, if a 2D stick figure is drawn on a peice of paper, and you set that peice of paper on fire, the only way for him to escape is to abandon the 2D laws of physics and move OFF the paper by going "up." In the same way - whatever "up" is in terms of the 3D/4D theory, it is how we will eventually make the correct end theory a non-issue.
This also plays into how space and time change as you pass the event horizon of a black hole and draw nearer to the singularity. Our 3D laws of physics cant explain (and thus, we cannot understand) what is actually happening at the singularity because our minds cant grasp a "hole" in three dimentional space. Existance at the singularity is thought to be impossible by us because of the enormous force of gravity and as a result, the warping of physical matter as well as both space AND time - but in reality, we have no clue whats going on. We can "explain" this (or confuse the issue further depending on your viewpoint) by going into what actually changes as time and space are altered.
Theoretically, for example, it would be possible to "view" the past using light. If you were on a spacecraft which was equipt with a telescope of infinate power which was able to exceed the speed of light (whole nother issue) you could outrun the light from Earth from 50 years ago and "tune in" to the light from August 1945 and watch two certain portions of Japan light up. (as an interesting supliment, a space craft traveling at the speed of light can circumvent the ENTIRE visual/known universe in 56 years ship time - once you return to Earth, however, Sol (the sun) would be but a crisp, and Earth would be an icecube. This is all because speed changes gravitational forces and gravity alters time.)
However, if time and space are altered to the extent that they are "in" (we dont know the proper term - again - "up" to 2D being) the singularity, existance cannot be measured by space OR time. It simply stops. What then? How do you measure existance without time? This is difficult for most people to grasp because time is what we measure EVERYTHING by - only not many people understand that time is not constant. Gravity is what the universe is measured by - it effects EVERYTHING in one way or another.
The singularity of a black hole "goes" somewhere, but we arent quite sure where. The matter/energy "swallowed up" by a black hole appears to "disappear" - only page one, book one, of science 101 states "matter cannot be created or destroyed" so we are able to "explain" but we are NOT able to "understand" what is happening.
Isnt this more fun than discussing whether or not God took ribs out of Adam's chest and created woman? Besides... Im sure feminists will succeed in getting that taken out of the Bible in 10 years anyway. ;)
Flame on.
-
Yes but in a CHAOTIC Universe chance is implied is it not.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You either completely fail to understand basic scientific method, are intentionally dishonest or are an idiot.
[/b]
OR you dont know what you are talking about.
I'm betting on the first option as it seems to be the common denominator linking all the creationists I have talked to. Science is not conducted via the legal system. Inane refutations like yours carry no weight in science.
Point the first, no, that is not the way it works. In science when a theory has been put forth for peer review, as the Theory of Evolution has been, it is then that it can be disproven by finding data that breaks the theory. In the case of the Theory of Evolution no such evidence has yet been found.
[/b]
Actually, it is you who seem to lack a very basic and fundamental understanding on how the scientific method works.
Example:
Theory by Steve put forth for peer review.
There are several species of invisible, mute birds that live in the atmosphere at altitudes above 20 000 feet.
So now it is up to you to disprove it, otherwise it is a scientific fact?
The scientific method works the other way around. If I'm presenting a theory, it is up to me to prove that I'm right.
Also, Karnak, humor me here, is it possible to prove the non-existance of anyting?
Point the second, no we did not agree that the is no evidence in the fossil record. We agreed that the fossil record in human posession is incomplete. There is some supporting data in the fossil record.
[/b]
So the combination of "the fossile record is incomplete" and "there is some supporting data in the fossil record" =evidence according to Karnaks scientific method?
All that aside, the strongest evidence in in the form of molecular biology and observed evolution.
Ahh yes, the molecules. They evolved too right...? From "the primordeal soup" maybe? Probably without even realizing it, you put the finger on the most obvious and damaging weakness in the entire theory of evolution. The inability to explain the origins of the protein.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Im by no means an expert - I simply find the subject interesting as well and read on it for my own pleasure. Beyond discussing the theory and possible implications, my knowledge of the actual scientific mechanics is rather limited.
Hawking is mind boggling - but there are other authors whose names I cant recall at this time who explain much of theortical and multidimentional physics in more layman terms. There is a book called "Hyperspace" (again, lost name of author) which goes into explaing how multidementional travel/existance can be used to combat either the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze.. fancinating stuff. This of course is the ultimate in "evolutionary thought" as our third dimentional physical self would be a none issue - existance would switch to a different plain which can be mathmatically explained but IMPOSSIBLE to understand by the human mind.
It would be like asking a two dementional being on a peice of paper to explain concepts such as "up," "down," and "volume." They wouldnt be able to do it.
In theory, the third dimention could be "explained" to a two dimentional being by drawing a cross consisting of six squares. Of course, this, when "folded" properly creates a cube, and thus, volume, however this 2D being wouldnt be able to grasp "fold" because it deviated from their laws of physics. He can only visualize the constuct.
The next most complex dimention cant be understood by us either - it can be "explained" to us by drawing or constructing a 3D "cross" of 8 cubes aranged four long and four on each side of the second to the top cube. Of course, just as a 2D being cant understand the word "fold" - how could we possibly understand how to "fold" this 3D cross of 8 cubes into what the next dimention actually looks like? Our perceived laws of physics state that "folding" this object is impossible - just as the 2D being thinks of the third dimention.
In terms of its implications for surviving the end theories, if a 2D stick figure is drawn on a peice of paper, and you set that peice of paper on fire, the only way for him to escape is to abandon the 2D laws of physics and move OFF the paper by going "up." In the same way - whatever "up" is in terms of the 3D/4D theory, it is how we will eventually make the correct end theory a non-issue.
This also plays into how space and time change as you pass the event horizon of a black hole and draw nearer to the singularity. Our 3D laws of physics cant explain (and thus, we cannot understand) what is actually happening at the singularity because our minds cant grasp a "hole" in three dimentional space. Existance at the singularity is thought to be impossible by us because of the enormous force of gravity and as a result, the warping of physical matter as well as both space AND time - but in reality, we have no clue whats going on. We can "explain" this (or confuse the issue further depending on your viewpoint) by going into what actually changes as time and space are altered.
Theoretically, for example, it would be possible to "view" the past using light. If you were on a spacecraft which was equipt with a telescope of infinate power which was able to exceed the speed of light (whole nother issue) you could outrun the light from Earth from 50 years ago and "tune in" to the light from August 1945 and watch two certain portions of Japan light up. (as an interesting supliment, a space craft traveling at the speed of light can circumvent the ENTIRE visual/known universe in 56 years ship time - once you return to Earth, however, Sol (the sun) would be but a crisp, and Earth would be an icecube. This is all because speed changes gravitational forces and gravity alters time.)
However, if time and space are altered to the extent that they are "in" (we dont know the proper term - again - "up" to 2D being) the singularity, existance cannot be measured by space OR time. It simply stops. What then? How do you measure existance without time? This is difficult for most people to grasp because time is what we measure EVERYTHING by - only not many people understand that time is not constant. Gravity is what the universe is measured by - it effects EVERYTHING in one way or another.
The singularity of a black hole "goes" somewhere, but we arent quite sure where. The matter/energy "swallowed up" by a black hole appears to "disappear" - only page one, book one, of science 101 states "matter cannot be created or destroyed" so we are able to "explain" but we are NOT able to "understand" what is happening.
Isnt this more fun than discussing whether or not God took ribs out of Adam's chest and created woman? Besides... Im sure feminists will succeed in getting that taken out of the Bible in 10 years anyway. ;)
Flame on.
I alway thought that Time is the 4D and not some abligatory Deminsion that no one knows about. and then 5D is speed. Am I wrong in assuming this.
No matter cannot be created or destroyed but it can be changed to a different state. Energy. So Energy can probably be stored in a singularity much easier than matter in it cool stage.
-
I'm sorry ammo but it is a FACT.
I've seen a write up on an experiment over 60 years, involved small finches, where scientists fed the birds via 'fake' flowers, they did things like vary the flower length, so that those birds that had long beaks would be favoured. And other things where birds with short beaks would be favoured (like tough seeds).
In all of the experiments, natural selection prevailed. Where a long beak was advantageous the birds ended up a group with much longer beaks. And with the tough seed group visa versa. They started with a base group and ended up with two totally different beaked groups of birds, all in just 60 years.
Natural selection, and evolution, shown at work.
There have been many other similar experiments. Close your eyes and shake your head as much as you like, the earth is not flat dude.
Originally posted by -ammo-
evolution is NOT fact. It is theory.
Sardaukar, re: the big bang theory. There have been some updates. I believe one of them is that as the universe is expanding it is accelerating - and its unlikely that there will be a big collapse. The big 'balloon' theory (infinitely inflating and collapsing universe) is old school. The new school is in a chaos based universe with some sort of massive explosion based on the random 'existance' of anti-matter. Stuff way out of my league but fascinating none the less.
Up shot of it is they now believe the universe will keep expanding, forever.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm no physicist but it seems to me that the gravitational force generated by all the mass in the known universe wouldn't simply give way even to what must have been an unimaginable amount of energy. Rather, it seems to me there would have become an equilibrium. At least until some unaccounted for additional force were added to the mix.
ya got me think on this i think i spoke to soon on this subject with an earlier post.
If it was a singularity and it was all that there was then were does the unaccounted additional force come from?
where you say that the gravitational force generated by all the mass in the know universe wouldn't simply give way even to what must have been an unimaginable amount of energy. Rather,it seems to me there would have become and equilibrium.
Since Mass or matter is energy and all that energy is compressed into a zero volume with infinite density equilibrium would be the farthest thing i could think it would be. when energy is compressed something would have to give. a fussion explosion might be in what started it all . In a fussion explosion there is no additional force required to be added. a fission explosion yes and since it was a the only thing there was nothing else then a fussion explosion would be the only logical thing that started the universe.
Which lead to evolution. had to throw that in since i've hijacked this thread enough. :)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Up shot of it is they now believe the universe will keep expanding, forever. [/B]
In this explanation It would lead to cold death. Not Heat death as in the old school version.
with the universe expanding forever. it will gradually cool down to the point where it will be inimical to life as we know it. then Evolution is no Longer or we will evolve to be able to cope with cold.
-
Originally posted by Samm
Are you purposely being this way ? The process of natural selection IS evolution . Animals with weak cardio vascular systems don't breed well, in fact they rarely reach sexual maturity, thus their genes are filtered from the pool . Pre girraffes with longer than average necks ate better and prospered . Stretch this proccess out for a few hundred million years and you get long necked animals feeding on tree tops .
All mammals have the same number of neck vertebre btw. Mouse, whale, monkey, girraffe, all have 7 neck vertebrea .
Allow me to try to explain more clearly what I mean.
Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain.
When the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.
However, this is not enough. When the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out immediately. To prevent this, the brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe was drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.
What I was trying to say was this: This is a bit more complicated than the cardio vascular system found in any other animal. And it is would be misleading to try to simplify this into a question about a weak cardio vascular system.
The question Im aiming at is "how did this system evolve"? Here, natural selection cannot help because the valves are useless until functional. Same goes for that sponge in its head.
Natural selection cannot do much until there is a functioning valve-system. The only way that could appear is by a lucky mutation.
-
Yes Grieger. Its like when monkeys climbed down from the trees they also adapted and had shorter limbs amongst other primates.
:)
-
N=s(*^^%&^##@JJ aiidlk(^%^%*
my head hurts got to go to sleep.
-
a space craft traveling at the speed of light can circumvent the ENTIRE visual/known universe in 56 years ship time
Saurdauker, I may misunderstand you, but you could maybe travel to only a small handfull of stars in 56 Light Years. But, you can't even get across our own galaxy let alone around the whole universe in 56 Light Years. (I love learning about space stuff.)
This image is amazing and boggles my mind about just how vast and old this universe is. I think the image had to be taken with a 10-day shutter speed. Each dot, no matter how faint, is a galaxy. And there is only one star that is in the image, which should give a hint at just how small a portion of the sky you are looking at/through.
Hubble Deep Space Field:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000709.html
-
Grieger I had fun debating with you on string theory.
:)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Somewhere along the line, you collect enough data and the idea transitions from hypothesis to theory. Evolution is well past all of that. It is fact.
Rubbish. Stop treating evolution like it's some sort of religion.
Evolution is and always will be a theory. It fits the observable data quite well. But then so did Newton's theory of gravity... until Einstein turned up with a more universal take on it. The day it or any other theory becomes fact is the day science becomes a new religion, and progress of knowledge will be set back by decades or even centuries. Science must always have an open channel - room for change or improvement. Only religions have "facts" set in stone.
-
Yep and most people who believe in Evolution haven't personally seen even a small part of the evidence supporting the theory. They have faith in the scientists who espouse the theory. Blind faith for the most part. Not much different from the Bible-thumpers when you get right down to it.
-
Cajun, some Big Bang Theory stuff:
This theorises that at about 20,000,000,000 years ago all the matter and space that make up the Universe were concentrated into a very small volume. The theory states that the Universe came into being as an extremely small volume full of energy which gave the Universe a very high temperature. As the Universe expanded so the fundamental atomic particles were formed as a mixture dominated by hydrogen with some helium and almost nothing else.
The expansion of the Universe from the Big Bang is strongly dependent on the mass of the Universe. There is one critical value which would mean that the Universe will expand for a long time, gradually slowing down and then reach a steady state. A mass less than this value will mean that the Universe will go on expanding for ever while a greater value will mean that the Universe will expand to a maximum size and then will start to contract -- eventually returning to a very small volume. Astronomers think that the mass of the Universe is equal to this critical value but can only `see' one tenth of the matter necessary to reach this value. The same discrepancy is seen in the gravitational pull of individual galaxies and in clusters of galaxies. The mass appears to be there but we can not identify it. This is called the `missing mass problem'.
One of the hardest concepts to accept is that the Universe is everything that is. Not only the matter and energy but all the dimensions as well. There is no `outside' to the Universe and it has no `edge', at least not in the usual sense that we think of these concepts.
When we think of the Big Bang we instinctively think of the small Universe expanding like a sphere into an empty void. Unfortunately this is incorrect. The dimensions that we commonly use, three spatial and one time, are all mixed up when the early Universe is concerned and our normal concepts of space and time are not valid.
The only way that it can be partly understood is to consider the two-dimensional analogue of the surface of a balloon which is being inflated. The surface is everywhere continuous, has no edge and yet is expanding. The three-dimensional analogue (whose understanding defeats the writer!) will represent the Universe.
http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/guidry/violence/cosmology.html
-
Scientific Theory can be tested, and is by many in society. You cannot test that I am or am not god...or that god spoke to me and said you are all worshipping the earliest known version of a campfire comic book.
-
Originally posted by cajun
Now how do you suppose it allways works that way, I mean only the taller monkeys survived? and then only the taller of the tall monkeys survived and on and on and on with every single species?
Lets figure out the chances of that.
there is a 50/50 chance of a tallmonkey and a short monkey surviving, lets say the tall monkey wins the first round, whats the chances of him winning again? since its 50/50 chance u half it, he now has 25% chance of wining, now lets say he was lucky enough to win AGAIN, now he has a 12.5% If he magically wins that round then he now has a 6.25% chance of winning and on and on and on!
Now do the same thing with the chances of each species winding up like this and u got pretty slim odds.
If you look at it that way, the chance of any event whatsoever happening is extremely slim.
Here's what Richard Feynman has to say about the uselessness calculating probabilities after the fact in his book "The Meaning of it All":
I now turn to another kind of principle or idea, and that is that there is no sense in calculating the probability or the chance that something happens after it happens. A lot of scientists don't even appreciate this. In fact, the first time I got into an argument over this was when I was a graduate student at Princeton, and there was a guy in the psychology department who was running rat races. I mean, he has a T-shaped thing, and the rats go, and they go to the right, and the left, and so on. And it's a general principle of psychologists that in these tests they arrange so that the odds that the things that happen happen by chance is small, in fact, less than one in twenty. That means that one in twenty of their laws is probably wrong. But the statistical ways of calculating the odds, like coin flipping if the rats were to go randomly right and left, are easy to work out. This man had designed an experiment which would show something, which I do not remember, if the rats always went to the right, let's say. I can't remember exactly. He had to do a great number of tests, because, of course, they could go to the right accidentally, so to get it down to one in twenty by odds, he had to do a number of them. And it's hard to do, and he did his number. Then he found that it didn't work. They went to the right, and they went to the left, and so on. And then he noticed, most remarkably, that they alternated, first right, then left, then right, then left. And then he ran to me, and he said, "Calculate the probability for me that they should alternate, so that I can see if it is less than one in twenty." I said, "It probably is less than one in twenty, but it doesn't count." He said, "Why?" I said, "Because it doesn't make any sense to calculate after the event. You see, you found the peculiarity, and so you selected the peculiar case."
For example, I had the most remarkable experience this evening. While coming in here, I saw license plate ANZ 912. Calculate for me, please, the odds that of all the license plates in the state of Washington I should happen to see ANZ 912. Well, it's a ridiculous thing. And, in the same way, what he must do is this: The fact that the rat directions alternate suggests the possibility that rats alternate. If he wants to test this hypothesis, one in twenty, he cannot do it from the same data that gave him the clue. He must do another experiment all over again and then see if they alternate. He did, and it didn't work.
In short, if an event has already happened then the probabilty of of that event happening is 100%, no matter how unlikely it might have been before it happened.
Furthermore these probability calculations assume that evolution has a design goal - it doesn't. There are lots of mutations that confer no observable "survival" advantage or disadvantage. Finally some mutations can get bred in due to other factors than immediate "survival" factors. In the monkey example - what if female monkeys think tall males are sexier? - this would make the odds much more in favour of tall monkeys over short monkeys.
-
I dont understand why all of you continue to mix Science with Religion.
Apple and Orange.
-
1. Evolution has never been observed.
2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
3. There are no transitional fossils
1)
It is important to understand the difference between micro events and macro evolution.
This is the fist hurdle for the evolutionists to overcome. And apparently it is a difficult one. For example, Samm's talk about how every living thing is a mutant or how every living creature has mutated characteristics would be examples of micro events. Gatsos example on the human jawbone would be another example.
A micro event is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.
A macro event on the other hand is the emergence of entirely new and more advanced features through innumerable completely new genetically defined traits.
Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.
Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.
It is, simply stated, wrong to assume that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content.
That is macro evolution, and that has never been observed.
2)
In thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.
Or in other words:
All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
Evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
3)
See attached image over the fossil record.
First, lets answer the question, what is a transitional fossil?
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage.
Make no misstake about it. NO such fossil has ever been found.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
If you want I can provide dozens of paleontology-sources that all say the same thing. No transitional fossils have been discovered.
So how do the evolutionists explain this? Simple, they make stuff up. Or "interpret" various findings. Thus a single tooth (yes, one tooth) was for a while held up as the final evidence of the missing link between humans and apes, then it turned out the tooth was from a pig, and that theory was dropped. Or Pakicetus, "the oldest fossil whale known". From the Pakicetus fossils, a wide variety of conclusions were drawn... such as it was a whale but it still had its nostrils at the front of head, yet it was amphibious. What the scientists fails to include in their description of “the oldest fossil whale” is the fact that the fossil material from which Pakicetus was conjured up consisted of nothing more than: the back of a mammal skull, two jaw fragments and some teeth. Conspicuously enough these fossils were found amidst an array of land mammal fossils. There is no significant evidence to lead one to assume these remains belonged to an “old whale” any more than to an “old land mammal.” Yet the discoverers chose to “interpret” their findings as a whale, and evolutionary proponents cheered for now they had more support for their whale-evolution theory. Do you want me to present more such interpretations? The "human fossil" record is filled with them. Entire new species has been constructed using nothing more than a fossilized leg bone.
-
OK prove it then. List the facts for me. I would like to see this hard evidence. Or am I just supposed to accept this is true based on what you say.
vulcan, you can keep yopur extra hyperbole to yourself. It is not needed to make a point. Just list the meaningfull facts.
-
Originally posted by Naso
I dont understand why all of you continue to mix Science with Religion.
Apple and Orange.
Read Genesis one, heck, read all of the Bible. You will see why there is either apples or oranges is this case.
-
"Enlightened and educated ppl must belive in Evolution."
"Enlightened" and "educated" people accept the possibility (if not the likelihood) of both.
-
Friedrich Nietzsche
The Gay Science (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, 1882)
125.
The madman.[/b]— Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"— As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?— Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried. "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I! All of us are his murderers! But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? And backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?—Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives,—who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed,—and whoever is born after us, for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto!"— Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners: they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering—it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves!"— It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?" —
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
Read Genesis one, heck, read all of the Bible. You will see why there is either apples or oranges is this case.
I will explain better:
Science it's a try to explain what you see around you, by extrapolating rules, schemes, serching for a theory that can explain the phenomenon you observe, usually by repeating the phenomenon in a controlled environment, and having the same results as previded.
Theese theoryes usually have to resist very aggressive attacks from others scientists, generally by using experiments.
If a succesfull experiment contraddict the theory, and can be repeated by different workgroups, the theory it's either discarded, or modified to adapt to the exception.
This process go on and on, changing the science and adapting it to the more deep knowledge we acquire of the world that it's around us.
On the edge of this system there is the speculating science, using basically the mathematic as instrument, since we fail to have instruments to "experiment it", an example of this is the "unified field theory" (dunno the name you angophone called it, using a direct translation), for witch we need to use large colliders to disintegrate the matter at high energies, still on study (large hadron collider, for example), and check if the results comply with the theory (and in that case it's the theory that's wrong, not the facts ;) ).
Religion it's a completely different matter, it's the believing in a supernatural power that can communicate with elected men, or even be present in the world, for the religions evolved from the judaic, it's based on a book that has been written by men guided by the divinity.
The basic difference is simple.
Science it's the way the human being ask himself questions and try to find answers.
Nothing in science is completely truth, science cannot hold "the definitive" answer, since by definition it's always adapting to the world around.
Religion it's the mean that humans use to try to interpreter the God mistery, some religion usually adapt to the moment, to the social local and momentary situation (the christian for example), but anyway tend to have a common ground of basic rules of respect for the others, and for life.
Generally religions come with dogmas, some that no need explanation, "is as it's written", no changes, no speculation.
Putting up a discussion between a scientific theory and a Religiuos dogma, it's almost impossible, since one can say (religion) "I am right because God said that", the other can say (Science) "I guess this is a good explanation, but i can be easy wrong".
BUT, and it's the case of this discussion, alike the other (E. vs C.) it's a mess when someone want to discuss the science as it is a religion, and a religion as it is a science.
And this become flamewar.
Oh.. and Ammo, dont you think you have been a little aggressive?
;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
1. Evolution has never been observed.
Then you don’t understand biologic evolution. It is the change in inherited traits in a population over time. Specifically, it is the change in frequency of alleles (gene variations) from one generation to the next.
Observed examples of evolution include the development of corn with high sugar content, the development of a chihuahua from a wolf, and the development of bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics. In each case, the changes are due to the change in frequency of genes within the population. This is, by definition, evolution.
Evolution is a theory and a fact. Just like gravity is a theory and a fact. There have been several theories debated over the years to explain how gravity works. But this debate doesn’t change the fact that if you jump off a cliff, you gonna hit the ground. And the debate over specific theories to explain the process of evolution doesn’t change the fact that evolution occurs.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Then you don’t understand biologic evolution. It is the change in inherited traits in a population over time. Specifically, it is the change in frequency of alleles (gene variations) from one generation to the next.
Observed examples of evolution include the development of corn with high sugar content, the development of a chihuahua from a wolf, and the development of bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics. In each case, the changes are due to the change in frequency of genes within the population. This is, by definition, evolution.
Evolution is a theory and a fact. Just like gravity is a theory and a fact. There have been several theories debated over the years to explain how gravity works. But this debate doesn’t change the fact that if you jump off a cliff, you gonna hit the ground. And the debate over specific theories to explain the process of evolution doesn’t change the fact that evolution occurs.
It seems more like you are the one who doesnt understand the difference between micro variations/micro evolution/genetic variation (whatever you want to call it) and macro evolution.
I thought I explained it in my post. But I'll try again.
A micro event is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.
A macro event on the other hand is the emergence of entirely new and more advanced features through innumerable completely new genetically defined traits.
Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.
Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.
---
As for your examples, genetically modified corn, the chihuahua and the wolf (?) etc, do you think it is correct to hold these up as examples of evolution? I mean, in fact they are nothing other than planned, controlled alterations performed by scientists/humans. If anyting they show that intelligent thought is neccessary for such development.
Show me one case of observed macro evolution.
-
Steve (Hortlund), what you define as "big change", or completely new genetic traits.
A micro event is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.
A macro event on the other hand is the emergence of entirely new and more advanced features through innumerable completely new genetically defined traits.
a change of 2% of the genetic code it's a macro or a micro event?
please answer.
-
Macro.
But it is wrong to ask a question like that since you have to observe the specific case in question. There could be some cases where a 2% change in genetic variation is not considered a macro event. It all depends on what species we are talking about.
My guess here is that you are aiming at the genetical difference between humans and monkeys maybe?
-
How many micro-evolution you need to have one macro evolution ?
-
2% is (barely) the <> between human and chimps :D
-
Hmm... I don't know but... in my short life I have seen at least three major theories on what happened to the dino's and at least that many on evolution of man and the "discovery" of at least three ancient men that didn't fit any of the theories.. I have also heard scientists change their mind 5 times on weather or not milk is good for me and people still catch colds. I take it all with a grain of salt... and why not? it doesn't matter a whit.
we may be monkeys tho because i seen an experiment where they gave monkeys access to the internet and let em on BB's.. the monkeys got frustrated and pasted in cartooons from lefty internet sites because they lacked the ability to think.
lazs
-
So, it's not the genetic that determine the difference, but the shape, external or visual traits.
In this case you can define macro the difference between different breed of dogs, while micro the difference between a Hyctiosaur and a dolphin.
-
Originally posted by straffo
How many micro-evolution you need to have one macro evolution ?
It is impossible to answer that question. It all depends on what the specific traits are in the new organism, compared to the traits in the old organism.
-
Originally posted by Naso
So, it's not the genetic that determine the difference, but the shape, external or visual traits.
In this case you can define macro the difference between different breed of dogs, while micro the difference between a Hyctiosaur and a dolphin.
You are approaching this question from the wrong side and with the wrong attitude :)
It is the genetic differences between the old and the new organism that determine whether it is a macro evolution that has taken place or not. What is required for a macro evolution is, to put it in laymans terms, that a new species has arrived. The answer to your question is really in my previous post.
-
it make me think that your demonstration was somewhat flawed :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hmm... I don't know but... in my short life I have seen at least three major theories on what happened to the dino's and at least that many on evolution of man and the "discovery" of at least three ancient men that didn't fit any of the theories.. I have also heard scientists change their mind 5 times on weather or not milk is good for me and people still catch colds. I take it all with a grain of salt... and why not? it doesn't matter a whit.
THIS is the science, to not stop, always look around, never rest, almost what we do flying AH :)
Be ready to changes, science dont have to stay equal, it's NOT a religion, and CANNOT be compared to.
-
wow
thanks, I think this thread has cured my insomnia :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You are approaching this question from the wrong side and with the wrong attitude :)
It is the genetic differences between the old and the new organism that determine whether it is a macro evolution that has taken place or not. What is required for a macro evolution is, to put it in laymans terms, that a new species has arrived. The answer to your question is really in my previous post.
But just a some post above you answered:
It is impossible to answer that question. It all depends on what the specific traits are in the new organism, compared to the traits in the old organism.
And:
But it is wrong to ask a question like that since you have to observe the specific case in question. There could be some cases where a 2% change in genetic variation is not considered a macro event. It all depends on what species we are talking about.
So, it's the genetic, or the trait?
Can you decide and be consistent with the decision? :p
-
Spot on Naso :D
-
Mutations are the only way to add new nucleotides into DNA. Everything else, natural selection, selective mating, gene flow, genetic drift, are all 'editing' processes. Nearly all mutations are either harmful or neutral. But rarely, very rarely, a mutation of a nucleotide will come along and change around the structure of a (polypeptide I think) so that it codes for a new protein.
So lets look at this in a real-life situation. An insect, lets say the potato beetle, gets a mutation. This mutation makes the potato beetle grow slower than the other beetles. But, it also allows the beetle to digest certain chemicals. So when farmers crop-dust their fields, this potato beetle survives while the other insects die off. Evolution has occurred (this is a real example).
This is why farmers must use different types of pesticides in conjunction, and its also why the HIV virus is able to defeat many different drugs.
-
I dont know how many times you need to hear the same answer.
A micro event is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.
A macro event is the emergence of entirely new and more advanced features through innumerable completely new genetically defined traits.
If you still dont understand the difference, then I suggest you sue your school or something like that.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Evolution has occurred (this is a real example).
...of micro evolution.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I dont know how many times you need to hear the same answer.
A micro event is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.
A macro event is the emergence of entirely new and more advanced features through innumerable completely new genetically defined traits.
If you still dont understand the difference, then I suggest you sue your school or something like that.
Uh oh, becoming personal?? :D
Long time ago I was in the university, studing as paleonthologist, so it's not an argument so unknow for me (maybe little far in time, since I then changed in computer stuff for lack of money).
Maybe it's you that dont understand the question.
Maybe because you mix too much the traits and the genetic code.
They are not the same thing, you know?
-
I never heard of macro-evolution... all depend of your sampling frequence ...
-
Originally posted by Naso
Uh oh, becoming personal?? :D
Long time ago I was in the university, studing as paleonthologist, so it's not an argument so unknow for me (maybe little far in time, since I then changed in computer stuff for lack of money).
Maybe it's you that dont understand the question.
Maybe because you mix too much the traits and the genetic code.
They are not the same thing, you know?
Nice attitude...
Genetic code is stored on one of the two strands of a DNA molecules as a linear, non-overlapping sequence of the nitrogenous bases Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C) and Thymine (T). These are the "alphabet" of letters that are used to write the "code words".
The genetic code consists of a sequence of three letter "words" (sometimes called 'triplets', sometimes called 'codons'), written one after another along the length of the DNA strand.
Each code word is a unique combination of three letters (like the ones shown above) that will eventually be interpreted as a single amino acid in a polypeptide chain. There are 64 code words possible from an 'alphabet' of four letters.
One of these code words, the 'start signal' begins all the sequences that code for amino acid chains. Three of these code words act as 'stop signals' that indicate that the message is over. All the other sequences code for specific amino acids.
Genetic traits are small parts of the phenotype of an organism, such as the red color seen in a rose.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I never heard of macro-evolution... all depend of your sampling frequence ...
Not really.
-
Originally posted by straffo
2% is (barely) the <> between human and chimps :D
Yeah, and there's a bigger difference of DNA between two chimps than between chimps and humans...work that one out.
You've got to sequence the entire genome, not just compare fragments. Its this fragmentary analysis that leads one to conclude that humans are related to bananas. (which is true, but we broke of from our yellow curvy cousins some time ago).
I'm an evolutionists, in that I accept that evolution is an emergent property of any iterative system.
But I get angry when I hear evolutionists denounce other theories (including creation) with dogma more worthy of a religious zealot. As believers in science they are not showing the open mindedness that is required of them.
The burden of proof is upon the scientists, and unlikely every to be found. It was Popper who said that all scientific theories are ultimately unprovable, merely more or less resistant to revision in light of new data. If a theory needs revision every time new data is incorporated, then it wasn't a evry good theory, but is getting better all the time.
Unfortunately, evolution is a largely uncontested theory (in scientific circle) and as such gets perhaps more credibility than it deserves for that reason alone
So let's not get carried away here. Evolution is a theory. It is a fact in the minds of those who prefer recieved wisdom, and are happy to accept fundamentalist scientists at their word.
What's missing IMO is a credible account of the creation from a scientific standpoint. All I have been able to find so far is material clearly intended to obfuscate the issue and confuse the non scientist (and outrage the scientist).
The account of the creation in the bible as the revealed word of god and therefore infallible is an appeal to authority and as such indamissable. Otherwise I could start quoting any book I liked to support my belief in the non-existence of God. Douglas Adams would be a good place to start.
Ultimately the creation argument rests on the argument for the existence of (a) God. Again, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for God, but it's still just a theory... and don't come knocking with teleological, cosmological, ontological or even eschatological arguments. Those are all logically redundant.
A scientific approach to religion has been possible however, and to my mind it has been demonstrated that man's nature and biological predisposition give rise to the phenomenon of 'Gods' when faced with inexplicable events and 'voices' in the head.
Just ask the Duke of Edinburgh, who is a living God.
-
Steve.... first, dont see this discussion between me and you as a war, i am smiling while posting here, not waging war. :)
Your exposition of the DNA it's almost correct (with the exception that some triplet seem to relate with different ammino in the same time, but this is still a "frontier" in study), and we can go on expanding the concept.
A sequence of triplets instructing (using RNA messenger) the specific cellular structure to "build" or better assemble a polypeptide it's called gene.
There are large functional holes in a "chromosome" (hope it's correct translation in english), with unused sequences.
What is amaizing, now that we can sequentiate (sp.) the DNA, is that have been observed that the "active" genes in largely different form of life are very similar.
The combination of different genes, and, susprise, in different times of the growth can result in the great differences we observe in life.
Even the apparently vastly different plants and animals, share not only the same "construction set", but even a large number of genes are completely equal.
Now the traits:
As already observed centuries ago, there are multiple similarities between the anathomy of the living being.
theese similarities are stronger between some species and lesser between others, so it was easy to regroup the species in families, "and then was thassonomy".
It was'nt a fixed structure, since by further study some of the "determining" traits of some species were discovered as "evolutive convergence" (a real trap for thassonomy).
BTW the thassonomy has adapted to new discoveries, and it's still refining (thank to the aid of genetics, that it's a fine tuning tool).
A century (almost) ago, there were discovered strange bones of unknow animals, with a structures a lot different with the living ones.
After some try, and after discovering almost complete skeletons, the scratching head scientists had to admit that there were species that no longer live on this world, "and then comes the estinction".
Someone was astonished that in older layer of terrain there were some of the actual species missing, something like if some of the actual species did'nt existed before, "and then comes speciation (sp?)"
And then a speculative guy ask himself "what if...." maybe there's a mechanism that permit the dissapearing and birth of species.
Since this guy was observing birds of the same specie that showed to have developed differences in the shape of the beck (beak??) depending of the alimentation, he argued that this isolated birds were "adapted" to the alimentation available in the respective island.
The way this worked started a huge debate for those times, with someone stating that the adaption system was a positive feedback between the habits and the body structure (Lamark).
But this theory was discarded, since even by forcing an animal to act in a way theorically prone to start changes on the body structure, theese changes were'nt ereditary, not trasmissible to the successive generation. (here here, the science at work).
So there was a different mechanism, some scientist pointed at the "natural selection", very similar to the "artificial selection" that the human being is operating since some tenthousand years on the domesticated form of life.
What if the same pressure that human pose, by breeding the individual with the interesting caratheristics between them, and not allowing the others to breed, is almost the same method (or, better, again mechanism) that change "savage" species?
This what if (and the science is a "what if") seemed to be the better fitting answer to the problem, and it's still accepted as a good model.
Each new "transitional" specie that we find, it's a new clue about the good approx. of this theory, note the approximation term, since we are not speaking about a dogma.
And, there are a lot of transitional forms.
Now, we go on your position.
You are discussing (in a lawyer way ;) ) the commonly accepted theory, but still are'nt explaining your position.
Maybe do you believe that now and then some supernatural power play with the bricks He created, and build a new race from nothing?
Or that the same supernatural Being created the bricks, set the rules, and let the "experiment" go on?
Notice that none of the 2 options are in contrast with the evolution scientific theory.
But both are a different "religious" interpretation of the selection, or, better, "religious" answers to the why that evolution pose.
On a final note a lot of scientists are religious, and I dont see contraddiction in this.
-
Bounder-
That is a completely fair and level-headed assessment. Thanks.
-
Sorry Steve, missed your question way back when.
Those pictures were of Foraminifarin fossils that show a gradual progression from one species to another. They were taken fron ocean floor core samples in the South Pacific.
I can't believe this issue is gonna go 400 posts again!!!
-
I've been away for a week, so I've lost track of the topics on the bbs. So what do I find upon my return? Another topic on evolution!
Please, God, not again!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Show me one case of observed macro evolution.
How about two? (Later you indicated that "macro evolution" was the development of a new species, so that's the examples I'll use).
1. Rapid development of a new different species of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
--Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41.
2. Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed after they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, in Lake Nagubago.
--Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348.
-
Originally posted by myelo
How about two? (Later you indicated that "macro evolution" was the development of a new species, so that's the examples I'll use).
1. Rapid development of a new different species of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
--Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41.
2. Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed after they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, in Lake Nagubago.
--Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348.
Well, can you be a bit more specific than that?
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Please, God, not again!
I'm sorry, simply appealing to a supernatural power is not sufficent for this thread. You will need at least 500 words of argument, complete with references, and numerous repetitive follow-up posts. :)
-
But I've already DONE THAT!
Regards, Shuckins :D
-
Well if you use the good old Karl (Popper) we're just at the start of the begining of this thread so :D
The only difference between evolutionist and creationistis quite simple and can be explained shortly :
Evolutionist are not sure they are right.
Cretinist are sure they are right and won't discuss the matter
The ultimate argument I've seen used by creationist was :
-Why Earth look so old and why there so many fossil ?
clever answer :
-god created it this way
good argument no ?
what can you answer to such a sentence ?
-
It is, I think, undeniable that mutation and natural selection operate in our world at some scale. There are countless observations to confirm this, some of which have been noted above.
It sems to me, however, that the intuitive leap required to jump from our observations of mutation, natural selection, and the fossil record to the conclusion that man resulted from unguided evolution is akin to that required to move from the observation that erosion operates to change the shape of mountains to the conclusion that erosion created the sculpted faces on Mount Rushmore.
- JNOV
-
Ok, I couldn't resist. I had to pop back in once I saw Hortlund again ask for some kind of transition species. Well, I posted the name and an image of one. Now, if I could only find some way to post a link that will point the way to more information on a little fossil called Archaeopteryx. It is the oldest found fossil that has been found with feathers. It appears to have the traits of both birds and dinosaurs. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds like a transition species. (http://www.projectlinks.org/archaeopteryx/)
-
Dammit Mathman...
I wish you could have found a link!
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Ok, I couldn't resist. I had to pop back in once I saw Hortlund again ask for some kind of transition species. Well, I posted the name and an image of one. Now, if I could only find some way to post a link that will point the way to more information on a little fossil called Archaeopteryx. It is the oldest found fossil that has been found with feathers. It appears to have the traits of both birds and dinosaurs. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds like a transition species. (http://www.projectlinks.org/archaeopteryx/)
Mathman its great that you are back. I appreciated your last post on this thread. A couple of questions regarding the bird/reptile.
1) did you get to look at my picture of the fossil record so far?
1,5) Are you aware of the growing general consensus that archaeopteryx was a bird?
2) If the archaeopteryx (try to say that when drunk...heck forgety drunk, I cant even say it when Im sober) is the link between dinosaurs and birds, please explain howcome there are bird fossiles that are 75 millon years older than the archaeopteryx?
Do you agree that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), makes the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) somewhat peculiar?
-
I'll bite on that one. You assume species always progress in a linear fashion. Look at the evolution of the whale to see what I mean. It's gone back-and-forth to the ocean a couple of times.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
The thing I really grow tired of is responding to you with respect and getting these types of responses. I don't owe you anything where religion is concerned- you by your own admission have been well-schooled. I think you're wrong about your interpretations, but there isn't a single thing I can say to change your mind. I do respect your difference of opinion, however, and don't feel the need to call you names because I don't think like you.
calm down kieran that wasn't even directed at you - i was addressing hortlund who won't admit he thinks women were made from a rib because he knows how ridiculous it would sound - just like the other christians on this board. if you want to see yourself in that number it's probably because even you don't believe the story either and you know it.
you creationists will argue against evolution all day but let's put YOUR little story to the test otherwise you're just complaining with nothing to put up- that's what i've been trying to do but no one will stand up for creationism as it is reported in the bible! even people who swear it's the true word of god are only making excuses for it.
science has the burden of proof but when your story is scrutinized you all hop up on the cross and act persecuted or say "well it's just figurative"
how can you argue for creationism if you use only a figurative text as your authority - and how is the passage in genesis about taking a rib the least bit figurative? it's pretty specific as is the noah story - if it was figurative then why are the dimensions of the ark included? those dimensions alone completely debunk your story but you have the convenience of excusing it as figurative whereas you expect 7 decimal place accuracy from science - and we give it to you which is the ironic thing :)
your story doesn't hold water but no one will debate that fact they just continue attacking evolution but that's ok - science is meant to be attacked - we love it like that because it just makes a good theory mo' better-
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
1. Evolution has never been observed.
2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
3. There are no transitional fossils
1) It is important to understand the difference between micro events and macro evolution.
This is the fist hurdle for the evolutionists to overcome. And apparently it is a difficult one. For example, Samm's talk about how every living thing is a mutant or how every living creature has mutated characteristics would be examples of micro events. Gatsos example on the human jawbone would be another example.
A micro event is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.
A macro event on the other hand is the emergence of entirely new and more advanced features through innumerable completely new genetically defined traits.
Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.
Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.
It is, simply stated, wrong to assume that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content.
That is macro evolution, and that has never been observed.
Why is it "simply stated, wrong" to assume that successive sets of micro-evolution can lead to macro-evolution over a long time period? What evidence have you found to the contrary? On a related note - it is interesting that some species can produce offspring with a totally species, whilst most cannot - donkeys and horses, lions and tigers can but sheep & cows can't [Neither can sheep & FDBs - but that's never stopped them from trying]. Evolution and in particular the idea that "micro-evolution" can lead to "macro-evolution" (or speciesation) would seem to explain this very neatly. What would your explanation be I wonder?
Tierra is a computer sim that follows basic genetic laws (thus by your definition all based on "micro-evolution"). It exhibits patterns of macro-evolution and punctuated equilibrium. Which is quite interesting.
http://www.isd.atr.co.jp/~ray/pubs/tierra/node23.html (http://www.isd.atr.co.jp/~ray/pubs/tierra/node23.html)
Current evolution thinking is that there is no difference "micro" & "macro" evolution - it's merely a question of differing results.
Evolution has also been observed working it's wonders on programmable microchips too - will find the reference later.
2) In thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.
Or in other words:
All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
Evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
I realise you're a legal guy and not a scientist and therefore used to the idea of laws being able to be broken - so just in case: "natural" laws (such as the second law of thermodynamics is pupported to be) by definition can not be broken. You then say that evolution violates this law, which is fair enough so far. However you state the as reason being that it requires "that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements". Well that applies to all life forms regardless of how they got there - so by your reasoning, all babies violate the second law. It would also apply to complex molecules - like water. Does everything we know and see around us violate the second law? Is it all because of a divine plan? So what is going on? Well basically your definition of entropy sucks: Entropy measures -- with a ratio -- the tendency of ENERGY to spread out, to diffuse, to become less concentrated in one physical location or one energetic state. It does not mean that "All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves". That is a huge jump, and in the wrong direction. It's really as foggy as your arguing against evolution on the grounds that the giraffe neck argument is dodgy (which is in fact Lamarck's theory, not Darwin's - and was rejected as feasible once genetics had made it clear that heredity didn't work like that).
-
3)
See attached image over the fossil record.
First, lets answer the question, what is a transitional fossil?
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage.
Make no misstake about it. NO such fossil has ever been found.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
If you want I can provide dozens of paleontology-sources that all say the same thing. No transitional fossils have been discovered.
So how do the evolutionists explain this? Simple, they make stuff up. Or "interpret" various findings. Thus a single tooth (yes, one tooth) was for a while held up as the final evidence of the missing link between humans and apes, then it turned out the tooth was from a pig, and that theory was dropped. Or Pakicetus, "the oldest fossil whale known". From the Pakicetus fossils, a wide variety of conclusions were drawn... such as it was a whale but it still had its nostrils at the front of head, yet it was amphibious. What the scientists fails to include in their description of “the oldest fossil whale” is the fact that the fossil material from which Pakicetus was conjured up consisted of nothing more than: the back of a mammal skull, two jaw fragments and some teeth. Conspicuously enough these fossils were found amidst an array of land mammal fossils. There is no significant evidence to lead one to assume these remains belonged to an “old whale” any more than to an “old land mammal.” Yet the discoverers chose to “interpret” their findings as a whale, and evolutionary proponents cheered for now they had more support for their whale-evolution theory. Do you want me to present more such interpretations? The "human fossil" record is filled with them. Entire new species has been constructed using nothing more than a fossilized leg bone.
It's getting late, so... just follow the magic html footprints.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)
"For example, with archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not posses. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. We can't say for sure it is actually an ancestor of modern birds, but as explained, that is not a significant issue."
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence16.htm (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence16.htm)
Finally in defence of Stephen J Gould:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups."Gould, S.J.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
calm down kieran that wasn't even directed at you - i was addressing hortlund who won't admit he thinks women were made from a rib because he knows how ridiculous it would sound - just like the other christians on this board.
You seem to be implying that all Christians adhere to "Creationism" as defined by creation of the Earth 6000 years ago. If that is your assumption then you are mistaken.
As a Christian I can reconcile "Evolution" and God. Though I think much of the so called evidence of evolution is less scientific than many want to believe.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You seem to be implying that all Christians adhere to "Creationism" as defined by creation of the Earth 6000 years ago. If that is your assumption then you are mistaken.
As a Christian I can reconcile "Evolution" and God. Though I think much of the so called evidence of evolution is less scientific than many want to believe.
so you dismissed that part of the bible and came up with a more elegant theory of your own then? so why are you a christian if you don't believe the book? what's your creationist theory based on - a strong hunch?
-
Once again mrfish, the basic tenents of christianity can be found in the Apostle's Creed.
-
me believes the body evolved and the Soul was created
-
I thought mrfish promised to shut up and leave this thread...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I thought mrfish promised to shut up and leave this thread...
sorry, a christian actually crawled out and tried to own up to their theory - too bad it wasn't you.
and ps hortlund, the laws of physics are like my babies, please stop abusing them.
thrawn - are you saying that genesis is not true?
-
Originally posted by mrfish
and ps hortlund, the laws of physics are like my babies, please stop abusing them.
Humor me mrfish, have the second law of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong? Has there even been an observation that might indicate that there might be exceptions to that law?
-
Another thing mrfish, where did the first protein come from according to your scientific theorys?
-
Cripes, I don't think so, at least not literally, then again I'm not a Christian.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
so you dismissed that part of the bible and came up with a more elegant theory of your own then? so why are you a christian if you don't believe the book? what's your creationist theory based on - a strong hunch?
There are many interpretations of the bible. Many disagree as to what should be taken literally or metaphorically.
The six days of creation as stated in Genesis could easily have been describing an evolutionary period over millennia.
Maybe it's my need for understanding or sense of purpose but it makes more sense to me to believe that there is something intelligent beyond our observation and understanding that created time and space rather than that it just is/was.
-
A bird's feather is an amazingly intricate and complex mechanism, as, I suspect, any ornithologist will attest.
Regarding archaeopteryx, do you contend that its feathers were the result of a single, beneficial mutation? To me, that seems entirely implausible. I would imagine that to evolve feathers from reptilian scales would require a number of less dramatic mutations, each with some benefit to the creature, in order to survive the process of natural selection.
Where are the multiple variants with something between reptilian scales and feathers?
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups."Gould, S.J.
But that is the entire point. There are no transitional forms.
It becomes pointless if you want to argue that there are transitional forms "between larger groups". For example, someone claims that the axchepoluys (yeah, I know I spelled it wrong) is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. But the problem is that there were birds before the axchepoploulys. It is clear then that the evolution from dinosaurs to birds was not
dinosaur -> axcopopulous -> bird.
In fact it seems to be more like
dinosaur ->dinosaur
bird -> bird
axcoipolopus->axciopolus
Axcopoluoys is simply a species of its own. But it fits to place it between dinosaur and bird, simply because it looks like half bird, half dino. It is kinda like that Australian abomination with that I forgot the name of right now which looks like a weird collision between a duck and a beaver. I mean, no one claims that that animial is the transitional form between beavers and ducks, but 100 000 000 years from now, when the scientists look at the fossil record they'll go "yes, the link between birds and mammals, finally".
-
Not only is the second law of thermodynamics not applicable to evolution but this whole statement is terribly arrogant.
Hortlund, I hope you copied this from somewhere and pasted it in as devil's advocate.
Originally posted by Hortlund
2)
In thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.
Or in other words:
All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
Evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
-
In simple terms (even a lawyer could understand) the 2nd law applies to a closed system. This implies no external energy is added... like sunlight or heat or volcanic dust or... use your imagination.
The Earth is NOT a closed system as much as you or the Creationist site you quoted from would like it to be.
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
there are.
I like horses so you get horse evolution. If you don't like it, lump it =)
Originally posted by Hortlund
But that is the entire point. There are no transitional forms.
It becomes pointless if you want to argue that there are transitional forms "between larger groups". For example, someone claims that the axchepoluys (yeah, I know I spelled it wrong) is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. But the problem is that there were birds before the axchepoploulys. It is clear then that the evolution from dinosaurs to birds was not
dinosaur -> axcopopulous -> bird.
In fact it seems to be more like
dinosaur ->dinosaur
bird -> bird
axcoipolopus->axciopolus
Axcopoluoys is simply a species of its own. But it fits to place it between dinosaur and bird, simply because it looks like half bird, half dino. It is kinda like that Australian abomination with that I forgot the name of right now which looks like a weird collision between a duck and a beaver. I mean, no one claims that that animial is the transitional form between beavers and ducks, but 100 000 000 years from now, when the scientists look at the fossil record they'll go "yes, the link between birds and mammals, finally".
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There are many interpretations of the bible. Many disagree as to what should be taken literally or metaphorically.
then how on earth can you use it as your authority for creation?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
In simple terms (even a lawyer could understand) the 2nd law applies to a closed system. This implies no external energy is added... like sunlight or heat or volcanic dust or... use your imagination.
The Earth is NOT a closed system as much as you or the Creationist site you quoted from would like it to be.
Wrong MT.
Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory of evolution insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend is a scientifically observed phenomenon.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
-Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980.
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1) a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2) a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Ponder over the consequences of those two points for a while MT.
-
Busy cutting and pasting today Stevie?
That is just silly! "The Universe is a closed system, therefore the 2nd law is inviolate. " Means nothing.
What is taken from one area must be paid for in another.. true... But as entropy increases on the Sun it can decrease on Earth. Get it? Still have overall degredation of the closed system (The Universe) while systems in some places actually become more complex.
1) a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2) a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
When I place Oxygen and Hydrogen together in a container... what happens? Are 1 and 2 necessary?
-
hortlund - by creating us didn't god introduce a higher level of order into the universe? wouldn't that be uh.......
you're oversimplifying the 2nd law anyway, a system can go from a more probable state to a less probable state provided that delta s, the change in entropy of that specific system is negative.
how can that happen? easy, if the negative entropy of that system is less than the positive entropy of it's surroundings (and a condition that it interacts with those surroundings must exist of course) then the overall entropy of system + surroundings is positive, thus conserved.
irreversibility has more to do with probability of spontaneous reversal anyway but let's spare everyone whaddya say;)
now will you please answer my question?
since you are a creationist- and the bible is presumably your authority - do you believe genesis, yes or no? if no then let's hear your grand theory instead of just hearing your attacks against evolution....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Busy cutting and pasting today Stevie?
[/b]
Well, you dont really expect me to be an expert in biology, physics, paleontology and law, now do you? :)
That is just silly! "The Universe is a closed system, therefore the 2nd law is inviolate. " Means nothing.
What is taken from one area must be paid for in another.. true... But as entropy increases on the Sun it can decrease on Earth. Get it? Still have overall degredation of the closed system (The Universe) while systems in some places actually become more complex.
[/b]
Maybe you forgot to read the part of my post where it was made clear that the second law applies in an open system just as in a closed one?
1) a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2) a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
When I place Oxygen and Hydrogen together in a container... what happens? Are 1 and 2 necessary?
Dont you get it? If you put it there, something might happen. But what happens if you let hydrogen and oxygen just float around by themselves. What are the odds of them deciding to match up in your box?
-
Originally posted by mrfish
then how on earth can you use it as your authority for creation?
Just because many disagree on the interpretation doesn't mean that they are all wrong and that there is no valid interpretation.
I believe mine to be more correct than others.
Are you suggesting that if there were a being that created all time and space from nothing setting evolution in motion that that being didn't create it?
I suggest that he (pardon the pronoun) did create and plan it down to the last strand of dna.
-
creationists: look closely at a flounder
-
Gravity is nothing but the space-time continuum being warped by mass. Everything travels in a straight line, but on a curved surface so things orbit. More energy, they Hyperbole out, too little they spiral into the mass. General Relativity breaks down at the Quantum level. String theory was proposed to overcome the "point" particle causing 1/r and higher functions of 1/r^x going to infinity when R approches zero, the singularity. All this takes place in Plancks distance which is 10^-33 centimeters, where space gets spongy. Dogs from Wolves, same species, just look different. Your Evolutionary dollars at work.
HC
-
Crap, I misread the subject. I thought it said, "How many here believe in the revolution?"
...and I am all for a good revolution.
my apologies, please continue with your previously scheduled semantics.
F.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
now will you please answer my question?
since you are a creationist- and the bible is presumably your authority - do you believe genesis, yes or no? if no then let's hear your grand theory instead of just hearing your attacks against evolution....
How's this: I'll answer your question about what I believe about the creation if you answer mine about exactly how the first protein was created from the primordeal soup? Is that a deal?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
How's this: I'll answer your question about what I believe about the creation if you answer mine about exactly how the first protein was created from the primordeal soup? Is that a deal?
that's a biology question and i am straight up not qualified to answer that - i'd defer to myelo or mathman for that one probably. all the theories i have "seen on tv" seem solid enough but that's the extent of what i know about it.
but i think you've had more than enough lattitude already- if you won't state your alternative then you won't.
-
Hortland, I just want to say, that whe it comes to the thermodynamics question, you are wrong, MT is right. And if you would take two second with google, you would find that out.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
that's a biology question and i am straight up not qualified to answer that - i'd defer to myelo or mathman for that one probably. all the theories i have "seen on tv" seem solid enough but that's the extent of what i know about it.
but i think you've had more than enough lattitude already- if you won't state your alternative then you won't.
Why do I get the impression that you feel that I owe you an answer to that question? I mean by what right do you come here and talk about how much lattitude you have given me? It is a personal, private question that is entirely up to me to answer or not. I mean, its like I would be asking for explicit details about your sexlife and then keep demanding answers.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hortland, I just want to say, that whe it comes to the thermodynamics question, you are wrong, MT is right. And if you would take two second with google, you would find that out.
Thank you.
Thrawn, Ive taken all day with yahoo. Can you please point me to where the information is wrong?
-
No, MT has already explained it to you.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No, MT has already explained it to you.
But MT was wrong about 2nd law not applying in open systems.
-
mrfish:
No one can prove to you that man was created, literally as related in Genesis or otherwise. The Bible is replete with obvious metaphors, and I see no reason why Genesis's creation story could not be metaphorical.
Nonetheless, if one, like me, believes that the universe and everthing within it were created, he is taking a leap of faith. There is no way around that, and I, for one, will not try to argue otherwise. What really irks me, however, is the hubris behind the claim that it is a fact that man resulted from unguided evolution. If you want to believe that, fine. Just don't claim that it is anything resembling a fact and don't deny that your belief, like mine, requires faith in the unseen and unproven.
- JNOV
p.s. Your monicker seems quite appropriate, given your apparent belief as to your origins. :)
-
the second law applies to matter
not to the 'process' of evolution.
evolution is a process not matter and therefore isn't subject to the second law of thermodynamics.
It's like arguing that time doesn't exist because it has no mass.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Why do I get the impression that you feel that I owe you an answer to that question? I mean by what right do you come here and talk about how much lattitude you have given me? It is a personal, private question that is entirely up to me to answer or not. I mean, its like I would be asking for explicit details about your sexlife and then keep demanding answers.
how can you argue on behalf of creationism if you won't address it's inconsistencies? all of a sudden it's personal?
it's so christian, site the bible as your authority on creationism but then say it's all a matter of interpretation and symbolism and you don't want to talk about it. if it doesn't provide straight answers then how can you throw it out as an alternative -
you don't have to answer, you're a big boy but your argument becomes pretty limp if you won't defend your side - only attacking the other side.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But MT was wrong about 2nd law not applying in open systems.
Off course it does, but that doesn't matter does it.
"Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out"
If the energy input, into a system (hence it is open), is equal to the level of entropy then you have a steady state.
If the energy input, into a system (hence it is open), is greater then the level entropy, then you a system were usable energy can be stored, ie trees will grow.
You are wrong judge-boy. :D
-
You should be banned!
Originally posted by Furious
Crap, I misread the subject. I thought it said, "How many here believe in the revolution?"
...and I am all for a good revolution.
my apologies, please continue with your previously scheduled semantics.
F.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
mrfish:
No one can prove to you that man was created, literally as related in Genesis or otherwise. The Bible is replete with obvious metaphors, and I see no reason why Genesis's creation story could not be metaphorical.
Nonetheless, if one, like me, believes that the universe and everthing within it were created, he is taking a leap of faith. There is no way around that, and I, for one, will not try to argue otherwise. What really irks me, however, is the hubris behind the claim that it is a fact that man resulted from unguided evolution. If you want to believe that, fine. Just don't claim that it is anything resembling a fact and don't deny that your belief, like mine, requires faith in the unseen and unproven.
- JNOV
p.s. Your monicker seems quite appropriate, given your apparent belief as to your origins. :)
lol hilarious, i never thought of the fish thing but you're right. i hate those things for the record - and bumper stickers in general.
i think life is a way for the universe to know itself - in that i believe the universe itself is god and everything in it is just an appendage of god, not seperate.
i like your post, but i don't believe genesis is figurative at all - if you read it closely it's rather specific. it's a myth and it's wrong, trying to reconcile it with fact is wishful thinking. if you want to believe that so be it but this stuff keeps rearing it's head in schools and preventing us from studying what's important- the things we can study and know. any theory of divinity ought to include what we know and the bible just doesn't.
if the noah story is figurative then why the dimensions for the ark? it wasn't big enough to fit all the species of the earth on it not to mention presenting a huge logistics problem - if that story seems figurative i don't know what to tell you.
-
its simple mr fish its the same as the evolutionists who differ in their interpretation of the data related to evolution.
Science and religion both take considerable "faith" to accept as is. Both have their own "dominations" each claiming to be right.
You want a Christian to tell you word for word the bible is 100% correct. Well not all Christians believe that and not all Christians interpret those "words" the same way. In fact Wars have been fought over the "interpretation" of those words.
Some also know the bible was written by men and has been translated to multiple languages by men and that the Gospels that make up the bible were assembled by men. Plenty of room for error.
Christians are as diverse as any other group.
-
If you still dont understand the difference, then I suggest you sue your school or something like that.
My post wasn't even directed at you. I just skimmed through some of the replies, and saw a few that questioned evolution. Try to stay civil, theres always a few people who get very emotionally fired up and turn the debate south.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
My post wasn't even directed at you. I just skimmed through some of the replies, and saw a few that questioned evolution. Try to stay civil, theres always a few people who get very emotionally fired up and turn the debate south.
I wasnt talking to you either, my post was directed at Naso :)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
You want a Christian to tell you word for word the bible is 100% correct. Well not all Christians believe that and not all Christians interpret those "words" the same way. In fact Wars have been fought over the "interpretation" of those words.
Some also know the bible was written by men and has been translated to multiple languages by men and that the Gospels that make up the bible were assembled by men. Plenty of room for error.
and that suggests divine involvement to you? which parts should you believe then- your choices have drastic consequences and god wouldn't be that sloppy.
your god not only plays dice but the house is into him for about 50 g's the way i see it....
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.." (Genesis 2:22-23)"
does that realllllllllly seem like it was meant to be figurative to you?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But that is the entire point. There are no transitional forms.
OK here's the quote again with the proper emphasis for the hard of comprehension:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups."
Now as I understood it you were saying that they were no tranistional fossils. "Make no misstake[sic] about it. NO such fossil has ever been found." So with that fairly unambiguous statement in mind: "generally lacking" doesn't mean there aren't any. Indeed neither does "extreme rarity" in the original quote. It just means there aren't many. That means there ARE some. And the area where there aren't so many is species transition.
It becomes pointless if you want to argue that there are transitional forms "between larger groups". For example, someone claims that the axchepoluys (yeah, I know I spelled it wrong) is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. But the problem is that there were birds before the axchepoploulys. It is clear then that the evolution from dinosaurs to birds was not
dinosaur -> axcopopulous -> bird.
In fact it seems to be more like
dinosaur ->dinosaur
bird -> bird
axcoipolopus->axciopolus
Axcopoluoys is simply a species of its own. But it fits to place it between dinosaur and bird, simply because it looks like half bird, half dino. It is kinda like that Australian abomination with that I forgot the name of right now which looks like a weird collision between a duck and a beaver. I mean, no one claims that that animial is the transitional form between beavers and ducks, but 100 000 000 years from now, when the scientists look at the fossil record they'll go "yes, the link between birds and mammals, finally".
I just based the argument according to your definition of a transitional fossil - "Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc"
As to archaeopteryx being simply a species on its own - that is not in any doubt. Just like lions are a species on their own. But is it a bird or a dinosaur (hint: "bird" and "dinosaur" are not species)? It has teeth - which birds don't, but dinosaurs do - it has feathers & and an opposable big toe which birds do but dinosaurs don't.... (although there were a couple of other feathered dinosaurs discovered recently).
Could we say that it's "an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two." In which case it fits your definition again.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) .
Interesting you should mention the duck-billed platypus because it (like the other two monotremes) does have transitional qualities too -
"In general, the platypus has a fascinating mixture of reptilian and mammalian features. Mammalian traits include fur and mammary glands. Reptilian traits include the laying of eggs, and a common rectal and urinogenital opening, or cloaca (hence 'monotreme', Latin for 'single hole'). There are a number of skeletal features of the pectoral girdle that are found only in therapsids, extinct mammal-like reptiles thought to be ancestral to mammals. This mixture is even found at the cellular level; the chromosomes and sperm of platypuses display both reptilian and mammalian traits." (Griffiths, 1988)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html)
And while the second law of thermodynamics may not have been proven wrong, your ridiculous interpretation/extrapolation of it doesn't stand up to even a cursory gedankenexperiment. Evolution no more violates the second law than a baby developing in the womb does, or the formation of chemical compounds or crystals... or etc etc etc...
-
Tell you what mrfish, since that seems to be bothering you so much, let me tell you some of what I believe.
I believe that God created man, the earth and the universe. I do not know how he did that, I do not know when he did that.
I'm figuring that if he can create all of those things, then he really should not have any trouble at all creating a woman from a rib.
I have accepted the fact that I will never know how he created life, nor will I ever understand all the aspects of his creation. I have come to peace with the fact that man doesnt have, and never will have all the answers. Life becomes easier for me that way. I dont have to seek answers to questions that we as humans have been asking ourselves since the dawn of time, questions that we wont ever be able to answer.
Your mileage may vary.
-
Note the dotted lines. What do they tell you?
-
Originally posted by Puke
Saurdauker, I may misunderstand you, but you could maybe travel to only a small handfull of stars in 56 Light Years. But, you can't even get across our own galaxy let alone around the whole universe in 56 Light Years. (I love learning about space stuff.)
I think maybe you misunderstand me. 56 years "ship-time" is different than 56 years "Earth time." Time is slowed to such an extend inside the object traveling at these velocities that it is, in theory, possible. Obviously you couldnt even get out of our little "star neighborhood" in 56 years Earth time.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, can you be a bit more specific than that?
You asked for an example of speciation and I gave you two, including references. With specific page numbers. How much more specific could I be? You want the names of the individual mice?
If you're not going to at least try, this isn't gong to be any fun.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Tell you what mrfish, since that seems to be bothering you so much, let me tell you some of what I believe.
I believe that God created man, the earth and the universe. I do not know how he did that, I do not know when he did that.
then you already have the answers, they are provided to you by the bible. the bible is wrong. so until you have a view that makes sense maybe you should lay off evolution - your alternative is hardly a choice it states we've only been here for a few thousand years - you can't display some evidence against evolution from prehistoric times if you believe those times didn't exist. if you do believe they exist then you don't believe the bible which you state as your authority-
anyone want to answer this one- when cain was exiled for killing able he went to another village....if he and his brother were the only descendants of the only pair on earth, then where'd the other village come from?
-
hortlund, I think your argument is a good representation of the second law of thermodynamics.
I'm not going to begin playing "where's waldo" with your pictures, good luck with the rest of the crowd.
:)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Tell you what mrfish, since that seems to be bothering you so much, let me tell you some of what I believe.
I believe that God created man, the earth and the universe. I do not know how he did that, I do not know when he did that.
I'm figuring that if he can create all of those things, then he really should not have any trouble at all creating a woman from a rib.
I have accepted the fact that I will never know how he created life, nor will I ever understand all the aspects of his creation. I have come to peace with the fact that man doesnt have, and never will have all the answers. Life becomes easier for me that way. I dont have to seek answers to questions that we as humans have been asking ourselves since the dawn of time, questions that we wont ever be able to answer.
I could almost admire a man who can wear his complete ignorance on his sleeve like a badge. It's reminiscent of the old "Dunkirk spirit" - trying to make a victory out of embarrassing defeat. :D
-
Better a man admit that he doesn't have all the answers than insist unjustifiably that he does.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by mrfish
then you already have the answers, they are provided to you by the bible. the bible is wrong. so until you have a view that makes sense maybe you should lay off evolution - your alternative is hardly a choice it states we've only been here for a few thousand years - you can't display some evidence against evolution from prehistoric times if you believe those times didn't exist. if you do believe they exist then you don't believe the bible which you state as your authority-
anyone want to answer this one- when cain was exiled for killing able he went to another village....if he and his brother were the only descendants of the only pair on earth, then where'd the other village come from?
If you think I feel some need to defend my faith to you you are mistaken.
Let me just say a couple of things. You have no idea whether the Bible is "right" or "wrong", you cannot know that. Live with it.
Did I say I knew when God created the earth? Nope. Anyway, where do you get that "few thousand years" figure from? Its not the Bible I can tell you that.
About that other village...The Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people, it doesnt say they were the only people.
Imagine that huh...
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Better a man admit that he doesn't have all the answers than insist unjustifiably that he does.
- JNOV
Hehe - careful! Having that sort of attitude could get you in trouble down at the church. ;)
-
Not at my church. :)
-
Mr. Fish-
My mistake. I had responded prior to the comment, and I thought I was lumped in with the rest. I apologize to you.
As for defending the literal translation of the Bible, I don't have an answer to that one. As I said before, the Bible has conflicting statements that make either a literal or figurative interpretation possible.
Why not just take the literal translation of the Word and call it a day? The teachers of Jesus' time tried this, and screwed it up royally. Jesus himself pointed out how though they followed the rules as written, they did not follow the spirit of the law. That would seem to suggest we are to read between the lines sometimes.
Of course I could just as easily point to precise statements where God instructed his people to a specific task, and they were expected to do exactly that. Moses was nearly killed for failing to circumcize his son before setting out to have a little talk with Pharoah, for instance.
In the end, I don't have a problem with science and religion co-existing. I don't have a problem with questioning aspects of religion for that matter. It would be totally ignorant to ignore the reality of science in our world, but I also think it is equally ignorant to dismiss the possibility of religion (as bounder so elequently stated).
-
I am not Christian Mr Fish and I dont pretend to know better then them what their Bible tells them.
Seems to me your not discussing the topic but trying to bait a Christian into a defense of his faith. You do so by attempting to tell them what they should believe. If I were a Christian I would ignore you like the rest of umm have. I am sure if you really wanted to know what they believed they would tell you. I dont believe any of them are going argue with you over it on a bbs.
Just my guess though...............
-
One thing that differentiates humans from the animals is that we humans are not afraid of vacuum cleaners. Thats the best way to tell... ;)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I am not Christian Mr Fish and I dont pretend to know better then them what their Bible tells them.
Seems to me your not discussing the topic but trying to bait a Christian into a defense of his faith. You do so by attempting to tell them what they should believe. If I were a Christian I would ignore you like the rest of umm have. I am sure if you really wanted to know what they believed they would tell you. I dont believe any of them are going argue with you over it on a bbs.
Just my guess though...............
Good guess.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
snip..
Science and religion both take considerable "faith" to accept as is. Both have their own "dominations" each claiming to be right.
snip
Nope Nope Nope!!
Science by definition is the complete lack of "faith". Anything scientifically "proven" MUST be questioned or proved or replaced by a better hypothesis. No faith involved at all.
-
this is a debate about evolution and creationism. i don't see any evolutionist feelings getting hurt because their views are MEANT to be questioned and expanded upon through consensus of the scientific community.
the creationists are screaming for proof and debating the data. doesn't it seem reasonable to ask what the foundation for the creationist argument is? what's your side then creationists? what should we teach in school?
if it's a debate then both sides should defend their positions no? - christians can only offer their belief as their proof and when inconsistencies appear in the only textual reference that defines their view they write it off as literary indulgence....
their only answer is "well we all see it different and we all interpret it different and it's all faith and a day might be a year and a rib might be a chromosone..... and blah blah blah"
what's more absurd is that they want us to teach this as an alternative to evolution in school! whose version should we teach?
should we ignore science altogether? science doesn't suggest that women emerged from a rib so how do they coexist? only in a world where your minds are stuck on the christian default settings lopped on you since birth and you are trying like hell to reconcile it with fact....i equate that to intellectual cowardice and can't see it any other way.
-
Originally posted by Apache
Good guess.
what do you have to offer other than little pouty snipes?
how did we get here then? genesis? put up a debatable argument or get out the kitchen....
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But MT was wrong about 2nd law not applying in open systems.
I admit I worded that poorly in an effort to explain it in simpler terms. I was semantically incorrect, but the explaination stands as written, so deal with it.
As to the chances of oxygen and hydrogen getting together all by themselves.... two words
Pacific Ocean
-
It is fine to teach evolution in school; it is, after all, to some degree an observable fact. We should draw the line, however, at teaching any sort of "religious" view of creation or anything else, and that includes the theory that man came to be by nothing more than unguided evolution. Notwithstanding MT's comment about the definition of "science," much of what passes for evolutionary thought today is no more than conjecture, loosely based on observable facts.
- JNOV
-
Hortlund: But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Low-entropy solar energy comes to Earth and gets converted into higher-entropy energy of more stable chemical compounds or infrared radiation. This increase in entropy in Sun-Earth system more then compensates reduction of entropy resulting from developing of living organisms. So no second law is violated in developing of an individual living organisms.
The development of more complex genotypes is not a physical process and does not involve the Second Law at all. A human DNA has as much entropy as any random sequence of nucleotids of the same length or a "less evolved" DNA of the same size.
Thrawn: Only a complete imbecile wouldn't accept evolution as the most viable theory to explain were humans come from.
So what do you call a person who sticks his nose in a scientific discussion but does not know the meaning of a word "theory".
For a scientist "theory" means "fact" - and neither of those can be combined with a word "viable" in a semantically correct sentence.
Ignorants do use the word "theory" as a substitute for "hypothesis" or "speculation" or "guess" (which are all scientific terms specifying degrees of confidence).
miko
-
well said, K.
Originally posted by Kieran
In the end, I don't have a problem with science and religion co-existing. I don't have a problem with questioning aspects of religion for that matter. It would be totally ignorant to ignore the reality of science in our world, but I also think it is equally ignorant to dismiss the possibility of religion (as bounder so elequently stated).
-
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Enjoying your sanctimonious little diatribe? :D
Do you want some definitions for "viable" as well? :p
-
Thrawn:
Assuming your questions were directed at me, here are my answers:
(1) Yes.
(2) No. I know very well what "viable" means. Thanks for the offer, though.
Edit: I see from reading one of the above posts that you probably weren't talking to me. I guess it was just wishful thinking, me being called sanctimonious. :)
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Thrawn:
Assuming your questions were directed at me, here are my answers:
Nah, it was directed at miko.
-
A couple of extreemly interesting links.
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html The reference weblinks are interesting. University of Illionois Life Science department condensed Biology 101 : Evidence for macro evolution.
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/intro1.htm And an exelent Evolution page. Lots of information presented in language that anyone should be able to understand.
Gatso
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Enjoying your sanctimonious little diatribe? :D
Do you want some definitions for "viable" as well? :p
Thrawn - Im not sure you understand the scientific definition of "theory" OR "fact." At this point, however, I think it would be best if you simply bowed out of the thread to prevent further embarressment. (BTW, Really enjoyed your personal attack in the Boy Scout thread - we can now add stupidity and immaturity to your growing list of attributes.) :rolleyes:
-
Wow. All the topics to avoid in polite conversation come here.
Evolution is the only materialistic theory to explain life. So philosophical materialists are stuck with it (a bunch of 'em judging from the number of posts here).
As regards diversity, evolution theory is not sufficient to explain everything we see, by anything like a scientific criterion. The paleontologists and the biologists sing from different hymnbooks (uneasily compromising with punctuated equilibrium).
Epistemologically: Not saying I know - Merely asserting you don't either.
:p
-
Originally posted by RDSaustinTX
Wow. All the topics to avoid in polite conversation come here.
Evolution is the only materialistic theory to explain life. So philosophical materialists are stuck with it (a bunch of 'em judging from the number of posts here).
As regards diversity, evolution theory is not sufficient to explain everything we see, by anything like a scientific criterion. The paleontologists and the biologists sing from different hymnbooks (uneasily compromising with punctuated equilibrium).
Epistemologically: Not saying I know - Merely asserting you don't either.
:p
Materialistic theory? Do you know what you mean?
How do you separate Science from Materialism? Or do you?
Evolution is more than sufficient to explain the diversity we see today, especially when coupled with 4.5 billion years.
-
Thanks for the heads up there Saurdaukar, but I'm not in the least bit embarassed. :D
And thanks for personal attacks in return.
-
The "sufficient to explain" standard doesn't strike me as being clothed in scientific rigor. The fact that A is sufficient to explain B does not establish a causal relationship between A and B.
- JNOV
-
Thrawn,
Since a lot of ignorant laymen are using the world "theory" in place of "hypothesis", "speculation" or "guess", the dictionaries added that meaning as the secondary or tertiary entries.
Same with using "bad" bor "good" or "cool" and "hot" in the same sence.
But since you are arguing the statements of the schientists, you should not attribute their statements the meaning you want, but to use their meaning - in this case "scientific theory".
It is not only different from the one you scraped from the bottom of the dictionary entry, but even from the primary meaning of that particular lousy dictionary - what is is by the way?
Scientific theory is a fact or a collection of facts or knowlege accepted as fact - which term "fact" also has meaning for scientists different from one laymen use and it does not really mean "the absolute truth". So scientific theory and fact can be subjects for doubt and refutation.
I will try to find the correct definitions later.
RDSaustinTX: The paleontologists and the biologists sing from different hymnbooks
Punctuated equilibrium is a minor clarification on how evolution worked - not contradicting to the main principles in the least. Whatever contradiction there seems to be, it's the result of issue being overblown way out of proportion by fame-hungry scientist (S. Gould). Nobody ever claimed that evolution has any kind of a set constant pace. The punctuated equilibrum does not mean an overnight change - it is supposed to work over hundreds of thousands of years separated by periods of slower or no change. Nice detail - quite obvious and even original. He just found some fossil illustration for it.
miko
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
The "sufficient to explain" standard doesn't strike me as being clothed in scientific rigor. - JNOV
... and creation is?
-
Miko, am I communicating with mostly laymen on this board or scientists? Was my audience able to understand the meaning of the message I was trying to communicate? Did the word I use have an acceptable definition for what I was trying to communicate with that word?
-
Sandman:
No, creationism is not rigorously scientific. Those who believe that we were created do so based on faith, just as those who believe that we and the rest of the universe are the product of a cosmic coincidence do so based on faith.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Sandman:
No, creationism is not rigorously scientific. Those who believe that we were created do so based on faith, just as those who believe that we and the rest of the universe are the product of a cosmic coincidence do so based on faith.
- JNOV
Once again... NOPE!
Science actually requires a complete LACK OF FAITH. Go look up the scientific method.
-
MT:
I saw your earlier post, and I am well versed in the scientific method. The point is that a belief that man came to be by unguided evolution is a religious view (i.e., one based on faith), not a scientific conclusion.
- JNOV
-
Interesting post Hortland, and largely a persuasive argument. However, allow me to nit pick a couple of points:
"1. Evolution has never been observed."
-Agreed. However, the introduction of a significant and beneficial mutation into a breeding population may in fact produce something resembling the type of macro event you describe below. Understand, that we observe first hand an incredibly tiny slice of time.
"2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics"
"Or in other words:
All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves."
I might suggest that this is a misapplication of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This law of thermodynamics is anything but universal in it's applicability. Genetic variation and mutation within breeding populations is not the only place where this law may be seen to break down. In Einstein's theory of General Relativity it can be demonstrated that Entropy cannot take place until the universe enters a "contraction phase". This fortunately has not yet happened, as it appears that the universe is still expanding, and the laws of physics upon which we all depend have yet to be repealed.
This is by far not the only example of incompatible scientific theories. But take heart, when they finally reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, perhaps there will emerge a way to apply thermodynamics to this topic.
"3. There are no transitional fossils"
The absence of any sort of transitional forms may not in fact matter, as they are absolutely not necessary for the theory to remain viable. (See above with respect to introducing mutation to a breeding population) Also bear in mind that review of the fossil record provides the scantest possible sample of the organisms that have existed during any given era. Our sample size of organisms over the millenia is an incredibly small percentage. We have no evidence to demonstrate the effects of mutation upon mutation taking place over thousands of years. Yes the fossil record contains no proof. However the sample size is far, far to small to use this fact to refute the theory.
Essentially what this means is that Evolution, so far, can not irrefutably be proven or disproven. Evolution in fact, remains a theory.
DuBe
P.S. That's about as much coherent thought as I've been able to muster in a decade. With your leave, I shall now revert to being a moron.
-
Originally posted by Puke
Saurdauker, I may misunderstand you, but you could maybe travel to only a small handfull of stars in 56 Light Years. But, you can't even get across our own galaxy let alone around the whole universe in 56 Light Years. (I love learning about space stuff.)
SHIP years Puke ... not years as measured back here on earth. Time dilation means that in 56 SHIP years you could indeed circumnavigate the observable universe.
-
Originally posted by Jekyll
SHIP years Puke ... not years as measured back here on earth. Time dilation means that in 56 SHIP years you could indeed circumnavigate the observable universe.
no you cant
-
3 of the 4 biggest threads ever in the O Club, all about basically the same thing!
eskimo
-
Materialistic theory? Do you know what you mean?
Yes. Do you?
How do you separate science from materialism?
I don't. Scientific inquiry is inherently materialistic. Studies observable nature, nothing else counts. The absence of supernatural influence is an initial assumption, not a conclusion.
Evolution is more than sufficient to explain the diversity we see today, especially when coupled with 4.5 billion years.
Actually there is less diversity today than ever before, but the higher contemporary species are much more complex.
And since you got it figured out, explain how natural selection yielded oh, hmmm, metamorphosis.
TIA
-
Punctuated equilibrium is a minor clarification on how evolution worked - not contradicting to the main principles in the least. Whatever contradiction there seems to be, it's the result of issue being overblown way out of proportion by fame-hungry scientist (Miko).
Actually the second half of the Origin of Species, esp. Ch 10 very explicitly acknowledges the problem. Hell, the last half of that book flatly criticized paleontology/geology to create a rift long established before Gould was born.
Nobody ever claimed that evolution has any kind of a set constant pace. (Miko)
You're kidding right?
"As Natural Selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps." - Darwin
Admit it, you don't know what punctuated equilibrium is, or where it came from...
;)
-
Actually I think our DNA is even more closely related to the common earth worm, its all very fascinating but none of it provides the concrete evidence science needs to make a call, just bring up more possibilities.
-
The real problem is that the today newage influenced vision (yes I say that), with some religious based revisionism that it's spreading ignorance around, using the mass media, it's forcing in the naive minds (even judge's minds ;) ), the concept that the Science is religion-like.
This is plain WRONG.
Science have nothing to do with religion, and no discussion can be made comparing the two.
If you have a Scientific Creationist theory, you need to prove it using scientific method, and accept the eventuality that you theory be changed/denied by scientific proves.
If you have a Creationist Religion, you simply dont need to prove anithing, the religion it's matter of faith, and dont need to be proved.
On the other side of the coin, the scientific theory of evolution have to be proved using scientific method (as it is for us, the ones that work on it, well, or were used to work :( ), and must be accepted that it can be changed/denied by facts.
So, Steve's (and others) game, to be devil advocate against a Scientific theory (by definition subject to changes and incomplete), using religious arguments (by definition subject to a faith, hence immutable), it's a contradiction since the start, and it's only a rethoric exercise (in wich the law guys are specialists ;) ).
To have a constructive discussion, we need to choose only one of the 2 playground.
Science, or Religion.
I guess, since religion is'nt subject to changes, it's better to stay in Science's playground.
In conclusion the questions are (for now) reduced to:
1) Someone here can bring some prove, or facts that can disband/deny the Evolution theory?
2) Someone here can bring some new theory that adapt better to the observed phenomenon?
Answers?
:)
-
Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Hardly, and not because both theories are incompatible as has been suggested, It is just because "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" aplies to that, a closed system, and life on Earth is hardly a closed system, we have a big hydrogen burning star not so far, wich acts a as huge "entropy generator" compensating all the local small entropy decreases.
That way plants growing, embryos developing or snow flakes forming are possible without violating the 2nd Law.
But in fact the misconception is even bigger as the individual changes in an evolutive process are not directly thermodynamic by themselves, so Thermodynamics has nothing to say about them.
This law is easily misunderstood, so it makes great pseudo-scientific "duct tape".
-
Originally posted by takeda
Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Hardly, and not because both theories are incompatible as has been suggested, It is just because "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" aplies to that, a closed system, and life on Earth is hardly a closed system, we have a big hydrogen burning star not so far, wich acts a as huge "entropy generator" compensating all the local small entropy decreases.
That way plants growing, embryos developing or snow flakes forming are possible without violating the 2nd Law.
But in fact the misconception is even bigger as the individual changes in an evolutive process are not directly thermodynamic by themselves, so Thermodynamics has nothing to say about them.
This law is easily misunderstood, so it makes great pseudo-scientific "duct tape".
But I thought that adding energy is not enough to overcome the 2nd law. You also have to add information. Is that wrong?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But I thought that adding energy is not enough to overcome the 2nd law. You also have to add information. Is that wrong?
This is a nice one! :)
BTW, you remember me the attitude of a teacher that I had long time ago, a teacher in the class of religion (yes, there is still now, in a state with so-called freedom of religion, a class where they teach christian religion only), that, after me refusing to participate the class because atheic, started to asking "who made you, then", and with my answers about procreation, genetics, cellular division, star forming theoryes, she keep asking "..and who create this?".
The game lasted for almost one hour, since we arrived to the Big Bang.
At this point I answerd: "before the Big Bang we have no clue"
And she pointed:" ah ha!!! So someone must have created the big bang!!".
Then (I was young) I realized that she was'nt listening at all, she was only searching a way to force her interpretation, and "prove" with a "no-prove" that the religion have the answer.
You are trying the same, pointing here and there, to "prove" that there is something the science cannot explain.
Ok, we already stated this, but I will repeat with simple words to make you happy:
There are things that the science cannot explain...... YET!!
:p
You feel better?
:D
;)
-
BTW, this thread beated the other, 324 posts....
and counting!!
:D
-
Yes it's wrong.
Thermodynamic entropy is not the same as Information entropy. When Shannon developed information theory, he needed a name for one of his concepts, and tought that Thermodynamic entropy was very similar to his concepts of randomness or statistical disorder.
So, order or disorder are used as a kludge to easily explain the second law, which really just deals with energy. In thermodynamic terms, two DNA molecules.. one perfectly "right", the other "scrambled" are just the same.
Thermodynamics doesn´t deal with "meaning". So your perception or intuition of "ordered or disordered" might not reflect in all cases the actual physical process.
So, 2 cosmic rays hit you and scramble 2 DNA chains, one makes your sons less hairy ( mutation! ), so they get to date nice girls more easily (natural selection!)... the other causes you a cancer, but entropy and the 2nd Law continue their merry way in both cases ignorant of any kind of information added or lost.
-
Both religion and science in their own way try to justify our beingness, simple fact is you just are, neither inferior or superior, you are just you and therfore dont need the justfication os science or religion.
The Bible is merely a compendium of books, many authors and just as many influences and points of view, many translations etc.
You have faith in it or you dont, if you do then your placing the whole enchilada on grace and good works.
If you press science its a never ending trek and never enough info to pin anything down, just enjoy being unique, death will bring all the answers or none. And you aint gettin out of here alive.
-
And since you got it figured out, explain how natural selection yielded oh, hmmm, metamorphosis.
The benefit of metamorphosis is the ability to utilize different niches or environments at different stages of developement. Not much of a stretch to picture complete changes being pressured into intermediate steps through environmental pressures.
-
Still waiting for the explanation of the Giraffe and the first protein MT.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Still waiting for the explanation of the Giraffe and the first protein MT.
.... and who created it?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Still waiting for the explanation of the Giraffe and the first protein MT.
Some excellent progress on the protien issue has been made by Dr. Miller in San Diego, CA.
He was involved in the original experiments done by Dr. Urey in 1953 that proved amino acids and simple nucleotides could form froma reducing atmosphere and electricity (lightning).
Here is a link to his work.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html
-
Originally posted by whgates3
no you cant
Yes you can.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Still waiting for the explanation of the Giraffe and the first protein MT.
Happy to help.
In a previous post you said, regarding the cardiovascularr adaptations necessary for extremely long necks:
The question Im aiming at is "how did this system evolve"? Here, natural selection cannot help because the valves are useless until functional. Same goes for that sponge in its head.
You’re assuming the cardiovascular structures in giraffes are unique. They are not. Many animals have a rete (the “sponge in the head”) and every mammal I’m familiar with has valves in the jugular veins. These have just evolved into more robust structures in the giraffe, as would be expected based on natural selection. Similar changes are seen in other long-necked animals, such as camels and ostriches.
Once you understand this, the rest is easy. In Darwin's theory of natural selection, the giraffe populations would have variations in their neck sizes due to genetic differences. The individuals with the longer necks would have more food options than those with the shorter necks; that is, they could continue to eat if the shorter trees were all stripped of leaves. These individuals would live longer on average, and therefore produce more offspring with genes for longer necks, than would the individuals with shorter necks. Over time, the population would have giraffes with longer neck lengths than earlier giraffes.
Similarly, this same population would have variations their cardiovascular system, such as heart size, blood pressure, and strength of the venous valves. Again – there is nothing inherently unique about these structures in giraffes; it’s only a matter of degree. The individuals with more a more robust cardiovascular system would live longer on average produce more offspring, etc.
If you’re really interested, the family history of giraffes is this: They branched off from deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.
-
Originally posted by myelo
These have just evolved into more robust structures in the giraffe, as would be expected based on natural selection.
Could you elaborate on this part please. How does natural selection help before the full function is there?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Could you elaborate on this part please. How does natural selection help before the full function is there?
Because you use the term “full function” you seem to imply that this is a matter of all or nothing. In my previous post I tried to explain this is not the case, but should have done a better job with this.
Let’s take the valves in the jugular veins, which drain blood from the head. Many of the larger veins in mammals have one-way valves. For example your jugular veins have valves. More importantly, the large veins in your legs have valves. This helps keep blood moving in the proper direction (toward the heart) and prevents blood pooling in the lower portions of the body, such as your legs.
The valves in the giraffe’s jugular veins have an identical structure. They are just sturdier. In other words, they are not unique structures, just variations in structures that were already there.
Now, because of the ever-present genetic variation within a population, the valves in some individuals are slightly sturdier than others. For example, the valves in your leg veins may be sturdier than in mine. The same in giraffes.
Here’s what might happen; please realize I’m speculating here to make the point. We have this population of giraffes with slightly differing valves – some are a little stronger, and some are a little weaker. Genetic variation within a population. Our giraffes are drinking at the watering hole, with their heads down. Along comes Mr. Sabre-tooth tiger. The giraffes with better jugular veins might have been able to raise their head from a lowered position slightly faster without suffering a momentary lack of blood to the brain. Therefore the “sturdy-valve” giraffes might be the first ones away from the watering hole. The “sturdy valve” giraffes live on to mate and make little giraffes, which have inherited their parent’s sturdy valves. Meanwhile, the giraffes with less sturdy valves can’t raise their head quite as fast and end up as tiger lunch -- sorry, no reproduction for you.
You could make the same arguments for a more robust rete, bigger heart, etc. You see, it doesn’t have to be an all or nothing mutation. Just natural selection for certain traits within a population; traits that improve the chance for reproduction.
Could God have just designed giraffes this way from scratch? Sure. You won’t see me dispute your or anyone else’s religious belief. But my point is that there is nothing in the development of giraffe anatomy that is inconsistent with evolution.
-
Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!.
-
I believe we were put on this planet by aliens. Look at this, Mary was supposedly impregmated by God and from that came Jesus. Well, if you were around in the time of Jesus, would you have called anything extraterestial a flying saucer? No, you would have compared it to the mode of transport of the day, say, a "flaming chariot". Think about it!
Stony
:eek:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!.
Nice and mature MT. I see you must be getting desperate in your attempts to defend the theory of evolution.
Geology show that fossils are of different ages, correct.
Paleontology show that there are different fossils at different times.
Taxonomy shows that certain species are more simliar to eachother than others.
3 different things MT, and "evolution" has yet to thread all this together.You may wish it was different, but the fact still remains, evolution has never been observed, it has never been proven, and it has yet to even theoreticise about a plausible origin of life.
It sound more like evolutionism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut while crying "I'm correct, I cant prove toejam, but I know I'm correct because I want to be."
-
Hortlund, we would like to know what are your facts and your theory.
If you really seek a detailed exposition of the current knowledge about evolution, I'm sorry, cannot type it for you or cut and paste it here, go and read a few books and journals.
All this contempt for the scientific method is getting tiresome, so please leave science alone, it works, and doesn't need your approval.
I could start poking holes and making fun of the Old Testament... after all it the story of an angry middle eastern tyrant who genocides his own people and others (even more than once), holds weapons of mass destruction, tell parents to kill their sons and the in the last minute goes "Man... it was a joke"... Yep.. that's very humorous of him. And the way he is always pissed about people all the time, putting bad ideas in their minds and then kicking them for it...
I don't think he exists, but those who think the OT is true, should get the UN going after him and send a few inspectors up there to get hold of the Holy Flooding Machine, The Sacred Salt Statue Turning Device and those pesky bio-weapons, you know, the plagues and stuff. And if he doesn't comply... blow him out of the sky!
Silly? yes of course... a silly anti-religious rant... just at the same level than the feeble attempts to disprove a very well based scientific theory displayed in this thread.
-
Originally posted by takeda
Hortlund, we would like to know what are your facts and your theory.
If you really seek a detailed exposition of the current knowledge about evolution, I'm sorry, cannot type it for you or cut and paste it here, go and read a few books and journals.
All this contempt for the scientific method is getting tiresome, so please leave science alone, it works, and doesn't need your approval.
The sad part about this post of yours is the fact that I'm critizing the theory of evolution on a scientific basis, and you dont even realize that. Apparently, if I'm saying that evolutionists have not been able to give sufficient evidence for their theory, I'm showing contempt for the scientific method. If Im saying that according to the scientific method, it is wrong to ignore observations that disprove the current theory, or to make unsubstantiated conclusions from other observations in order to fit them into the current theorem I'm the one showing contempt for science?
You really dont have a clue takeda. You simply think you know what is right and what is wrong, and based on that belief, you jump to the defence of your pet theory, without even understanding what I'm critizizing or why. Frankly, it would appear that you are more religious than me, but your religion is science, and you probably dont even realize it.
-
Faith means nothing to me
Because evolution is a fact, perfectly stablished. You cannot deny reality. The species evolve, even into other species. No faith involved whatsoever. You can have confidence in the sources telling you, but you can go and check it yourself.
Then we have the theories on how they evolve. In that case you need a mechanism that:
a) Explains known facts
b) Keeps working when new facts come up and even predicts them
Darwin came up with such a mechanism: Mutation and Natural Selection, and it yet has to fail to explain known facts. The day it fails to do so, it will have to be revised. Just as gravitation or atomic theory had to be redone at the beggining of the last century.
Faith still has to appear here, why?. I have not tried to disprove myself evolution, but the process of peer reviewing assures me that every published aspect of the theory has suffered a very thorough scrutiny, making very difficult publish a hoax and get away with it, and impossible to maintain it for more than a century, as you seem to claim.
That's a basic working aspect of science, once something is peer approved, you can trust it, but only as long as it keeps working, when you notice that it breaks, you come up with something new, get it working and peer reviewed and get the Nobel price.
Note that there's a basic rule in all this... no supernatural stuff is allowed, that's cheating, because it cannot be disproven by any observable means:
I can say that Shrdlu created the complete universe five minutes ago... fossils, you, this thread and everything, and then go on about how Shrdlu is omnipotent so everything that happens can be explained as his will. Try to show me evidence against that and don't tell me Shrdlu does not exist, how do you know?
So thats it, I don't have faith in science, I have my own experiences and I trust the results of the scientific process peer reviewed by the community.
You can continue to deny the facts or to think there's an evil atheist conspiration out there. Get yourself a nice tin-foil hat in any case.
-
DA98 bows to Shrdlu.
(Just in case, you never know...)
-
Originally posted by takeda
Faith means nothing to me
Because evolution is a fact,
[/b]
In these first two short sentences you manage to prove to everyone, that you do not understand what you are talking about.
The amusing part is that you are displaying the faith you claim to lack in the first sentence directly in the following second sentence.
And you dont even understand it.
-
Mmmm a convert.... we might end up getting something worth $$ from this....
Hey DA, I'm the Voice of Shrdlu, I have the Guardian of the Faith in Shrdlu position available... fancy to get some cult going and build some huge Pyramid... (scheme)?
-
If I can have some virgins at my sevice, I accept.
-
You seem to have evolved a pretty thick skull Hortlund...
I went to great lenghts to explain you that if I don't go to some forsaken african dry riverbed to dig for chewed bones or make my way into a biology lab to look down their microscopes to make sure i'm not getting BS'ed by 4 generations of scientists is because it's impractical, so I must rely on proper published, tested and peer reviewed scientifical knowledge.
While you try to chew on that... how about sending a few $$ to erect the Holy Pyramid (scheme) of Shrdlu?
-
DA98 : CTHULHU rulezz !!! ;)
-
mmmm DA, I asked 'ole Shr about the virgin thing, and he told me that some other guy up there is hoarding all that stuff as of late and they are gettin scarce and expensive... so first we must get the Great Pyramid (scheme) going...
-
Originally posted by takeda
I must rely on proper published, tested and peer reviewed scientifical knowledge.
Well, your problem is that you dont seem to understand what that is.
-
Care to explain it then?
For my it's pretty much like this:
-Someone observes a fact
-Sees it's repeatable
-Checks it with his nearby colleages
-Extracts a conclusion from the fact
-Describes all of it in a paper
-Submits it for publication
-Referees check it
-The paper is published (or not)
-The scientific community at large can check it, accept it, disprove it or whatever, but not because they like or dislike it, they must stick to measurable facts.
As time goes by, that knowledge gets superseded, disproven, or just keeps being the best available you got to work with.
So I am perfectly prepared to admit God, martians or that 'ole chap Shrdlu did put us here, as long as they go through the aforementioned process, which I know that works.
-
Lets just say that I disagree with your "scientific method" and leave it at that. In fact, I doubt you will find too many supporters to your method.
-
Tsk tsk tsk.... you keep challenging me as if I were making all this stuff up, all while failing to provide any alternative.
I don't need anyone to support anything. I didn't invent the peer reviewed publishing system. It's there... produces good and usable science and keeps the snake oil vendors out.
-
Originally posted by takeda
Tsk tsk tsk.... you keep challenging me as if I were making all this stuff up, all while failing to provide any alternative.
I don't need anyone to support anything. I didn't invent the peer reviewed publishing system. It's there... produces good and usable science and keeps the snake oil vendors out.
But you are making that stuff up.
Here, let me help you. This is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. Because there is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Now, let me ask you, do you want me to point out where the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with the scientific method? Or do you prefer to live on in your belief that the theory of evolution is a fact?
-
Go ahead... point, point...
[edit]
I was going to leave it "unpunished", but it's a pretty dirty trick, so here you go.
You were asking me why did I trust scientifical knowledge generated by others and not by myself, so I presented you the process of scientific communication.
You are telling us now about the process of "generating" that knowledge from the facts, so no contradiction, both are parts of the bigger scientifical scene.
What i said is valid as well as the outline you cited is correct, so the dirty trick is oposing both things as you did
So, you go on and promise us to produce some invalidating stuff to disprove evolution... Go ahead... better prepared people than you (and me) had been unable to come up with anything in 150 years.
[edit]
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The sad part about this post of yours is the fact that I'm critizing the theory of evolution on a scientific basis, and you dont even realize that. Apparently, if I'm saying that evolutionists have not been able to give sufficient evidence for their theory, I'm showing contempt for the scientific method. If Im saying that according to the scientific method, it is wrong to ignore observations that disprove the current theory, or to make unsubstantiated conclusions from other observations in order to fit them into the current theorem I'm the one showing contempt for science?
You really dont have a clue takeda. You simply think you know what is right and what is wrong, and based on that belief, you jump to the defence of your pet theory, without even understanding what I'm critizizing or why. Frankly, it would appear that you are more religious than me, but your religion is science, and you probably dont even realize it.
Using words with "ology" at the end do not constitute a "scientic basis" lol... that is one of the funniest post you've made so far.
You have been presented with pictures, links and Myelo's well written explainations to your questions. But you have yet to show exactly what evidence is being ignored by scientists. C'mon Steve, what have you got?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Using words with "ology" at the end do not constitute a "scientic basis" lol... that is one of the funniest post you've made so far.
You have been presented with pictures, links and Myelo's well written explainations to your questions. But you have yet to show exactly what evidence is being ignored by scientists. C'mon Steve, what have you got?
Tomorrow MT,
Im working on a trial I have tomorrow right now. Just to clue you in, the topic I'm going to post about tomorrow it is "the Cambrian explosion". Since that post will be kinda big I thought I'd take my time with it instead of rushing it to the BB.
I'm starting to suspect that you think that evolution = micorevolution, and that is why you desperately cling to the idea that evolution has been observed. Just to make things clear for any future discussions, microevolution is not the issue here. Macroevolution is.
And apparently you missed my point to that spanish person with about a mile. Perhaps you should try to read my post again, a bit more slowly this time maybe?
-
there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
-Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980.
Hortlund,
The quote from Dr. Ross concerning the 2nd Law and open systems is interesting. However, it is taken out of context of the rest of the article. (FYI, Dr. Ross has been at Stanford University for some time)
If you read the rest of the work you will see that the 2nd Law can be used to mathematically model open systems only if one takes into account the matter and energy entering the system. The 2nd Law can only be perfectly applied to an isolated system. To learn more about this you can read here:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy3.html
Your examples concerning how solar energy increases entropy are a little off. The solar energy is a catalyst in the oxidation process, which causes your car's paint to fade. The rotting of flesh has less to do with solar energy and more to do with organisms (macro and micro) feeding on the carcass. Place both a painted car and a dead animal into a sunlit vacuum and see if you get the same results.
Converse to your examples, solar energy is used in the photosynthesis process to locally decrease entropy, ie to grow a more ordered organism.
-
The benefit of metamorphosis is the ability to utilize different niches or environments at different stages of developement. Not much of a stretch to picture complete changes being pressured into intermediate steps through environmental pressures.
"complete changes being pressured into intermediate steps" ??
LOL. What the hell do you call THAT theory, 'cause it ain't evolution.
Not much of a stretch? If metamorphosis developed through evolution, it had to do it in small incremental steps. It is very hard to conceive how metamorphosis could evolve. Even a biologist will concede that.
-
LOL back atcha..:p
Maybe, just maybe you could be mistaken...
Key to metamorphosis evolution (http://depts.washington.edu/uweek/archives/1999.09.SEP_30/_article6.html)
Here is another:
"The origins of insect metamorphosis." (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun2000/960566507.Ev.r.html)
-
Originally posted by mrfish
shouldn't they though if it's a part of their belief system?
Absolutely, though it's not just restricted to Christianity. Many religions involve creation accounts.
On an intellectual level, science and religion are not incompatible...they both attempt to explain what's going on here, on Earth. Science covers our physical world; religion deals with man's spiritual needs. The best example I can give is: an airplane needs two wings to fly. Though simplistic, I believe it's fitting.
One of the main tenants of the scientific method is proof of fallibility, i.e. scientific theories (current accepted facts) stand until proven wrong through scientific experimentation and observation. Obviously, religion is not science, as it is based on faith and cannot be proven false. Science does not involve the intervention of a diety or dieties, miracles, etc... only observable facts which can be replicated through experimentation.
This does not mean a scientist cannot believe in God personally. He just cannot professionally include God in his observations, submitted before peers for critique and examination. It is not "creatio ex nihilio" territory.
............................. ............................
I believe God created the universe and all things in it. I have a hard time with abiogenesis (Spontaneous Generation) from the primordeal soup. The Bible states the spirit of God moved above this region (the waters) to start the life process. If I were a scientist, which I'm not, I could not ignore the astronomical mathmatical improbabilities against the random combination of molecules, amino acids and proteins to form a single living cell, which in itself is extremely complex. I believe this was done by design, and did not happen by chance.
As far as attempting to prove fallibilities and inconsistencies in the Bible, forget it...it's impossible. The best that can be accomplished in that area is the implication of fallibility, which falls far short of proof.
Either way, I enjoyed this thread because it made me think.
Les
-
leslie -
if you are a christian then you have to believe that women were made from a rib and this is simply irreconcilable with science. god doesn't give you a choice to believe that part or interpret it as you please. it's his word- believe it or don't.
if you are a christian you have to believe that all the species on earth fit nicely onto a 450 foot boat during god's first temper tantrum. this is also irreconcilable with what we know here in the real world. again, you don't get a choice- that's what god said, recorded by men, guided by his divine hand from on high.
god tells you over and over that 'the word' is the absolute unquestionable truth - if you keep trying to write off sections of it or see it's inconsistencies, he may also condem you to eternal pain and torture with the rest of us evil folk so be careful- he's watching you know and the slightest thing makes him furious;)
back in 1024 ad you wouldn't have heard a single christian trying to explain away genesis. they were too ignorant to even question it back then because there was no alternative-
the christian trend to try to interpret the bible to match science is a new trend that coincides wth our intellectual emergence as a species. science is built to grow, christianty will just crack under the pressure of truth some day because it's inflexible and presents an unrealistic account of our reality. it's creating a lot of conflict in educated christians already....
quite frankly, you guys are at the end of your rope and have been since galileo. the more we learn about reality the less your book will fit our sensibilities. christianity will perish in an educated world which is why you do so well in third world countries and trailor parks where they don't have as much trouble believing those stories and not so good where people have had a chance to learn.
is that an insult to you? it's just the truth to me- look at the next televised benny hinn revival....old widows.....lonely people....shut ins........some honduran chick with a 3rd grade education with 5 kids just dieing to see the virgin mary in some reflection...all these people believing they are being healed......etc etc. and he'll fit a big stadium full of em too - you can see the narcotic effect on their faces as they sway and cry.....no wonder they don't want to let go of the fantasy- and substitute that for cold hard science that doesn't watch you from heaven or give you a place to go when you die? i don't blame em i guess.
you can hold on to your beliefs because they give you comfort against the unknowns of the uiniverse and death or because it was your default setting growing up as a white guy in america but you just can't have science too. despite the great efforts of many devoted people to make it that way- hell, if it were relevant would you have to try so hard to make it match our observations? probably not.
-
and where is that in the bible.....?
edit- thrawn did you delete the apostles creed post?
-
Your wrong mrfish.
This is what christians believe.
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN."
I don't see anything about ribs or arks in there. Good luck with your pigeon holing though.
-
ah it's back - ;)
now again- where is that in the bible?
-
Originally posted by mrfish
if you are a christian then you have to believe that women were made from a rib and this is simply irreconcilable with science. god doesn't give you a choice to believe that part or interpret it as you please. it's his word- believe it or don't.
Who made you ruler of the universe in that you think you can tell folks what they HAVE to believe? :rolleyes:
-
if you want to refute the word of god and call yourself a christian i won't stop you. i'm not sure where you got the 'go ahead interpret this stuff however you want guys' message from the bible though.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
if you want to refute the word of god and call yourself a christian i won't stop you. i'm not sure where you got the 'go ahead interpret this stuff however you want guys' message from the bible though.
Apparently you have no faith there is a God, who are you to say what his word is or isn't?
-
well....... the stuff in the bible is god's word right?
is that not god's word? if not, which parts are and which parts aren't because it might make a huge difference don't you think?
-
Originally posted by mrfish
well....... the stuff in the bible is god's word right?
is that not god's word? if not, which parts are and which parts aren't because it might make a huge difference don't you think?
As I and others stated previously, among Christians there is much diversity in how the bible (assume we're still talking protestant bible) is to be understood.
If I am to take you literally then there are but a few passages in the old testament that contain God's words and everything that Jesus said in the new.
I don't take everything that is written in the bible literally, what I do or don't is my choice alone, not a church or denomination and certainly not yours.
Clear enough?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't take everything that is written in the bible literally, what I do or don't is my choice alone, not a church or denomination and certainly not yours.
Clear enough?
lol- crystal actually.;)
-
So is there room for evolution in a book that is so unclear?
-
there's room for whatever you want apparently- you just have to be good at interpreting god's true meaning.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
there's room for whatever you want apparently- you just have to be good at interpreting god's true meaning.
apparently you have a problem with that?
-
Only if you try to pass your interpretation off as truth. :)
-
I can only speak for myself (when my wife let's me), and when I speak of truth it is from my personal experience and is always qualified as such.
-
erzats-
oh and i was careless..... let's not forget the book of mormon. i keep forgetting that god added that to the official holy word back in the 1800s.....
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
So is there room for evolution in a book that is so unclear?
IMO yes.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I can only speak for myself (when my wife let's me), and when I speak of truth it is from my personal experience and is always qualified as such.
Gee... I remember stating that truth is relative. Got pummeled for it in here.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Gee... I remember stating that truth is relative. Got pummeled for it in here.
Well, I didn't pummel ya for it. However, by faith, not science, I believe there to be only one truth, God.
Facts aren't truth, only observation, incomplete at that.
-
It's like someone said on this bb earlier . Every american christian has their own individualy tailor made god .
Some gods are ok with women in church, some gods are ok with hats, some gods are ok with dancing, some gods are ok with substance abuse, some gods are ok with adultry, some gods are ok with condoms, some gods are ok with premarital sex, some gods are ok with polygamy. It just depends on what words in which bible you believe are the words of god . Afterall it would be pretty ridiculous to take the bible literally .
Religions place is to try to answer why something is, when religion tries to answer how something is the religion becomes mythology .
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Facts aren't truth
ok..
-
Well Samm, do you not seek truth or meaning in your life?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well Samm, do you not seek truth or meaning in your life?
I guess so, I find the discovery and history channel interesting . And some say that I have an overdeveloped sense of injustice . Oh and lie detection is a hobby of mine .
-
Originally posted by Samm
I guess so, I find the discovery and history channel interesting . And some say that I have an overdeveloped sense of injustice . Oh and lie detection is a hobby of mine .
Well, whatever makes you happy, or at least satisfied.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, I didn't pummel ya for it. However, by faith, not science, I believe there to be only one truth, God.
Facts aren't truth, only observation, incomplete at that.
And how did you come to know of this "truth"? By observation.
You would not know "God" were it not for hearing and seeing "His" message.
Blindly accepting what you see and hear without question can be called "faith". Or being foolish.
The only truth I know is based upon what I have observed. I have observed that when something dies, it never wakes up again and eventually turns to dust. Never seen or heard any spirits or souls.
Can't see how or why people should believe in one particular "faith" more than another. Why should I believe in Catholicism over Baptists, Muslims, Methodists, Hindus, or Mormons? Should I go with the one my parents taught me? The one that makes me feel the best about myself? The one that has the most power? The one that is the most rational?
So let me get this straight, you will choose to believe in arbitrary principles for arbitrary reasons as opposed to making decisions based on direct observations?
Science is flawed in so many ways primarily because humans are flawed. However, unlike any other belief system, science admits it is wrong and strives ever harder to correct itself and get ever closer to the great truths of the universe.
Churchs only change when their in danger of losing funding, and even then they refuse to change sometimes.
Personally, I think science is just another form of religion. Like religion, its foundation (mathematics) is based on abstract assumptions that cannot be proven. However, among religions, science tends to be far more successful. Capitalism is more successful than other economic systems because it is based on the FACT that people are inherently selfish. In the same way, science is more successful than other religions because it is based on FACT that past observations allow us to predict future results in many useful ways. Whereas other religions are based on ideal principles that simply do not work in everyday life and are ultimately doomed to fail as did the idealistic Communist system.
-
I know what the truth is. Mr. Fish would make a darn good fire and brimstone preacher.:D
Les
Edit: had to take the word "probably" out.;)
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
And how did you come to know of this "truth"? By observation.
No, by spiritual experience. It's one of things you probably won't believe without experiencing it either.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I know what the truth is. Mr. Fish would make a darn good fire and brimstone preacher.:D
Les
Edit: had to take the word "probably" out.;)
:D i'm holding out for a better dental plan actually leslie, plus 'evil sinner' looks cooler on my biz cards.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
if you are a christian then you have to
[SNIP lots of drivel]
It must be frustrating to be you...
I dont know if its just me, but the feeling I get from you and all your posts is that you are in desperate need of something, be it faith, trust, love or something like that. I dont know exactly what it is with you, but your posts all cry out "please hug me, give me attention and love."
Rough childhood perhaps?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No, by spiritual experience. It's one of things you probably won't believe without experiencing it either.
your experience wasn't like this:
"Hassan Ben Sabbah conditioned and organized a band of fearless political killers such as had never been seen before. His method of indoctrination was unique.vii He constructed a secret garden and furnished it with all the delights promised in the Koran…to the faithful when they reached paradise. The chosen were drugged, one or two at a time, and taken to this garden by night. When they woke up in the morningviii they were surrounded by beautiful and scantily clad houris [in Muslim belief, women who live with the blessed in paradise] who would minister to their every need and desire. After being allowed to savor this false — but pleasant and sensual — paradise for a day or so, they were again drugged before being taken back to awaken in their own squalid hovel or cave dwelling. To them, it was as if it had been a vivid dream. Ben Sabbah then sent for them, told them Allah had given them a preview of paradise, and surprised them by telling them exactly what each had been up to while in the secret garden. So successful was he in this method of conditioning and indoctrination that it was said he once astounded a visiting emir whom he wanted to impress with his power by sending for one of his men and ordering him to kill himself — which he immediately did. When an Assassin was sent out by ibn-al-Sabbah to carry out some violent death, the Assassin was just as dedicated. So convinced were the Assassins that they would be rewarded in paradise that they never hesitated to fulfill their missions of murder, even though this often meant their victims’ bodyguards would kill them immediately afterward."
was it?
just checkin'...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It must be frustrating to be you...
I dont know if its just me, but the feeling I get from you and all your posts is that you are in desperate need of something, be it faith, trust, love or something like that. I dont know exactly what it is with you, but your posts all cry out "please hug me, give me attention and love."
Rough childhood perhaps?
Ad hominem in debate will cause you to loose respect, dignity and credibility .
-
Wow, this thread is still going?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Actually it is the other way around. If everything comes from the same molecules, and then mutates and evolves with the same goals, and prerequesites for survival, we should have less different species than we have now.
Thats how randomness and geography play a part in it . Thats why we have llamas only in SA and camels only in africa, bison in NA and oxen in asia, marine iguanas in the gelapegos and tree iguanas in SA, etc. etc.
-
Originally posted by whgates3
your experience wasn't like this:
"Hassan Ben Sabbah conditioned and organized a band of fearless political killers such as had never been seen before. His method of indoctrination was unique.vii He constructed a secret garden and furnished it with all the delights promised in the Koran…to the faithful when they reached paradise. The chosen were drugged, one or two at a time, and taken to this garden by night. When they woke up in the morningviii they were surrounded by beautiful and scantily clad houris [in Muslim belief, women who live with the blessed in paradise] who would minister to their every need and desire. After being allowed to savor this false — but pleasant and sensual — paradise for a day or so, they were again drugged before being taken back to awaken in their own squalid hovel or cave dwelling. To them, it was as if it had been a vivid dream. Ben Sabbah then sent for them, told them Allah had given them a preview of paradise, and surprised them by telling them exactly what each had been up to while in the secret garden. So successful was he in this method of conditioning and indoctrination that it was said he once astounded a visiting emir whom he wanted to impress with his power by sending for one of his men and ordering him to kill himself — which he immediately did. When an Assassin was sent out by ibn-al-Sabbah to carry out some violent death, the Assassin was just as dedicated. So convinced were the Assassins that they would be rewarded in paradise that they never hesitated to fulfill their missions of murder, even though this often meant their victims’ bodyguards would kill them immediately afterward."
was it?
just checkin'...
uh, no, and I don't care to post the details of such a personal experience here, but if you're really interested I can email.
-
I'll have to delay my cambrian explosion post, sorry MT. I left home for work at 5.30 am, spent the entire day in court with various low life wife beater trash and just got home at 8pm. blah blah blah excuses excuses...
I'll get that post up tomorrow.
-
Im sure every "lowlife" deserved it Hort. Women never blow up and instigate anything.
Hang them you tool.
-
Hortlund,
I hope you are not going to argue that the rapid diversification of animal life seen in the fossil record from the Cambrian period was too fast to be consistent with evolution.
-
i've long hoped that someone would find a fern cathedral just below the K/T boundry to explain the fern spike above
-
When I was a kid, I used to spend a week or two every other year with my relatives in Oaklahoma. One of these was my cousin John. John had some issues. One day, John deceided that it would be a good idea to take a can of raid and spray the gigantic hornet's nest in the back yard. So he knocked the hornet's nest down with a rock, and then sprayed it with raid. Then he was stung a bunch as he ran away from the very angry hornets.
Then, as now, I didn't really know what to make of it all, but I'm having some serious Deja Vu.
-Sik
-
All I need to know about evolution I learned from Jack Chick :)
Big Daddy (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)
not to mention homosexuality
Doom Town (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0273/0273_01.asp)
Interstate trucking
The Sissy (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0086/0086_01.asp)
and another reason to avoid the malls this holiday season and shop online
Witness while you shop (http://www.chick.com/seasonal/christmas/default.asp)
Charon
-
Originally posted by myelo
Hortlund,
I hope you are not going to argue that the rapid diversification of animal life seen in the fossil record from the Cambrian period was too fast to be consistent with evolution.
LOL, dangit Myelo... I was hoping we might witness a self hangin.
-
The Assassins terrorized the Middle East for many years. They extorted money from the Muslim kingdoms of the Middle East. Over time they used this wealth to build castles to consolidate their holdings. As their power grew, so did their arrogance. Even the great Saladin, the powerful Egyptian warlord refused to challenge them directly. Their leader was called the Old Man of the Mountain by outsiders.
They wrought their own destruction when they dared threaten the Mongol juggernaut that had already destroyed the empire of the Khwaresmian Turks and sacked Baghdad. When the Mongols finished with them the Assassins had ceased to exist.
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What do you mean? Only a complete imbecile wouldn't accept evolution as the most viable theory to explain were humans come from.
There that should be a good start. :D
I must be one of the imbeciles. Evolution is still a theory. Show me a currently in progress example of evolution.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
I must be one of the imbeciles. Evolution is still a theory. Show me a currently in progress example of evolution.
Go look in the mirror.
Will you or did you have children?
How did you choose your mate? What attributes were important to you? Did you consciously pick someone who would give you children with improvements over yourself?
Now multiply all that by 100,000 generations. What kind of changes do you think could be achieved?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No, by spiritual experience. It's one of things you probably won't believe without experiencing it either.
So you are telling me you would have come to know God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and have found the path to eternal life all by yourself? It didn't take having a Bible and/or someone preaching it to you?
People who take strong drugs have spiritual experiences. So do shamans, Buddhists, and many others looked down upon by the oh-so arrogant Christians. Does that validate their beliefs too?
Religion is all about feeling good... but doing something because it feels good has never made it right.
I get tired of people who look down their nose at others because they have been "saved". I don't think any other major religions in the world are so arrogant as the ones based on the God of Abraham.
I have heard my own "Christian" grandmother tell me to my face that you can't be a good person if you don't believe in Jesus. So 2 or 3 billion or more are all evil? A lot of Christians need to read their Bibles and follow the example Jesus set. Then the rest of the world wouldn't have such a bad attitude toward them.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
I must be one of the imbeciles. Evolution is still a theory. Show me a currently in progress example of evolution.
According to evolution theory, all life is "a currently in progress example of evolution".
-
Originally posted by -dead-
According to evolution theory, all life is "a currently in progress example of evolution".
*sigh* what a wonderful argument.
You too MT with that marvelous "go look in the mirror"-evidence.
WTF is wrong with you people? Did you learn to argue in kindergarten?
How's this then:
According to creation-theory, all life is a currently in progress example of creation. If you want more evidence, go look in the mirror.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND just how useless such an argument is?
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
I must be one of the imbeciles. Evolution is still a theory. Show me a currently in progress example of evolution.
Here you go: the development of strains of bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics.
Convinced? If not, why not?
-
Because that is an example of microevolution. Microevolution is not in doubt. But microevolution cannot explain how a new species comes into existence.
Macroevolution is the creation, (or evolvment or whatever you choose to call it) of a new species. It has never been observed. It has been deducted (guess) by scientists observing various fossils, looking at microevolution, looking at a number of other factors, and drawing conclusions from those separate observations.
-
Will somebody PLEASE drive a stake through the heart of this thread?
Shuckins
-
I still can't have a clue of what the macroevolution is ...
In fact I never seen this term used before this tread ... go figure ...
-
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.
-
God created us all...the believers and dirty infidels alike...he took the form of a simple shepherd and emerged from Arabia around 400AD..I thought everybody knew this????(what a freaking joke)
-
So you are discussing the taxonomy ?
-
It was once thought that what made the earth so hospitable for life compared to other planets was it's distance from the sun . However today we know of ecosystems that perpetuate completely independant of solar radiation .
I believe that the universe is at it's very very very very beginning. And that life will eventually spread around the galaxy and beyond . The cat is out of the bag, and it's proving to be quite indominable, resilient and flexible . I believe the virus that is the DNA molecule will infect the universe terminally .
-
I cut and pasted this from the same place Hortlund cut and pasted his last post....
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.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Because that is an example of microevolution. Microevolution is not in doubt. But microevolution cannot explain how a new species comes into existence.
You never really gave a response to the post below that addresses this statement.
Originally posted by -dead-
Why is it "simply stated, wrong" to assume that successive sets of micro-evolution can lead to macro-evolution over a long time period? What evidence have you found to the contrary?
--snip--
Evolution and in particular the idea that "micro-evolution" can lead to "macro-evolution" (or speciesation) would seem to explain this very neatly. What would your explanation be I wonder?
It seems your expectation of macroevolution is that an elephant would suddenly give birth to a hippopotamus, i.e. an immediate transition from species to another. Evolution via natural selection does not work that way.
"Macroevolution is proposed to occur on a geological timescale and in a gradual manner. 'Gradualness' has little to do with the rate or tempo of evolution; it is a mode of change that is dependent on population phenomena. Gradualness concerns genetically probable organismic changes between two consecutive generations, i.e. those changes that are within the range of normal variation observed within modern populations. Morphological change may appear fast geologically speaking, yet still be gradual." Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., University of Colorado.
Further, I think Mylo's explanation of the development of the giraffe's long neck and corresponding cardio-vascular robustness answers your question as to how microevolution can lead to a new species. If you want to re-read it, go to page 7 of this thread.
-
And, Stevie
Your personal attacks are becoming tiresome.
But I will press on. What I think you suffer from may be a lack of imagination. You try to picture a fish turning into a toad. Or a as posted above, a dog into a cat.
You are thinking backwards. The common ancestor of both species may look like neither. The speciation (micoevolution if you like) that occurrs after the two groups have been separated results in the differentiation you see today.
No dog became a cat. But a common ancestor gave rise to both.
-
MT,
Is that where the idea for the cartoon character Cat-Dog came from?
Shuckins
-
LOL, you don't know how close I came to posting a pic of that.
-
I don't find evolution and creationism to be incompatible. Why can't we just leave it at that. I have yet to see anyone on these posts change their opinions about either regardless of the arguments presented by the opposition. The discussion just degenerates into a lot of name-calling. I believe in God. Eternity exists according to the findings of our most prominent physicists and astronomers. Who knows what forms life will evolve into as countless millennia go by. Think of God as the ultimate expression of life who has the power to manipulate the birth and development of the universe. Alan Guth, one of the world's leading physicists and the father of the inflationary theory of the birth of the universe, states that it may be possible to harness the engines of inflation and create a cosmos from scratch. He also states that our universe COULD be such a creation.
So who are WE to say that it is impossible for a single being to create a universe? How the dickins do we know? Let's just all agree that none of us have the total answer and get on with our lives.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And, Stevie
Your personal attacks are becoming tiresome.
But I will press on. What I think you suffer from may be a lack of imagination. You try to picture a fish turning into a toad. Or a as posted above, a dog into a cat.
You are thinking backwards. The common ancestor of both species may look like neither. The speciation (micoevolution if you like) that occurrs after the two groups have been separated results in the differentiation you see today.
No dog became a cat. But a common ancestor gave rise to both.
I've been waiting a long time for someone to post this. Now I can answer one of mrfishs' questions about Noahs Ark.
You see mrfish, Noah didn't have to have a bigger ark on such a grand scale as you insinuate. There weren't that many species at the time of the flood. Besides, and using your demensions, the size of the ark equals to about 522 train box cars of today.
Yes, I am a theistic evolutionist. God created all things. Evolution is one of his tools.
-
How many here believe in evolution?
I do. It happens all the time in our daily lives.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I cut and pasted this from the same place Hortlund cut and pasted his last post....
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.
*sigh* I know Im stealing some of my own thunder now, because Im gonna post part of my critique in this post instead of posting all of my objections in one thread. But I suppose I have to since I wasnt able to get enough time off at work today.
Here we go...
The problem MT is exactly what you posted there. Let me highlight it for you.
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine.
Now, when you look at it like that, you get the impression that these people are pretty sure of their theory...right? That they have something *really* good backing them up?
Well, lets go back in that very same text that you and I are copying and pasting from.
The key section is this one:
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.
So what does this text really tell us? What you are looking at is the proof of macroevolution btw.
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.
A few observations might be in order.
1) There are no observations of macroevolution. Nor are there any evidence per se. What we have instead is...something.
Note the key phrase "synthesists claim that the same process [...] (as in microevolution) can be extraploated to between species changes.
Clearly MT Clearly not even you can accept this as evidence. Basically what he is saying is "some people think that what we see in microevolution should also be true when it comes to macroevolution.
Oh, and by the way...according to my dictionary here:
extrapolate= to guess or think about what might happen from information that is already known.
To guess or think...
We can take a break here and you can explain how this works with the scientific model if you want, or we can move on to...
2) Apparently the statement I described above has led to a switch in the burden of proof. Normally it is up to the one making a statement to substantiate his statement. Or, to use the scientific method. It is up to the one presenting the theory to show that it is compliant with observations. Here, we are told that since "synthesists claim that the same process [...] can be extrapolated to macroevolution" should be accepted as a fact unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered
That is totally absurd. Totally...it is absurd on so many levels that...I dont know what to say really. And remember MT,
THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE.
"Some people think that they are right and therefore it is up to the people demanding evidence to prove that they are wrong. "
Now, you tell me MT. Is that the evolutionary theory of macroevolution proven according to the scientific method?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The speciation (micoevolution if you like)
No, speciation would be an example of macroevolution.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
1) There are no observations of macroevolution. Nor are there any evidence per se.
Yes, there is. I gave you two examples earlier, development of a new different species of the Faeroe Island house mouse, and formation of new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.
If you have a specific, cogent argument as to why these examples (or several others I can provide) don’t meet you definition of “macroevolution” let’s hear it. Otherwise, please don’t keep bringing this one back from the cheap seats.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Yes, there is. I gave you two examples earlier, development of a new different species of the Faeroe Island house mouse, and formation of new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.
If you have a specific, cogent argument as to why these examples (or several others I can provide) don’t meet you definition of “macroevolution” let’s hear it. Otherwise, please don’t keep bringing this one back from the cheap seats.
Those are microevolution examples myelo, I thought I replied that to you before?
Frequent inbreeding in the constantly growing house mouse population has resulted in some odd traits, true, but there is no case of macroevolution.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
*sigh* what a wonderful argument.
You too MT with that marvelous "go look in the mirror"-evidence.
WTF is wrong with you people? Did you learn to argue in kindergarten?
How's this then:
According to creation-theory, all life is a currently in progress example of creation. If you want more evidence, go look in the mirror.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND just how useless such an argument is?
I just answered the question asked. :)
Here's quite a nice example of speciation in progress:
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm (http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Those are microevolution examples myelo, I thought I replied that to you before?
Sorry, I may have missed it.
But, these are examples of evolution of new species. And earlier you said:
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used).
So these are examples of macroevolution, using your definition. No?
-
Originally posted by myelo
Sorry, I may have missed it.
But, these are examples of evolution of new species. And earlier you said:
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used).
So these are examples of macroevolution, using your definition. No?
What definition of species are you/they using when they claim it is a new species? I got curious, since we seem to be talking about different things.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Those are microevolution examples myelo, I thought I replied that to you before?
Frequent inbreeding in the constantly growing house mouse population has resulted in some odd traits, true, but there is no case of macroevolution.
Hmmm... only microevolution eh?
The argument again [with highlighting for the hard of comprehension]:
Quoth the myelo "I gave you two examples earlier, development of a new different species of the Faeroe Island house mouse, and formation of new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago. "
Lets compare that with Hortlund's definition of speciation & macroevolution: "It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa."
It would appear that Myelo's examples are by your own definition examples of macroevolution not microevolution.
here's a few more...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)
There aren't that many examples, but given that Darwin only came up with the theory in 1859 - so people have only been looking for 143 years (which is really tiny on the posited evolutionary scale), it's a pretty good haul.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
A few observations might be in order.
1) There are no observations of macroevolution. Nor are there any evidence per se. What we have instead is...something.
(vitriolic drivel snipped)
2) Apparently the statement I described above has led to a switch in the burden of proof. Normally it is up to the one making a statement to substantiate his statement. Or, to use the scientific method. It is up to the one presenting the theory to show that it is compliant with observations. Here, we are told that since "synthesists claim that the same process [...] can be extrapolated to macroevolution" should be accepted as a fact unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered
I agree with you that some objectively verifiable and testable evidence should be provided to back up this theory...here it is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There are 29 evidences, including a link to a critique of the evidences and a rebuttal.
I challenge you to provide the same level objectively verifiable and testable evidence for your theory of creation. Note, evidence is not the same as showing that no other theory is viable. It must be affirmative evidence that God did it.
-
Originally posted by Apache
I've been waiting a long time for someone to post this. Now I can answer one of mrfishs' questions about Noahs Ark.
You see mrfish, Noah didn't have to have a bigger ark on such a grand scale as you insinuate. There weren't that many species at the time of the flood.
Besides, and using your demensions, the size of the ark equals to about 522 train box cars of today.
Yes, I am a theistic evolutionist. God created all things. Evolution is one of his tools.
according to your statement then, the extra species on the earth today all emerged after the flood? the ark story goes back a few thousand years at most but the species that exist on earth today have fossil records going far back beyond that. besides you didn't answer how he got ahold of the polar species.
secondly, i am expressing the ark's dimensions in feet so to give you a sense of it's size since most people aren't familir with cubits, did you miss the part where i converted the dimensions from cubits?
-
Well gosh mrfish, the polar species couldn't have...evolved?
Ark Measurements
Cubits Hebrew Cubits to ft/m Royal Cubits to ft/m
Length 300 437.5 ft (133.35 m) 516.25 ft (157.35 m)
Width 50 72.9 ft (22.2 m) 86 ft (26.2 m)
Height 30 43.75 (13.3 m) 51.6 ft (15.7 m)
A cubit in the Old Testament is approximately 17.5 inches long. Another measurement to consider is the Egyptian Royal cubit which is 20.65 inches. Moses is credited as being the author of Genesis. Since Moses was educated in Egypt we should consider the Egyptian cubit, as well as the Hebrew cubit.
The ark had a volume of 1.4 million cubic feet and a gross tonnage of 14,000 tons. This is the equivalent of 522 railroad box cars.
-
Originally posted by straffo
So you are discussing the taxonomy ?
You don't want to answer Steve ?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
*sigh* I know Im stealing some of my own thunder now, because Im gonna post part of my critique in this post instead of posting all of my objections in one thread. But I suppose I have to since I wasnt able to get enough time off at work today.
Here we go...
I can hear the thunder pealing in the background. Probably not unlike the thunder following the lightning that triggered life in the primordial soup. ;)
The problem MT is exactly what you posted there. Let me highlight it for you.
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine.
Now, when you look at it like that, you get the impression that these people are pretty sure of their theory...right? That they have something *really* good backing them up?
Or it could just be a statement of common sense. Genes combine within a species because there is breeding within a species. They diverge (in relation to each other) when a species is separated because there is no breeding happening to combine them. That isn't even biology sir, its common sense.
What you are looking at is the proof of macroevolution btw.
A few observations might be in order.
1) There are no observations of macroevolution. Nor are there any evidence per se. What we have instead is...something.
You have been given numerous examples already. Time to pull your head out of.... the sand.
Note the key phrase "synthesists claim that the same process [...] (as in microevolution) can be extraploated to between species changes.
Clearly MT Clearly not even you can accept this as evidence. Basically what he is saying is "some people think that what we see in microevolution should also be true when it comes to macroevolution.
If you are asking whether I accept this paragraph as evidence then no. It would seem that you do however.
Oh, and by the way...according to my dictionary here:
extrapolate= to guess or think about what might happen from information that is already known.
To guess or think...
We can take a break here and you can explain how this works with the scientific model if you want, or we can move on to...
Extrapolate - To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.
Do you honestly think you made a point by describing "infer from known information" as a guess? - Silly Steve.
2) Apparently the statement I described above has led to a switch in the burden of proof. Normally it is up to the one making a statement to substantiate his statement. Or, to use the scientific method. It is up to the one presenting the theory to show that it is compliant with observations. Here, we are told that since "synthesists claim that the same process [...] can be extrapolated to macroevolution" should be accepted as a fact unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered
That is totally absurd. Totally...it is absurd on so many levels that...I dont know what to say really. And remember MT,
THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE.
My evidence? The evidence that macroevolution occured has been presented to you. Once again you are attacking the entire idea of Evolution based on the wording of this web site. More than silly. Pathetic.
"Some people think that they are right and therefore it is up to the people demanding evidence to prove that they are wrong. "
Now, you tell me MT. Is that the evolutionary theory of macroevolution proven according to the scientific method? [/B]
Do you think it is possible that there was a common ancestor(s) for both dogs and cats?
Earthworms and Insects?
Starfish and Humans?
Where does your "macroevolution" point begin to fail? At the Phylum level? At the Genus Level? Somewhere in between?
To answer your question, Yes. I think Evolution stands up very well to the scientific method.
-
well here's one estimate of the earth's species:
Bacteria..................... ......................... 4,000
Protoctists (algae, protozoa, etc)......... 80,000
Animals, vertebrates.................. ......... 52,000
Animals, invertebrates................ .... 1,272,000
Fungi........................ ......................... 72,000
Plants....................... ....................... 270,000
Total number of described species... 1,750,000
Possible nr. with unknown species: 14,000,000
here's the footnote for you nit-pickers:
from the United Nations publication: UNEP-WCMC (2000). Global Biodiversity: Earth's living resources in the 21st century. Cambridge, World Conservation Press.
so in about 1.4 million cubic feet we could fit all this?
how about the food for all those animals?
8 people fed all of this menagere for 10 months?
there was only one window and one door how did they deal with the loads of crap those animals produced?
how did the prey animals keep from getting eaten?
none of the species died of illness thus eleminating a species in 10 months of unsanitary confinement?
how did all the species find their way form mt. ararat to south america and australia.
also - what about koalas and pandas and other specialty animals- did they have a lot of eucalyptus and bamboo around noah's house .....come on...
as far as your theory about all these species first being created by god then evolving like mad over the last 10,000 years or so (at most) since the flood uhhhhh......don't hink you're gonna find a lot of support there. to the 2-3 thousand years ago this sounded reasonable but today.....
but you're on a roll mac, keep goin' ;)
-
Originally posted by mrfish
well here's one estimate of the earth's species:
Bacteria..................... ......................... 4,000
Protoctists (algae, protozoa, etc)......... 80,000
Animals, vertebrates.................. ......... 52,000
Animals, invertebrates................ .... 1,272,000
Fungi........................ ......................... 72,000
Plants....................... ....................... 270,000
Total number of described species... 1,750,000
Possible nr. with unknown species: 14,000,000
here's the footnote for you nit-pickers:
from the United Nations publication: UNEP-WCMC (2000). Global Biodiversity: Earth's living resources in the 21st century. Cambridge, World Conservation Press.
so in about 1.4 million cubic feet we could fit all this?
how about the food for all those animals?
8 people fed all of this menagere for 10 months?
there was only one window and one door how did they deal with the loads of crap those animals produced?
how did the prey animals keep from getting eaten?
none of the species died of illness thus eleminating a species in 10 months of unsanitary confinement?
how did all the species find their way form mt. ararat to south america and australia.
also - what about koalas and pandas and other specialty animals- did they have a lot of eucalyptus and bamboo around noah's house .....come on...
as far as your theory about all these species first being created by god then evolving like mad over the last 10,000 years or so (at most) since the flood uhhhhh......don't hink you're gonna find a lot of support there. to the 2-3 thousand years ago this sounded reasonable but today.....
but you're on a roll mac, keep goin' ;)
Where did you get 10,000 years from?
mrfish, you're a goof ball, but you like charcoal grilled steak, so can't be all bad.
-
10,000 years is me being generous - some biblical geneologies hold the world at about 6,000 years old. even there the records are so debatable that i'm sure that'd spark another 2000000 post thread .
lol- gotta go install that lightning rod now.
;)
-
Originally posted by mrfish
10,000 years is me being generous - some biblical geneologies hold the world at about 6,000 years old. even there the records are so debatable that i'm sure that'd spark another 2000000 post thread .
lol- gotta go install that lightning rod now.
;)
Stop the press! mrfish is using that which he doesn't believe in in his arguments. I notice you reference God and the bible alot. Why is that, seein' how they don't exist or are irrelevant?
BTW, liked your last post to funked in the "religion linked" thread.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I agree with you that some objectively verifiable and testable evidence should be provided to back up this theory...here it is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There are 29 evidences, including a link to a critique of the evidences and a rebuttal.
I challenge you to provide the same level objectively verifiable and testable evidence for your theory of creation. Note, evidence is not the same as showing that no other theory is viable. It must be affirmative evidence that God did it.
Simple
http://www.trueorigins.org/theobald1a.asp
Now maybe we should just stop throwing sources at eachother? There is a very simple questions in my post. Are you saying that the theory of macroevolution as I presented it (and please note that I took that definition straight from talkorigins.org, a very fanatic pro-evolution theory site), are you saying that that theory is based on a good scientific method?
-
it's easy- one of my main 'things' is that i don't think christians really know their own religion for the most part. just whatever interpretation they were fed- man if they are catholics or mormons, half the stuff they believe isn't even in the bible!
they get caught up in the social aspects of it and what the preacher's interpretation is and rarely devote any real scholarship to the bible and all it's implications if you believe it.
jesus was a biblical scholar and only got as far as he did because he knew the prophecies and stories inside out - you should follow his lead if you believe in him i say.
if something is true then it should survive critique- i simply state what the bible says- if you believe it and it's nonsense then it makes my argument for me.
species aren't going to evolve that drastically in a few thousand years-> that's what you'd need to believe to be consistent with the bible-> voila! it implies that some other way was the real way and evolution is incomplete but provides a better account so i think the biblical version should be discarded.
i'm not a christian today because i spent about 15 years studying the bible daily and taking it seriously. the biggest dare i have is for christians to read the bible as an adult. ie- reading it critically from the first page to the last revelation.
if it still seems reasonable after close study well....some people need religion i guess. ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Or it could just be a statement of common sense. Genes combine within a species because there is breeding within a species. They diverge (in relation to each other) when a species is separated because there is no breeding happening to combine them. That isn't even biology sir, its common sense.
[/b]
MT, should I interpret this that you are saying that the evidence for macroevolution is common sence?
You have been given numerous examples already. Time to pull your head out of.... the sand.
[/b]
All those "numerous examples" have been debunked. They are not examples of macroevolution no matter how much you want them to be. Now, I promise you that for every source you can dig up, I can find one stating the complete opposite. I bet that you can do the same thing too. So maybe we should stop throwing sources at eachother, and instead discuss the matter at hand right now...?
If you are asking whether I accept this paragraph as evidence then no. It would seem that you do however.
[/b]
THANK YOU.
My evidence? The evidence that macroevolution occured has been presented to you. Once again you are attacking the entire idea of Evolution based on the wording of this web site. More than silly. Pathetic.
[/b]
*sigh* once again, no evidence has been presented. This is not based on the wording on a web site. You go ahead MT and find the theoretical explanation model for macroevolution. You will find that no matter where you look, it is the same explanation (I looked over several pro-evolution web sites before writing my post). They all come back to the same thing. Basically it is, "we can observe microevolution, and we dont see why the same should not apply to macroevolution". But at least it is some comfort that you agree that the talk origins website-definition is full of toejam.
Where does your "macroevolution" point begin to fail? At the Phylum level? At the Genus Level? Somewhere in between?
[/b]
I dont understand what you mean.
To answer your question, Yes. I think Evolution stands up very well to the scientific method.
so are you aware that you did not answer my question. Just out of curiosity MT..why is that? Does it hurt so bad to say "yes, what they wrote there is BS and it has nothing to do with the scientific method"?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Simple
http://www.trueorigins.org/theobald1a.asp
:rolleyes: Please re-read the challenge. This is the antithesis of affirmative evidence for the theory of creation. This is the critique I mentioned in my previous post, which is a demonstration of why evolution is not a viable theory.
Also note that there is a rebuttal to Camp's critique on the website I noted. I find it interesting that Theobold is willing to post critiques of his work on his page yet Camp is not willing to do the same...I wonder why.
There is a very simple questions in my post. Are you saying that the theory of macroevolution as I presented it (and please note that I took that definition straight from talkorigins.org, a very fanatic pro-evolution theory site), are you saying that that theory is based on a good scientific method?
Is it based on scientific method? Yes. Your previous question was:
Is that the evolutionary theory of macroevolution proven according to the scientific method?
I didn't bother with this question as it is obvious that it would no longer be a theory if it had been proven by application the scientific method.
Quickly, lets give a definition
scientific method: a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses
Observations have been made and a theory has been offered. Now that theory is being tested against reality.
Regarding the definition of macroevolution...you only clipped the definition but you did not go on to clip the discription of the mechanism by which macroevolution works. That mechanism is hypothesized elsewhere on talkorigins. The mechanism is microevolution as described in Dr. Theobold's article.
-
MT wrote
You have been given numerous examples already. Time to pull your head out of.... the sand.
Hortlund wrote
All those "numerous examples" have been debunked. They are not examples of macroevolution no matter how much you want them to be. Now, I promise you that for every source you can dig up, I can find one stating the complete opposite. I bet that you can do the same thing too. So maybe we should stop throwing sources at eachother, and instead discuss the matter at hand right now...?
Actually, I would like to see the sources "debunking" those observed examples. Especially, the example regarding the 2/89 Scientific American article titled A Breed Apart.
*sigh* once again, no evidence has been presented.
As MT stated...you have been enundated with evidence that you choose to ignore rather than test for accuracy.
-
S!
If evolution were true. Why are there still monkeys?
Tactical Officer
99TH ASTAG Swift to Avenge
-
If evolution were true. Why are there still monkeys?
Because a long, long time ago... there was a group of "protomonkeys" hangin' on a tree, half of them were "evil atheistic scientific progressive protomonkeys" and decided to go down to the ground to look for some new better stuff to eat, those are your very-great-grandparents
The other half, the conservative protomonkeys, keepers of the 'ole hang-on-the-tree traditions stayed up there, so their very-great-sons are still there being hairy and eating bananas.
There's no need to get rid of an entire population to get it "evolved" into another thing, and different parts can get separated and evolve into different things.
So your question doesn't have any sense... you can see it if you change it to:
if evolution is right why are our cousins still around?
Why wouldn't they?
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
If evolution were true. Why are there still monkeys?
Transitional species do not necessarily have to disappear for evolution to take place.
Imagine two colonies of the same species of primate in two locations (A & B). An environmental change causes Colony A to be isolated from Colony B. The environmental conditions are now different for the two colonies. For Colony A, imagine that the natural selection pressures result in gradual evolution into a proto-human. For Colony B the natural selection pressures have not changed, so they do not evolve. The results are monkeys and humans.
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
S!
If evolution were true. Why are there still monkeys?
Obviously because God wanted it that way - makes much more sence than any of that smarty-pants science talk.
-
S! crowMAW
ok, but how did the species get to A or B in the first place?
Tactical Officer
99TH ASTAG Swift to Avenge
-
ok, but how did the species get to A or B in the first place?
Uh? Walking there perhaps?
"A or B" are just groups of the same species that get separated, so they end up subjected to different evolutive processes, until they end up not beign able to breed with the other group, then you end up having two separated species.
For example, It wouldn't be so strange that someday, some particularly isolated race of dogs could end up being unable to cross-breed with the other races. At that point, they would be no longer "proper dogs", you would have to get a new name for those
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
ok, but how did the species get to A or B in the first place?
As Takeda says...primates can walk to different locations. And as Takeda says, the important thing to note is that somehow they were cut off from each other.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Obviously because God wanted it that way - makes much more sence than any of that smarty-pants science talk.
Boot to the head! :D
Are you anxiously waiting for Children of Dune on SciFi Channel?
BTW, are you the same Mike/Saurdaukar that was posting on M3forums about 6 months ago looking for an e36m3? Did you find one?
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
S!
If evolution were true. Why are there still monkeys?
Tactical Officer
99TH ASTAG Swift to Avenge
That's kinda like saying now there are scientists why are there still farmers? Cos there's still a good living to be had as a monkey... if they're anything like human hunter-gatherers, they only have to work 4 hours a day which means if they live to be 30, they have way more time off than a 9-5 office guy does if he lives to 70. Remind me which one is the most "progressed"?
-
If evolution were true. Why are there still monkeys?
They were the ones who followed Jesse Jacksons ancestors when we were still living in caves eating taradactos.
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
S!
If evolution were true. Why are there still monkeys?
Because humans did not evolve from modern day monkeys. And Darwin never said we did. Rather, human beings and modern monkeys (actually apes) evolved from a common ancestor.
This is the most common misundertanding of human evolution. Your question is like saying, "If I evolved from my brother why is my brother still alive?"
-
ok, but that still does not explain why the monkeys (apes) did not evolve along with humans. Who was this "common ancestor"? Was it Lucy? All I am stating is this, at some point our ancestors began to exist. How did this existance start? Big Bang? Did we all elvolve from primordial goo that somehow mixed together?
My position is obvious. I believe in God. I believe that he created me. If you were to look at everything around you, plants, water, your body, cells in your body, the fact that if the earth were just a little closer or farther away from the sun we would not exist. This all points to being created by an intelligent being. If you want to believe that it all started from an explosion in space, being mixed together, crawling on the ground, walking upright and then evolving into modern day man, thats fine.
What about evil? Do you believe evil exists? I do. What about good? It would seem that for there to be good, there must be evil. What causes evil? Is it a chemical imbalance in the brain? Or is it just someone who is mean? Were apes evil? I can go on an on. My point is this, my belief in God also produces a belief in evil (satan). Is it possable satan is behind all this evolution theory just to get you mind from believing that there is a God?
Cats begat cats, dogs begat dogs, oranges oranges, apples apples, apes begat man? To me it would take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in creationism.
Tactical Officer
99TH ASTAG Swift to Avenge
-
Just because you believe something doesn't make it so. That's the nice thing about science. It offers proof of things.
-
ok Thrawn, using science, prove evolution to me. Your belief in science does not make it so either. People gonna believe whatever they want to believe. Simple as that.
-
What about good? It would seem that for there to be good, there must be evil.
why? if you were god you could just say 'alakazzaam' and suddenly it would be possible to just have good. is your god not capable of that? evil is part of his plan? i submit again that god wouldn't be such a poor planner and a petty drama queen that needs conflict.
What causes evil? Is it a chemical imbalance in the brain? Or is it just someone who is mean? Were apes evil? I can go on an on. My point is this, my belief in God also produces a belief in evil (satan). Is it possable satan is behind all this evolution theory just to get you mind from believing that there is a God?
well it's hard to imagine why you'd be so gaga over god if you don't like evil or satan - after all they're his creations. if they aren't then whose are they? did god not want those concepts in the universe? if not then why didn't he see it coming and change things. he's not very good at foreseeing the future for a diety - or maybe satan is just making me say that!!!
of course i'm sure that living in pflugerville exposes you to all sorts of views and cultures and beliefs right? you could just change your mind anytime and your neighbors and family would suppoort you no doubt. ;
-
scuse me mrfish but did I insult you? call you names? talk bad about your hometown? Where did you get this gaga stuff anyway? I'm responding to a thread with what my opinion is. I am not insulting you but rather trying to find out your point of view (which is obvious).
-
i don't remember calling you any names or suggesting anything about your town other than the fact that if you grow up there or live there - then dimes to doughnuts you are going to be a fundamentalist christian
- going against the grain would get your ostracized so your beliefs may have a lot to do with social pressure and i doubt you've every even considered that. you see not every state has 500 foot crosses off the side of the highway.
what about my questions- do they just fall unanswered like most of my other hard questions?
-
Quote mrfish: "why? if you were god you could just say 'alakazzaam' and suddenly it would be possible to just have good. is your god not capable of that? evil is part of his plan? i submit again that god wouldn't be such a poor planner and a petty drama queen that needs conflict."
To answer your questions would cause me to preach, I am not a preacher. However, I will try to answer your questions. Yes God is capable of causing there to be nothing but good. Lets say for instance I was God and you did not like me or not believe in me. I could make you but what good would that do to make you like or believe in me by force? Thats not what friendship is all about.
Quote mrfish: "well it's hard to imagine why you'd be so gaga over god if you don't like evil or satan - after all they're his creations. if they aren't then whose are they? did god not want those concepts in the universe? if not then why didn't he see it coming and change things. he's not very good at foreseeing the future for a diety - or maybe satan is just making me say that!!! "
Yes satan was Gods creation, however satan wanted to be God. God said cya!
Quote mrfish: "of course i'm sure that living in pflugerville exposes you to all sorts of views and cultures and beliefs right? you could just change your mind anytime and your neighbors and family would suppoort you no doubt. ;"
I have no ideal what you are trying to say in this paragraph, but you be suprised how many views and culture are in this area.
Quote mrfish: "i don't remember calling you any names or suggesting anything about your town other than the fact that if you grow up there or live there - then dimes to doughnuts you are going to be a fundamentalist christian"
In your line of thinking in this paragraph, I could say that its a fact because you live in San Francisco, then dimes to doughnuts you are going to be a homosexual. How absurd! You need to come to Texas an visit. Go to one o my favorite lakes, catch some fish and have a cold beer. you would be suprised at what views and cultures you would find.
I salute you sir S!
-
God is capable of causing there to be nothing but good. Lets say for instance I was God and you did not like me or not believe in me. I could make you but what good would that do to make you like or believe in me by force? Thats not what friendship is all about.
that wasn't my question though. i'm not talking about god forcing someone to like him.....if god doesn't approve of evil then why did he enable it in the universe in the first place? at the point of creation a window popped up and asked god: enable evil? and god checked yes....why?
your view seems to be that god created evil so we had the opportunity not to like him or that it is a necessary condition of any creation. why would god want friends or care if we liked him? why would a diety create a world just to test people and then toss them in hell if they fail?
he could just have easily created a more elegant world with no evil if he'd wanted to and he could have even come down and hung out with us, fathering us like a good dad - instead he created an evil trap and hides in the bushes seeing if we pass the test or not. that god has too much time on his hands and a nasty disposition to boot. and he spends all his time fretting over earth - you mean he just created all that space and all those stars and planets out there for no reason? after all he gave his only son for us - if that's the case then he must have the most problems with earth.
as far as my assumptions about pflugerville, i'll just have to take your word that they welcome everyone with open arms and that it isn't a predominantly white, conservative, christian town.
your assumption that i was a homosexual would be wrong but not absurd by any stretch. 1 in 10 roughly are gay in san francisco so your odds would be pretty good. however guessing i was chinese or jewish would get you better odds since those populations are about 250,000 each as opposed to a homo population of about 115,000. i imagine that if i reached my hand into a giant bag of pflugervillians i wouldn't have to grab long before i found someone who wanted to pray for me because i am "lost".
as far as texas lakes go - the last time i went all i saw was carp and crappy. if you know a spot with nice juicy widemouth bass then let's go- and i'll just have to hope you don't live in a dry county. ;)
-
God did not create evil. Evil came about after the fall of satan. satan chose his path. God could have stopped him but did not. Does satan have free will? dunno. As for just tossing folks into hell. I believe hell is being apart from God. Is there a pit full o fire an brimstone. dunno.
As far as comming down ta hang, he did. That was Jesus his son. I still not understand father, son, holy spirit being all the same.
And thats all I fish for are blacks. Carolina fishing, texas rig, bass assassins. We'd have a blast. And ice cold beer :D
You ever get over here, just give me a holler.
Anyway, been a great thread and great meetin ya!
S!
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Boot to the head! :D
Are you anxiously waiting for Children of Dune on SciFi Channel?
BTW, are you the same Mike/Saurdaukar that was posting on M3forums about 6 months ago looking for an e36m3? Did you find one?
I was looking for an E36 M3 about 6 months ago - but only on bimmerforums and not under Saurdaukar - Stuttgart951 is my handle over there (current car).
I ended up giving up on my M3 search - they felt so... uninspired to me. Really nice cars - but just missing something - and I couldnt bring myself to sell the P-car. :cool:
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
Evil came about after the fall of satan.
from where? did satan create it or find it? i'd contend that all things proceed from god if you have a strict interpretation of the bible.
i have to admire your bravery though, you have a lot of faith. if texas had salmon fishing and mounds of ling cod right off the shore i might not be so hard on it :)
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
ok, but that still does not explain why the monkeys (apes) did not evolve along with humans.
They did. After the slit between the ape line and the human line, the human line eventually evolved into Homo sapiens (us). The ape line evolved into several species still present today: gibbons split off first, then orangutans, then gorillas, and most recently chimpanzees. Chimps are the modern day ape that is most closely related to us.
Who was this "common ancestor"? Was it Lucy?
Yes, the common ancestor is thought to be Australopithecenes. The Lucy skull belongs to A.afarensis, one of 4 species of Australopithecenes.
Cats begat cats, dogs begat dogs, oranges oranges, apples apples, apes begat man?
Nope. Cats and dogs share a common ancestor. Oranges and apples share a common ancestor. Apes and human beings share a common ancestor.
-
Does evolution matter? Not really.
-
.
[edit: oops]
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
ok, but that still does not explain why the monkeys (apes) did not evolve along with humans. Who was this "common ancestor"? Was it Lucy? All I am stating is this, at some point our ancestors began to exist. How did this existance start? Big Bang? Did we all elvolve from primordial goo that somehow mixed together?
Well you don't expect much from this thread do you? :D
OK the monkeys: they did evolve along with humans. They just did it differently - because they are different from humans.
Lucy: Scientists posit that Lucy is a genetic ancestor for all humans living today - not all primates & monkeys - so no.
Big Bang: The big bang is really not my cup of tea - all that stuff makes my head swim. So I don't understand it well enough to explain it. Ask someone else. Or try "The Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. In my opinion, though neither god nor the big bang do the trick - they both beg a further question: "So what/who created God?" and "So what came before the big bang?" respectively.
My position is obvious. I believe in God. I believe that he created me. If you were to look at everything around you, plants, water, your body, cells in your body, the fact that if the earth were just a little closer or farther away from the sun we would not exist. This all points to being created by an intelligent being.
Why does it "all point to being created by an intelligent being"? If it's the staggering odds against it, look back in the thread a bit (I think it's on page 5) for my post with the "calculating probability after the fact is useless" bit - basically the odds against anything happening are outrageous - here's a small example - think of your best friend's telephone number - then calculate the odds against you knowing someone with that exact number - they're fairly silly. So silly in fact that it points to god having given your best friend that phone number on purpose? I feel we don't need divine intervention for that to happen - I mean really, do we need to bother god with all these phone numbers? Bear in mind god has his own problems - everything he makes dies. ;)
If you want to believe that it all started from an explosion in space, being mixed together, crawling on the ground, walking upright and then evolving into modern day man, thats fine.
Thank you. Although I like to think of it less as belief and more as model agnosticism: I don't believe in any model 100% - but based on the current evidence, evolution seems the most sensible alternative. It seems to actually work as predicted when transferred to software simulations and used for chip design (evolved hardware is on its way soon, IMHO). I am however always swayed by good evidence, and the whole thing requires further study, of course. As to the beginning of everything as i stated above - I remain unconvinced by either argument. I am confident that in 500 years we will all seem really naive and dumb to the humans around then. I know the humans around 500 years ago seem really naive and dumb to me.
Nonetheless I reciprocate the courtesy: if you want to believe an invisible male vertebrate, who's name no one can speak and who is everywhere, made everything in the universe out of water (which was "just there"), with the aid of a light with no source, and some dust, all so that humans could fart about for their three score and ten and choose which out of the invisible vertebrate or his ex-favourite employee to like and pay heed to, as a preamble to either eternal life or eternal torture, then that's fine too. "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy", as Bokonon says.
What about evil? Do you believe evil exists? I do. What about good? It would seem that for there to be good, there must be evil. What causes evil? Is it a chemical imbalance in the brain? Or is it just someone who is mean? Were apes evil? I can go on an on.
What Good and evil "are" relies entirely on the social group you belong to, and the taboos of that society and the timeframe. For example whilst most people nowadays would reckon buying and selling people as slaves "is" evil most of the founding fathers in the US felt it "was" perfectly ordinary. Good and evil "are" social conventions - so what causes evil: laws and the alpha males that make them. I'm sure apes can "be" evil - all social creatures can, as evil/good "are" basically societal game rules. And so I don't believe evil exists as a separate entity - rather that social groups define what "is" evil, as a societal game rule.
My point is this, my belief in God also produces a belief in evil (satan). Is it possable satan is behind all this evolution theory just to get you mind from believing that there is a God?
Perhaps satan reworked xianity just to rile god by getting all these people to do evil in god's name (that'd be what I'd do if I was satan). Possibly satan inspired all this creation science to make xians look silly... In religious speculation, anything is possible, which is why I prefer science - you always have to have explain why.
However, according to god, satan doesn't actually get the credit for evil - Isaiah 45:5-7 "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Granted he may have been misquoted. ;)
Cats begat cats, dogs begat dogs, oranges oranges, apples apples, apes begat man? To me it would take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in creationism.
Well I find if you view humans as moral, rational, superior creatures, the news on TV every night seems appalling, disturbing and thoroughly perplexing. However, if you view humans as a bunch of irrational apes, bouncing up and down, throwing stuff at each other and banging on their chests, the news makes perfect sense. :D
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Why does it "all point to being created by an intelligent being"? If it's the staggering odds against it, look back in the thread a bit (I think it's on page 5) for my post with the "calculating probability after the fact is useless" bit - basically the odds against anything happening are outrageous
Strictly speaking, we are not calculating the probability of "a fact" we are calculating the probability of a theory that attempts to explain something. There is a world of difference between the two, and you know that.
Let me explain why you are outrageously wrong in your statement.
1) We do not know how life evolved.
2) There are different theories attempting to explain how life originated.
3) Neither of these theories have been proven.
4) One of these theories is the "primordeal soup + lightning = spontaneous creation of life"-theory. The probability of that one being correct, or the odds of that happening if you will is less than 1 in 10^119 841.
(1 in 10^119 841 is the odds of spontaneous creation of the single smallest, least complicated living cell known to mankind - the mycroplasm hominis H39)
5) You are trying to say that if
a) life exists, and
b) the primordeal soup theory explains how life originated.
a) does not give b). Far from it. and frankly it is simply ludicrous of you to try to use a) as an evidence of b).
-
Wow 10 pages, this things still goin on!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Strictly speaking, we are not calculating the probability of "a fact" we are calculating the probability of a theory that attempts to explain something. There is a world of difference between the two, and you know that.
Let me explain why you are outrageously wrong in your statement.
1) We do not know how life evolved.
2) There are different theories attempting to explain how life originated.
3) Neither of these theories have been proven.
4) One of these theories is the "primordeal soup + lightning = spontaneous creation of life"-theory. The probability of that one being correct, or the odds of that happening if you will is less than 1 in 10^119 841.
(1 in 10^119 841 is the odds of spontaneous creation of the single smallest, least complicated living cell known to mankind - the mycroplasm hominis H39)
5) You are trying to say that if
a) life exists, and
b) the primordeal soup theory explains how life originated.
a) does not give b). Far from it. and frankly it is simply ludicrous of you to try to use a) as an evidence of b).
Nope - I'm merely pointing out that staggering improbable events happen all the time, and the uselessness of working out their probability after the fact (a turn of phrase which means "after an event has happened" - you appear to have got confused there), because you found the peculiarity, so you have selected the peculiar case.
I do not subscribe to the massively improbable "primordeal soup + lightning = spontaneous creation of life" theory - and I suspect most evolutionists would not either.
I do subscribe to much more probable (and much more complex than I state here) primordial soup + lightning = polymers. Polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria -> and up.
In my view this beats your "invisible vertebrate + water = creation of everything" theory in the probability stakes.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Nope - I'm merely pointing out that staggering improbable events happen all the time, and the uselessness of working out their probability after the fact (a turn of phrase which means "after an event has happened" - you appear to have got confused there), because you found the peculiarity, so you have selected the peculiar case.
I do not subscribe to the massively improbable "primordeal soup + lightning = spontaneous creation of life" theory - and I suspect most evolutionists would not either.
I do subscribe to much more probable (and much more complex than I state here) primordial soup + lightning = polymers. Polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria -> and up.
In my view this beats your "invisible vertebrate + water = creation of everything" theory in the probability stakes.
No, events with the 1 in 10^119 841 probability range doesnt happen all the time. In fact, there is a general consensus that events with a lower probability than 1 in 10^50 doesnt happen at all.
As for your own theory there, the "-> and up" part is the key question isnt it. Let me know when the jump is to the first cell, because that is where life starts. Btw, I could not find proteins in your list either. Where are they?
And lets just say that you dont know anything about my theory on the creation of life and leave it at that. (btw, according to Genesis, God did not start out with a bunch of water, he created that too.)
-
Oh, and just for kicks, you do know that it is impossible to calculate the probability of creation..right? Something which would make your last statement incorrect too.
-
Hortlund:
YES or NO
Do you believe that if you were to go back to that time and that place that you would see this giant ship and all the planet's animals boarding it in whatever fashion.
YES or NO
YES or NO
YES or NO
Time to put up or shut up Hortlund!
YES or NO
YES or NO
-
Just out of curiosity Grun...what makes you think you have the right to demand answers about my faith from me?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Just out of curiosity Grun...what makes you think you have the right to demand answers about my faith from me?
Eh eh, Steve. :)
Still throwing stones and hiding?
:D
-
Originally posted by Naso
Eh eh, Steve. :)
Still throwing stones and hiding?
:D
?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Just out of curiosity Grun...what makes you think you have the right to demand answers about my faith from me?
Your coming out publicly and speaking about it for one. Doing that agressivley and forcefully on top of that. And all of it done with a twinge of arrogance.
I did however notice that you still arent telling us YES or NO. Whats the problem Hortlund?
-
So Steve, What are the chances of you talking to a guy with the name "Midnight Target" on these boards?
I could have chosen any name... or any combination of letters for that matter.
So using the English alphabet and the same name length (for simplicity) the chances are
1 out of
26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26 =
1 : 2,481,152,873,203,736,576
Almost impossible!!!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
No, events with the 1 in 10^119 841 probability range doesnt happen all the time. In fact, there is a general consensus that events with a lower probability than 1 in 10^50 doesnt happen at all.
Ah yes, Emil Borel's rule of thumb as posited in his book "Les Probabilite et la Vie", in 1943. Seven years later he wrote "Probabilite et Certitude" (I use the english translation):
The Problem of Life.
In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.
When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?
It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.
Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.
In other words the guy who came up with your much vaunted rule of thumb didn't think you can place a probability on the creation of life with any accuracy. Besides, as I stated before, I also consider the primordial soup->modern bacteria as impossible. So I'd view Coppedge's estimate of 10^-119841 entirely false and basically irrelevant. Here's a link to a more thorough refutation his claims: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Coppedge (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Coppedge)
Moreover (although this is as stated above, thoroughly irrelevant) the 10^-50 cut-off is just a rule of thumb: it remains a possibility. A possibility moreover that according to all probability theory may occur the very first time it is tried.
As for your own theory there, the "-> and up" part is the key question isnt it. Let me know when the jump is to the first cell, because that is where life starts. Btw, I could not find proteins in your list either. Where are they?
The first cell is the protobiont.
A protein is a replicating polymer.
The bacteria would be the equivalent of Mycoplasma Hominis H39.
And lets just say that you dont know anything about my theory on the creation of life and leave it at that. (btw, according to Genesis, God did not start out with a bunch of water, he created that too.)
Well just for the record:
Genesis Chapter One:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
No mention of the invisible vertebrate creating all this water - just his spirit moving over it. "Let there be light", yes (and before he created any stars - which is damn flash! Light without a source is a cool trick) "let there be water" is strangely missing.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So Steve, What are the chances of you talking to a guy with the name "Midnight Target" on these boards?
I could have chosen any name... or any combination of letters for that matter.
So using the English alphabet and the same name length (for simplicity) the chances are
1 out of
26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26*26 =
1 : 2,481,152,873,203,736,576
Almost impossible!!!
You're being far too generous to him, MT - there's more than 26 characters in any font (you'll notice my name includes "-") - and you have upper and lower case in your name, and a space. :D
-
And still you are oh so very very far from 1 in 10^50...not to mention 1 in 10^119 841
-
HAH, all of you are wrong!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And still you are oh so very very far from 1 in 10^50...not to mention 1 in 10^119 841
That whistling sound you heard was the point, sailing high over your head.
-
Hortlund:
YES or NO...
Why is that so difficult for you to answer? Is the gian boat with every animal on it even to rediculous for a true believer like you?
Do you actually believe there was once a man who built giant boat and put every animal on it?
YES or NO
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hortlund:
YES or NO...
Why is that so difficult for you to answer? Is the gian boat with every animal on it even to rediculous for a true believer like you?
Do you actually believe there was once a man who built giant boat and put every animal on it?
YES or NO
How many animals you talking about Grun?
-
I go with evolution.
Btw.
Just read today that our gens are to 90% iditicall with a mouse.
Always wondered about all my gray hair lately :D
Blitz
-
Originally posted by Apache
How many animals you talking about Grun?
All of them of course, at least a pair of every land animal, insect, bird etc on earth that exists today and then some more since many species died out in the past few hundred years of clearly recorded history.
Come on Hortlund!
YES or NO
-
And don't forget all the aquariums that noah would've built for all the fresh water fishes .
-
LOL, don't forget all the extra animals as food for all the meat eaters. Don't forget all the vegetation for all the plant eaters. That's gotta be a lot of storage area for 40 days of food. How'd they get rid of all the waste? How in the world can one build a ship so big? How many people built it? How'd they get the building supplies? Hmmm...many, many questions. Enquiring minds want to know ;)
-
Don't forget hibernation, geniuses.
Shuckins ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, don't forget all the extra animals as food for all the meat eaters. Don't forget all the vegetation for all the plant eaters. That's gotta be a lot of storage area for 40 days of food. How'd they get rid of all the waste? How in the world can one build a ship so big? How many people built it? How'd they get the building supplies? Hmmm...many, many questions. Enquiring minds want to know ;)
40 days was just the rain - the whole group spent 371 days in the ark so we're looking for a tad more storage space than that.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
All of them of course, at least a pair of every land animal, insect, bird etc on earth that exists today and then some more since many species died out in the past few hundred years of clearly recorded history.
Come on Hortlund!
YES or NO
All of them? How many species was that exactly when this event occurred, several thousands of years ago?
-
Answer the question Hortlund .
-
Originally posted by Apache
All of them? How many species was that exactly when this event occurred, several thousands of years ago?
I donno but it has to be more than the total of species that exists today, because:
1) We know many species have gone extinct since the start of recorderd scientific history that definitely took place sometime after the supposed flood. So at the trime of the flood and on the ark there had to be more species than now as quite a few have gone extinct. For example the ark had to have had the Dodo Bird and the Tasmanian Tiger all of which are now extinct. So naturally there were many more species on the ark than exist now.
2) No new animals could have "evolved" since the flood because evolution is obviously unacceptable in this particular religios context.
3) To the best of my knowledge the Bible doers not say God went around introducing new lifeforms after the flood - so nothing else exists except the ark animals.
So by those three statements its obvious there had to be MANY MORE species on the ark then exist today. Nobody really knows haow many species exist today but estimates range from about 2,000,000 to 100,000,000.
http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/b02-gbs.html
"Surprisingly, scientists have a better understanding of how many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there are on Earth. Estimates of global species diversity have varied from 2 million to 100 million species, with a best estimate of somewhere near 10 million, and only 1.4 million have actually been named. The problems stemming from the limits of current knowledge of species diversity are compounded by the lack of a central database or list of the world's species."
So far only 1.4-1.75 million have been scientifically described and named. For example there are currently some 300,000 species of beetles..
So there was a bunch....
-
the thread that never dies...bet it makes it to 500 posts now
-
Just wanna be 500 so I can win the new hummer.
-
this oughta do it
where do i pick it up?????
-
Originally posted by DadRabit
ok Thrawn, using science, prove evolution to me. Your belief in science does not make it so either. People gonna believe whatever they want to believe. Simple as that.
Everyone free to believe what they believe. As sayeth the prophet Zappa:
"Remember, there's a difference between kneeling and bending over!!"
-
ALARM! DAS IST AN OLD ZREAD!
-
this thread certainly isn't evolving.........
kinda like the flounder.. stuck in mid-evolution
-
Wow, can't believe this one was resurrected. If you're interested in a thoughtful and scientific analysis of the Creationism-vs-Evolution debate, check this link out. I've gone through it quite thoroughly, and have concluded that evolution has more unanswered question than the the theory of "intelligent design."
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
-
Wow what a credible source of unbiased veiwpoints ! I'm convinced ! It was magic, god is a witch .
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
First there was nothing
Then it exploded.
-Big Bang theory.
If there was nothing....how can it explode:D
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Wow, can't believe this one was resurrected. If you're interested in a thoughtful and scientific analysis of the Creationism-vs-Evolution debate, check this link out. I've gone through it quite thoroughly, and have concluded that evolution has more unanswered question than the the theory of "intelligent design."
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
You've gone through what exactly? That web site?
Evolution is a fact people. Live with it. Be it. Soak it in. It ain't gonna go away no matter how long you stick your fingers in your ears and hum.
-
So much for trying to spark intelligent debate. Just for grins, let's try one more time. We'll start with a definition. Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years. A more precise breakdown of this statement divides the "atoms to people" transition into four realms:
1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe (the "Big Bang" theory fits under this heading).
2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter. This part of the theory of evolution is pure speculation, as it has not (despite much effort) been duplicated since it supposedly first happened.
3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists (the Pope, included), dispute.
4. Macro-evolution or general evolution refers to the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic" (Berra 1990, 12). This part of the theory of evolution has also never been observed, but only postulized based on fosil records.
Now, which part of the above do you disagree with, and what do you base your disagreement on?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What do you mean? Only a complete imbecile wouldn't accept evolution as the most viable theory to explain were humans come from.
There that should be a good start. :D
Hell Ya Thrawn thats telling them!!!!!!!
-
"ok Thrawn, using science, prove evolution to me. Your belief in science does not make it so either. People gonna believe whatever they want to believe. Simple as that"
I'm not Thrawn - thank god - but I'll answer your question!
Ever hear of how bacteria become resitant to a certain antibotic over time?
Well that's proof of evolution. You see whichever individuals in the overall bacterial pupluation the antibiotic which is basically acting as a selective agent, does not kill because those bacteria are able to withstand it alltogether or are generally more resitant (takes higher dose of drug to kill em) go on to replicate themselves (bacteria dont breed they multiply individually) - because they are only survivors - and so through basic genetics they pass on their resistant genes to the the next generation and so the new "baby" bacteria are now on average more resitant to that particular antibiotic and so the overall population of bacteria has increased resitance and so the population has evolved.
Here is a simple timeline.
1) Population of Bacteria living happily and reproducing - a few individuals are more highly resitant to some antibiotics through various chance genetic mutations.
2) Antibiotic is introduced into environment killing most bacteria - but some of the more resitant survive.
3) Survivors, who are resitant to antibiotic through cnace genetic mutation, replicate themselves and pass on resitant genetic traits to next generation.
4) New population on the whole has on average higher resitance to the particular antibiotic. The bacterial poulation has evolved.
Thats all there is to it.
-
Grunz, what you descibe is refered to as micro-evolution which, as I pointed out is readily accepted by pretty much everyone. It does not prove how the bacteria can evolve into a multicelled organism. Micro-evolution, a.k.a. speciation, does not result in a more complex life-form.
A basic problem with this whole debate is that most people on both sides of the debate are operating on faith. Yes, faith! Many if not most that accept evolution in it's entirety do so because they where were taught that it is fact. Seldom if ever do the classroom discussions focus on, let alone mention, the inherent holes in evolutionary theory. Likewise, those who believe our existance is better explained by intelligent design seldom question their own belief...it's what they were taught, so they believe it. I fell into this catagory not long ago, and sought to educate myself. I picked up literature on both sides of the argument, looked at the evidence for and against evolution, and decided for myself. I challenge you all to do the same.
-
I believe the Big Bang Theory to be a correct assessment of the creation of the Universe. The COBE satellite and it's findings dealing with microwave background radiation pretty much put the nail in the coffin of any other theories relating to the creation of the Universe. The ultimate fate of the Universe remains open to speculation and entertains many possible theories.
As far as evolution is concerned, I do believe that adaptation and mutation occurs within species, as well as survival of the fittest. This is the micro-evolution which Sabre pointed out.
Did we evolve from apes? Possibly.
However, I do feel that the human species was in some way predetermined to evolve to be dominant. The fact that we ask the very question "why are we here" as opposed to other animals makes us completely different.
As I said before, I believe in the Big Bang theory. I also believe that "something" lit the fuse. Some choose to call it God. Being scientifically minded, I shy away from using the word "God". However, I still feel that some sort of supernatural entity or power intentionally initiated the Big Bang.
In my efforts to disprove the existance of a "God", I found myself believing that something had to start this whole mess intentionally. To the religious folks out there, call it what you may. I prefer to think of "it" as some sort of power or entity.
"I think, therefore I am" pretty much sums it up for me.
-
Nicely put, GrimCO.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
So much for trying to spark intelligent debate. Just for grins, let's try one more time. We'll start with a definition. Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years. A more precise breakdown of this statement divides the "atoms to people" transition into four realms:
1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe (the "Big Bang" theory fits under this heading).
2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter. This part of the theory of evolution is pure speculation, as it has not (despite much effort) been duplicated since it supposedly first happened.
3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists (the Pope, included), dispute.
4. Macro-evolution or general evolution refers to the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic" (Berra 1990, 12). This part of the theory of evolution has also never been observed, but only postulized based on fosil records.
Now, which part of the above do you disagree with, and what do you base your disagreement on?
Just for fun I would disagree that there is any difference between item 3 and item 4.
Then I would ask you to come up with a viable explaination for the biodiversity that exists today without using any non-testable theories. (or magical beings)
good luck
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
biodiversity
I detect a left wing liberal trap here. MT is trolling again!
-
they can trace everyone living outside of africas genetics back to one tribe that left africa. humans living in africa have a more diverse set of genetics proving the out of africa theorys. if you belive that god created man some 10k years ago go live with the taliban in a cave moron.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
"I think, therefore I am" pretty much sums it up for me.
"This garden universe vibrates complete.
Some we get a sound so sweet.
Vibrations reach on up to become light,
And then thru gamma, out of sight.
Between the eyes and ears there lay,
The sounds of colour and the light of a sigh.
And to hear the sun, what a thing to believe.
But it's all around if we could but perceive.
To know ultra-violet, infra-red and X-rays,
Beauty to find in so many ways.
Two notes of the chord, that's our fluoroscope.
But to reach the chord is our lifes hope.
And to name the chord is important to some.
So they give a word, and the word is OM."
(http://www.mageist.net/Images/om_varied.jpg)
-
Syzy,
I hope you're not grouping all Democrats into the "left-wing liberal" category. If so, I've got a bone to pick with ya!
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Syzy,
I hope you're not grouping all Democrats into the "left-wing liberal" category. If so, I've got a bone to pick with ya!
Syz is right,
We dems are trying to sign dolphins and Bonobos as we speak, both proven to be a shade more intelligent than Rush Limbaugh........
NEW WORLD ORDER!
-
i think we need to leave the bonobos out of this. they have already been persicuted enough.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
i think we need to leave the bonobos out of this. they have already been persicuted enough.
Sure Frog,
Bonobos are our closest relatives. I have this sudden urge to plop down next to ya and sift through your hair for parasites...
Bonobos my arse...
Sorry, I persecuted them again. :(
-
poor bonobos will never be able to leave the ghetto with people like you grimco.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Just for fun I would disagree that there is any difference between item 3 and item 4.
Then I would ask you to come up with a viable explaination for the biodiversity that exists today without using any non-testable theories. (or magical beings)
good luck
Regarding 3 and 4, I'll have to refer you to your local library then to do some homework. The distinction is widely accepted.
As for giving you a viable explaination for biodiversity, what do you mean by viable? As I haven't seen a testable theory from the evolutionists, I say, "you first." So much of evolutionary theory is non-testable. Where is the experimental proof that you can get a more complex organism from a less complex one? That it is possible to create life from lifelessness?
Also, I didn't say anthing about magic, only that evolutionary theory appears on the evidence to have some gaping holes in it in explaining the origins of life, and the creation of such a diverse set of complex creatures. I offered intelligent design, by some entity that has a more complete knowledge of the universe than mere humans, as an alternative. I beg you to defend your position, rather than attempting to minimalize the opposing view with such emotionally charged rhetoric. Or are you so (and please forgive the harsh word, buy I can think of none other that fits here) arrogant that you believe nothing could be more advanced than humans, that humans are the final and most complex creature your evolutionary theory can create? How can that be, if evolution truly explains how complex creatures evolve (and presumably continue to evolve) from less complex ones?
And Frog, why the "moron" comment? Calling people who don't agree with you names only shows the weakness of your own grasp of the subject. Sorry, but that's how it appears to me. I did not insult you or anyone else on this board, and have tried to attack ideas, not people.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Syzy,
I hope you're not grouping all Democrats into the "left-wing liberal" category. If so, I've got a bone to pick with ya!
I didn't say anything about Democrats. But, if the shoe fits.................
and pick your own bone, mine's taken!
:D :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Syz is right,
We dems are trying to sign dolphins and Bonobos as we speak, both proven to be a shade more intelligent than Rush Limbaugh........
NEW WORLD ORDER!
Just a shade, MT? Come on ole man, you can do better than that! Not that there is anything wrong with being ole!, of course.
:)
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Sure Frog,
Bonobos are our closest relatives. I have this sudden urge to plop down next to ya and sift through your hair for parasites...
Bonobos my arse...
Sorry, I persecuted them again. :(
Bonobos were never a threat to the Democrats. It's just redikulus!:D :p
-
Sorry Sabre, but "microevolution" is nothing more than a creation of the creationists to get themselves out of the hole they dug by trying for so long to completely refute Darwin.
"OK" they say now. "Sure there is little 'evolution' but not the big stuff !"
It's all just mincing of words to try to maintain your far more unlikely ideal that god did it.
So macroevolution descibes a change between species, while micro describes a change within a species... sooooooo
Is a Canis Familiaris different from a Canis Lupus.. or a Canis Latrans or even a Vulpes Chama or a Canis Aureus? Are these different species or not sir? And (since they are) do they represent your micro or your macro evolution?
-
Nice poem Eagler, thanks .
-
Originally posted by Suave
Nice poem Eagler, thanks .
The MOODY BLUES
album: "In Search Of The Lost Chord" 1968
"The Word"
(http://www.yrec.org/images/om.jpg)
-
Again, I'd suggest you do some more research, MT, rather than throw out broad but unsupported statements...but I accept your apology anyway. Now...
Do a search on the web for “Microevolution” Google gave 16,700 hits. Yes, some of them were sites such as the Creation Science site I noted above, sites attempting to show the inconsistencies in evolutionary theory; however, the overwhelming majority were from scientific sources. Darwin himself described microevolution in his works.
Regarding your question about whether I consider dogs and wolfs to be the same species, that concept has evolved over time (pun intended). The term subspecies was often used as another name for varieties that may have morphological differences as a result of their geographical separation, but still can interbreed. Species showing great morphological variation, thus having many subspecies, are said to be polytypic. Small rodents are among the most polytypic mammals; the southern pocket gopher, Thomomys umbrinus, for example, has 214 subspecies! Homo sapiens, on the other hand, is considered to be a monotypic species as there is great reluctance, for obvious social reasons, to consider the various races of men to be subspecies (unless they are extinct and can't fight back like Homo sapiens, neanderthalensis). The modern definition of a species proper tends to ignore morphological differences or similarities and focus almost entirely on whether or not a population interbreeds. The nearly 150 varieties of strikingly distinctive dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club are all considered to be members of the same species, Canis familiaris because they all can cross breed. Yet, the grey wolf (Canis lupus) and the coyote (Canis latrans), themselves polytypic species, are considered to be different species though they are known to interbreed with dogs. So, which is it? Are dogs and wolves subspecies of the species Canis?
One thing I would say is that dogs and wolves are more likely and example of micro-evolution of a common species. Neither really possess any significant difference in complexity.
-
Thats a whole lot of words to get to the point. So All Canids (a genus not a species) are an example of microevolution. Cool, now how about the genus Alopex or Otocyon or Vulpes? Now those are Foxes.. very Dog like and possbly may even be able to interbreed.
So would you say that microevolution might move across the genus line? Maybe the entire family Canidae is an example of this "microevolution". How far will this little evolution take you?
-
This was very well written, I thought I'd share:
Do You Believe in Evolution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I n my part of the country I get asked that a lot by students. That's partly because of the part of the country I'm in (South Texas). Fundamentalism-creationism is endemic around here, and somehow that noisy minority has convinced the indifferent majority that to be a Christian of any sort, one must reject evolution. Ironically, even many of my Catholic students think their church is "against evolution" (it isn't). Somehow Protestant fundamentalism has "converted" them, at least on this article of faith, without their even realizing it. Perhaps their own church has not strongly, positively, and publicly stated its position to parishioners.
Perhaps it 's also because, as an English teacher in a science-oriented magnet school, I often include science fiction novels and, at least once a year, a science nonfiction book as assigned readings. Inevitably, there will be something (probably a lot of things) in those books that rub the creationists the wrong way, since to maintain their structure of beliefs they have had to reject the facts established in practically all areas of science, from astronomy through nuclear physics to geology and biochemistry. Perhaps they've actually never encountered a teacher who openly "believes in" evolution (a very real possibility around here). Now that's scary! No wonder on those international comparisons our students score worse than kids in Lower Slobovia or wherever.
But the problem I want to deal with here is how to answer that question: Do you believe in evolution? It's easy to say "Yes!" but that's not right. The problem is that the question itself is wrong. It's like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question: either a yes or a no gives the wrong impression.
I certainly don't want to say no, since that would create an entirely wrong impression. But answering yes isn't quite right, either. The problem is the phrase "believe in," just as the "have you stopped" is the trap in the earlier example.
Concentrate on the believe in: no, I don't believe in evolution. Think of how that phrase is often applied. Little kids believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We often judge their maturity by finding out which things they still believe in and which they have "grown out of" ("Aren't you a little old to still believe in the Tooth Fairy?"). The phrase believe in in common parlance seems to mean to take something literally for which there is little or no objective evidence. You must believe in the Easter Bunny, because you've never seen the real one yourself, there's nothing he has done that couldn't be simply explained by ordinary phenomena (parental trickery), and there's no objective, physical, replicable (in other words, scientific) evidence that he's real. If you had those last things, then you wouldn't have to believe in the Easter Bunny, you would know he was real.
That's the difference: you absolutely know some things are real, through your own experience or other kinds of really solid proof. That's knowledge, not belief. Other things you believe in. You want them to be true. It would be nice if they were true. It's probably fun to believe in them. But you don't have solid, irrefutable (scientific) proof, so you have to keep believing in them, rather than knowing them (or you could just throw them out entirely, like most of us over six have done with Santa Claus). If you had that kind of evidence, then the folks whose job it is to find out the physical facts about the world (scientists ) would know them too, and belief wouldn't be required. A mark of the immaturity of small children is that they haven't learned this distinction yet. About the only proof they may demand is what someone older tells them, or what they see on TV. Note also that you can't trust the believer. He may, of course, say he "knows" his favorite belief is true, and may trot out what to him is adequate proof ("But I saw Santa in the store, and look at all the stuff he brought, and on the news they saw him on the radar, and... and..."). Or he may be one of those incredibly shallow people whose answer amounts to, "I don't know why, I just believe it," or the ludicrous contradiction, "I just know it's true."
There's another common meaning for "believe in," as in "Do you believe in democracy?" "Do you believe in the American Dream?" "Do you believe in abortion under certain circumstances?" "Do you believe in the justice of our cause?" Here the meaning of "believe in" seems to be something like "trust," or "think it's probably best," or "are willing to go along with." That doesn't seem to be what someone is getting at when he asks me if I believe in evolution, or at least that's not how I take the question. So in that sense, no, I don't believe in evolution: it's not a matter of personal opinion, or philosophy, or a gray area where one must decide what might be best overall.
But back to the real distinction: no, I don't believe in evolution--I know that it's real. It doesn't require believing in. And I don't "just know it," like the vacuous air-head. I have all the objective evidence I need for real knowledge . The reality of evolution having occurred and continuing to occur is every bit as strongly established as the knowledge that the Earth is round, that germs cause disease, that electrons exist, or that the speed of light is ~300,000 kilometers/second. If anything, I have more daily-life experience to show me evolution happening than I have for those other things. I can see that offspring aren't identical to their parents. I have seen new varieties of plants and animals developed within my own lifetime. I live in an area where boll weevils often win the evolutionary race to develop resistance to pesticides. I can easily catch a case of (newly evolved) resistant staphylococcus, which might very well kill me. I have seen and touched and personally found the fossils of the now-extinct ancestors of living creatures.
As a matter of fact, I have more down-to-earth proof of the reality of evolution than I have of the other things mentioned above, which I know to be real. I will never see an electron. How would I ever come close to accurately measuring the speed of light? My chances of ever getting far enough away from Earth to actually see for myself that it is round are practically nil; and I don't have the equipment or the expertise to ever really prove for myself that a particular breed of bacteria actually causes a particular disease. Then don't I just take those things "on faith"? Don't I believe in them, rather than actually knowing them? NO . As a society, we have hired specialists to find out these kinds of things. We've done everything we can to assure that they are highly trained, that they are objective (not letting their philosophies or beliefs get in the way), that they are honest, and that their answers are true (they constantly check on each other, compete, and repeat experiments to make sure the results are real). We've set up a system ( science) in which wrong answers are quickly thrown out, all answers are tested over and over in every imaginable way, right answers get righter all the time (e.g., relativity doesn't "disprove" Newtonian mechanics, it just improves on it; punctuated equilibrium doesn't "disprove" Darwinian evolution, it just clarifies it further), and the best way to make a name for yourself is to disprove an older idea (with enough proof of your own to stand up to the toughest tests). And finally, that system works far better than any other way mankind has ever tried for finding out about the physical world.
So what science knows, I know. They are my agents for finding out things I can't find out for myself. Science knows (and tells me) that there are electrons and what the speed of light is. I would be foolish to reject that knowledge. Science also tells me, with just as much assurance, that living things have evolved. I know that knowledge has been tested, tried, experimented with, and applied to real situations, and has proven its "fitness" by growing stronger through 150 years of severe testing. I would be foolish to reject that knowledge.
So no, I don't believe in evolution; I know that it has happened and still does. As a matter of fact, I should probably feel insulted. If you asked me if I believe the Earth is round, that would be insulting. Do you think I could be so ignorant as to believe it is flat? The same goes for evolution. Do you think I would reject the last two centuries of scientific progress and the evidence of my own eyes? I should be thoroughly offended.
-
I'm pretty confident you guys can push this one to an all time record of 1000 posts. I'll be back when 999 rolls around. Maybe by then you'll have it all figured out and be in agreement? ;)
-
NP Iron... I'm all over it.
Here's one more little tidbit for ya Sabre. Go Here (http://biology-online.org/dictionary.asp) The online Biology dictionary and look up MACROevolution.
Now look up MICROevolution. Then try not to misuse scientific terms to make a theological point.
-
Well, your on-line dictionary site came up with 0 matches for macroevolution, and 1 match for microevolution. From what I could gather, that on-line biology site was made up in the spare time by a guy who doesn’t list his affiliation or background. In fact, it states he produced the web site to practice website design. A majority of the 16,700 google matches I found all make a distinction between micro and macroevolution, though there is debate on the possible connections between the two processes. So I can’t say as you’ve enlightened me much. And you’re the one who brought theology into it. I’ve maintained simply that evolutionary theory does not adequately explain the origins of life or the creation of such complex life forms from much simpler ones. I too am finished with this thread. For what it’s worth, I hope the debate has encouraged at least some to question their long-held beliefs on the subject and seek answers, rather than simply letting others tell you what to think. I am a man of science, though admittedly new to the study of biology. I also happen to believe in a divine being, and no where have I ever been told by anyone in my church that I should “check my brain at the door.” In any case, it’s been fun, MT. Thanks.
-
I sometimes spank my monkey.
SOB
-
Sometimes i belive in god.
Sometimes i dont belive in god.
Sometimes i belive in evolution.
Sometimes i dont belive in evolution.
Well if i had a choice then i would go for the "God" solution defenitly, who wouldnt? So, i dont "belive in god" i "hope for god"
:D
-
Originally posted by Sabre
So much for trying to spark intelligent debate. Just for grins, let's try one more time. We'll start with a definition. Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.
I disagree. The general term “evolution” means change. Biologic evolution, which is what we’re talking about, can be defined as a process that results in heritable changes in a population over generations. In other words, it is the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe (the "Big Bang" theory fits under this heading).
Theories on the origin of the universe are not related to biologic evolution.
2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter. This part of the theory of evolution is pure speculation, as it has not (despite much effort) been duplicated since it supposedly first happened.
Also not related to biologic evolution.
3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. ....
Good. So you accept that new species can originate through the process of evolution (speciation).
4. Macro-evolution or general evolution refers to the progression to more complex forms of life.
Macroevolution is a relative term, indicating the degree of divergence of lineages. The longer the time since the divergence, the greater the differences between the lineages. Extinction of more intermediate forms enhances the observed differences between groups. There is no magic barrier to macroevolution, if you accept microevolution as you defined it.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Bonobos were never a threat to the Democrats. It's just redikulus!:D :p
LMAO Syzy!
Now, back to the thread...
The interesting thing about the whole Creationism vs Darwinism argument is that Darwin himself believed in God, as did Einstein and other creative thinkers of the day.
I found myself getting quite annoyed at organized religion due to the fact that in the past, certain religions not only discounted scientific facts, they persecuted the people who made discoveries that were contrary to their beliefs at the time. Gallileo was threatened with death and put under house arrest for the rest of his life after he published a paper stating that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.
In the present, due to separation of Church and State, it isn't possible for organized Religions to quell scientific discovery by the threat of death or imprisonment. However, some of them still refuse to face the facts and blindly create explanations that support certain scientific theories in conjunction with their own beliefs. Rather than threaten death or imprisonment, they are forced to use "Hell" as punishment for those who may disagree with some of their teachings.
I do believe there is a "God". I came to this conclusion on my own. I also chose not to insult someone who agrees or disagrees with my assessment.
-
I don't know if there is such thinga s evolution or not, but if there is, few people can even comprehend how the human being of the future will function, just as monkeys can't comprehend us.
-
Damn Dirty Apes!
-
I used to disagree with the fundamentalist xian "creationists" but i have to say that their arguments have swayed me, and I now agree with them. I too am of the opinion that fundamentalist xian "creationists" are unevolved human beings. ;)
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
The interesting thing about the whole Creationism vs Darwinism argument is that Darwin himself believed in God, as did Einstein and other creative thinkers of the day.
There is nothing about evolution that contradicts a belief in God. Of course evolution is not consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis, but only a relatively small minority of theists believe in that.
-
Originally posted by myelo
There is nothing about evolution that contradicts a belief in God. Of course evolution is not consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis, but only a relatively small minority of theists believe in that.
So then one of the seven days lasted umpty ump bazillion years? And the creation of man also took umpty ump bazillion years less a "day or two"
I'm up with that!
But what I find most disconcerting is the literal interpretation of the concept of omnipotence, i.e. God "created humnas" in an instant and interjected him into the planetary biosphere only about 10k years back. So, in other words, it took the all powerful God umpty ump bazillion years to evolve the cosmos, but he created the most complex organism, sentient beings with free will, in an instant. The logic doesn't compute unless God is quite arbitrary.
-
if this thread gets to 1000 posts it proves there is no god.
-
Don't know about evolution vs religion, but there's some who believe we were genatically engineered from apes by aliens who needed us to mine gold for them. :D
-
2% of some billion is a big difference.
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
Don't know about evolution vs religion, but there's some who believe we were genatically engineered from apes by aliens who needed us to mine gold for them. :D
lol! Sounds like the Illuminatus Trilogy :D
-
Syzy,
Are you trying to say that a "Universal" day is 24 hours?
It's merely the time the Earth takes to rotate once. If you lived on Mercury, your day would be 12 hours long.
Who knows how long a day really is, or if there even is one. I sure don't.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Syzy,
Are you trying to say that a "Universal" day is 24 hours?
It's merely the time the Earth takes to rotate once. If you lived on Mercury, your day would be 12 hours long.
Who knows how long a day really is, or if there even is one. I sure don't.
Egggsakly GrimmCo. I'm agreeing with ya! You can believe in evolution and still believe in God expecially when his "days" are a bazillion years long!.
Don't be so defensive!
Sheesh!:D
-
whats this thread about? too many pages to read so i jumped to the last. :D
-
The bible was written by humans, why wouldn't it be written in human terms?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The bible was written by humans, why wouldn't it be written in human terms?
-SW
It was written by humans who thought the world was flat, and the the earth was the center of everything and ..................
If the bible was written today, how would it start?
BANG!
-
So you admit, the Bible is nothing more than a story book?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
So you admit, the Bible is a nothing more than story book?
-SW
Parts of it are supposed to be eye witness accounts but you know how accurate eye witness accounts are!
-
Well at one point you are saying that the world was created in 7 God days, which concurs with the Bible, and then another point you are saying it's fiction.
You can't have both, either it's accurate as it claims to be "the truth", or its Dr. Seuss ~1,950 years ago.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Well at one point you are saying that the world was created in 7 God days, which concurs with the Bible, and then another point you are saying it's fiction.
You can't have both, either it's accurate as it claims to be "the truth", or its Dr. Seuss ~1,950 years ago.
-SW
I can have whatever I want. This is Amurica dammit!:D
I never said anything about it being fiction or fact. I just said some of it was supposed to have been written by eyewitnesses and then implied that eye witness accounts are notoriusly in accurate. Ask any cop or prosecutor!
The "God Days" concept , as you so aptly described it, was written as a logical exemplfication of how the words of the bible can be shown to be not antithetical to belief in evolution. Maybe the bible is not to be read literally. Or is that a new concept to you? What does that mean? Is it real or is it memorex?!
Only God knows!
:cool:
-
I said, "why wouldn't the bible be written in human terms".
You said, "if it was written today, how would it start? BANG!"
This led to my next assertion, so you admit the bible is fiction?
Afterall, you are saying that if the bible were written today instead of ~1,950 years ago it would of started with a bang rather than God's 7 days of hard labor.
This means that if you can say it would follow the beliefs of the day, then it is indeed fiction and thusly any interpretation of the bible is moot - since its nothing more than a children's book.
-SW
-
god = fnord
I eat hotdogs on fridays... without the bun. thank you
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I said, "why wouldn't the bible be written in human terms".
You said, "if it was written today, how would it start? BANG!"
This led to my next assertion, so you admit the bible is fiction?
Afterall, you are saying that if the bible were written today instead of ~1,950 years ago it would of started with a bang rather than God's 7 days of hard labor.
This means that if you can say it would follow the beliefs of the day, then it is indeed fiction and thusly any interpretation of the bible is moot - since its nothing more than a children's book.
-SW
Oh Contraire Oh wiseenheimer.
The fact that it would now start with a BANG represents the increase in human understanding and knowledge, at least in some limited sense. So, the newly written bible could start with a bang and still have umpty ump bazillion years of hard labor for god to sort all the cosmic goo out into the universe.
Heck, that Bang could be God opening his door to get started.
Anyway, I am sure of one thing. I am gettin tired of trying to get this thread to 1000 posts!;)
-
Syzy,
I'm getting weary as well. But I will endeavor to help you get this thread to 1000 posts...
There once was a man from Nantucket...
-
-
Damn it. You're following through with it....LOL
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Oh Contraire Oh wiseenheimer.
The fact that it would now start with a BANG represents the increase in human understanding and knowledge, at least in some limited sense. So, the newly written bible could start with a bang and still have umpty ump bazillion years of hard labor for god to sort all the cosmic goo out into the universe.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Maybe he did it with a bang, and from what did he create it?
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Was Adam created from the earth? is that done through the spontaneous creation of DNA from primordial ooze?
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof."
Was Eve created from Adam's rib? Is this cellular division?
So many questions, only a few hundred posts to go.
-
The creation story loses credibility when it has to be interpretted symbolically due to it being written in such a literal fashion.
-
~Largest Thread Second to the Stripper Forum Thread.~
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
~"...Second to the Stripper Forum Thread."~
Ruh?
-
Once you reach the pinnacle of tardliness and start a thread that reaches the 500 mark, you know you've arrived. Of course, you've arrived at dorktown, but at least you've finally arrived.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Thrawn said:
Nice..... you just called all Christians imbeciles.
Yep...pretty much.
-
I'm shocked !
what do you people mean we evolved from the apes ?! :confused:
looks around you for cod sake. we are still apes!
Bozon
-
now explain.. zombies
-
Well i dont care what you monkeys think! I was dropped off here by some "out of town freinds" and Im just waiting on my ride to get back off this Rock!!
Laid back "doing time on planet Earth"
-
I like toast...
sometimes with jam...mmmmm...jam.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Yep...pretty much.
I can argue this with scientific fact till the cows come home darwinism is the religion of the morons and the pinheads, ding round 1.
-
Many here disprove evolution everyday, at least the evolution of human intelligence. ;)
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
now explain.. zombies
One day, about 2,000 years ago, the Romans crucified a man. Three days later he came back to life. ;)
-
I wonder if the Mars rover found anything today?
-
Originally posted by storch
I can argue this with scientific fact till the cows come home darwinism is the religion of the morons and the pinheads, ding round 1.
So never got round to much tertiary education Storch?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
So never got round to much tertiary education Storch?
Never got around to thinking for yourself did you? Did you just believed what they told you?
-
Only so much irony a person can stand.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Only so much irony a person can stand.
Tosser!
-
If you wish to trade insults in English...as opposed to American English I'm game.
Smeghead!!!
Take that!
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Only so much irony a person can stand.
I arrived at my faith attempting to refute a friend's Christianity. pretty difficult to do if you you are open minded. I have no tradition of deeply held religiousity of any flavor in my family. My parents would agree with you and your pinhead views. Now enough foreplay, let's get it on. I believe that it takes much more faith to be a darwinist than it takes to be a Christian.
-
Better smeg than dead!
-
If you want even more insight in a related topic, go to a university library and find a book called "Psychology of the Unconscious", by C. G. Jung...
Synopsis
"This book became a landmark, set up on the spot where two ways divided. Because of its imperfections and its incompleteness it laid down the program to be followed for the next few decades of my life." Thus wrote C. G. Jung about his most famous and influential work, the one that marked the beginning of his divergence from the psychoanalytic school of Freud. Here, Jung explores the fantasy system of Frank Miller, the young American woman whose account of her poetic and vivid mental images helped lead him to his redefinition of libido while encouraging his explorations in mythology. Published in 1912 as Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido, this is a key text for the study of the formation of Jung's ideas and for understanding his personal and psychological condition during this crucial time. Miller's fantasies, with their mythological implications, supported Jung's notion that libido is not primarily sexual energy, as Freud had described it, but rather psychic energy in general, which springs from the unconscious and appears in consciousness as symbols. Jung's analytical commentary on these fantasies is a complex study of symbolic parallels derived from mythology, religion, ethnology
Been awhile since I have read this, but the first chapter "two ways of thinking" is relevant.
-
Jung was a pinhead, at the end of his miserable he exclaimed.......
Look it up it will do you a world of good.
-
Originally posted by storch
I arrived at my faith attempting to refute a friend's Christianity. pretty difficult to do if you you are open minded. I have no tradition of deeply held religiousity of any flavor in my family. My parents would agree with you and your pinhead views. Now enough foreplay, let's get it on. I believe that it takes much more faith to be a darwinist than it takes to be a Christian.
RELIGIOUSITY????
Can we put this in the 'I could care less' thread, please Skuzzy?
p.s. Storch, the garden has bloomed, I shall post a pic as it is now, and it looks pretty good. Even if I do say so myself.
Ravs
-
I came from the STARS..........
-
And I suppose you're an 'uuuman beeing'
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
RELIGIOUSITY????
Can we put this in the 'I could care less' thread, please Skuzzy?
p.s. Storch, the garden has bloomed, I shall post a pic as it is now, and it looks pretty good. Even if I do say so myself.
Ravs
Please do, If I can learn I shall posts photos of what may be the only apple tree that blooms and bears fruit that I know of in Florida. It's full of very sweet apples right now.
-
OK!
Ravs :)
-
I take it we survived the flight and the airline didn't attempt to kill you?
-
Yes, phew.
Ravs