An Intellectual Topic: Evolution

[ShortStack]

Opinions please. Perhaps the classes I'm taking are surrounding me and trapping me into this state where I like discussing intelligent things. I know, sad as it may be, it's very enjoyable.

Alright, my brief belief (because I have class in 5 min) is that I believe in both really. The idea that we were made from this "big bang" in a way is true because either God made the big bang (for your creation theorists) or something out there just threw it together. Personally, I feel a higer being at some or another made earth. But that's not what I'm dwelling on. I believe in the theory that we do evolve as a species, but I do not believe species can evolve into other species outside of their family. You following?

According to evolution, we came from simple one-celled organisms and have evolved into birds, mammels, bugs, etc...but I find it hard to believe that one. We DO evolve to our habitat, I don't think any logical person can deny that. But I believe that we were intially made by God, and not just us, but the entire world. God made birds, mammels, bugs, and us along with the mammels and over the hundreds of years we have evolved into what we are today.

Humans evolve just like animals do. Animals have to evolve to where they live just like we do. Have you ever thought to yourself about whether you prefer living in hot or cold climates, or perhaps in the city or outside of the city? We all have preferences because it's what we're used to (for the most part). I have so much more to say, but I think that's enough to start a topic at least.

[Jeffbx]

Totally fiction, but have a look at the book After Man (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=30368910&loc=106) by Dougal Dixon. Provides an interesting conjecture as to what animal life may resemble thousands of years from now.

Also one he published many years ago, Man After Man (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312035608/qid=1035304654/sr=1-66/ref=), but it may be a little harder to get a hold of. This one touches specifically on human evolution.

[spigidygak]

I believe in micro-evolution, but find macro-evolution a little too far-fetched.

[raimin]

i also believe in micro evolution

Your theory/belief sounds like alot of those i have been hearing. I am an ex staff scientist, now working in IT, i talked to many scientists who believe this.

I believe there is natural selection, and adaptation, but macro evolution, is kinda hard to swallow

[topane]

Read through the Talk Origins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org), there's tons of good information there.


Originally posted by spigidygak
I believe in micro-evolution...


Originally posted by raimin
i also believe in micro evolution
<rant>
Do you also "believe in" electricity? Believe in gravity? Believe in astronomy? I don't understand why people refer to acceptance of evolution with "believe in". I'm sorry, I find that ridiculous.
</rant>

[Cantacuzene]

I am a religious person, but I cannot rationally deny evolution. Its too true and too well founded.

I don't care if people debate the issue, because whatever the essential truth is wont be changed due to human conceptualization.

I am opposed to "Creation Science." Its a pathetic attempt to attach a legitimacy to creationism by associating it with science. Despite what creationists will tell you, there is no scientific process in their version of history.

In science theories and hypothesis can be changed due to the appearence of new evidence or findings. In creationism the "law" is set in stone and no matter what else scientists discover, creationism will be creationism and their theory wont change. That is contrary to the Scientific Method, and if you go against the scientific method, are you really doing science?

Also, in science you make a hypothesis and test it to arrive at your conclusion. In creationism you have teh conclusion already and you are tailoring your experiment to "find" teh conclusion you have already reached. That isnt really scientific. It sounds more like a pep rally.

Like I said, I don't care if you believe in creationism, just don't try to pass it off as legitimate science to me.

[johnnymk]

This topic has been discussed many times before. As I have stated before, it takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion "Evolution" as it is in "Creation".
Put evolution to the test of the Scientific Method and it will fail it everytime.

[hapoo]

Yeah i believe in evolution. I belive and god that has the power to make everything around me has the power to create the big bang and cause the formation of earth and humans through evolution... or at least create the earth with the appearance that creatures have formed through evolution, either way evolution is fact in my book.

[spigidygak]

Originally posted by topane





<rant>
Do you also "believe in" electricity? Believe in gravity? Believe in astronomy? I don't understand why people refer to acceptance of evolution with "believe in". I'm sorry, I find that ridiculous.
</rant>

Actually yes I do only "believe in" electricity, gravity and etc. The best of scientists can only come up with THEORIES. Nothing can be ABSOLUTELY proven. So, IMO, I don't understand what you're ranting about. Take a philosophy class and maybe you'll understand more about reality and our perception of reality. Its a crazy world out there, hehe.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by johnnymk

Put evolution to the test of the Scientific Method and it will fail it everytime.

So I assume Creationism "passes" the "test"? :rolleyes:

What aspect of the scientific method does evolution "fail?"

You notice I quote these words because there is no such thing as a simple test to prove or disprove a theory, and to suggest such a thing shows a limited grasp of the concept of the scientific method.

Let me go out on a limb here, and feel free to correct me where I make errors: You believe the universe is no older than 20,000 years old and all topographical features on the Earths surface were created recently and things such as the grand conyon were carved out by noah's flood rather than the colorado river.

Creationism would be so much more acceptable if they got rid of the ridiculous aspects of their theory.

[topane]

Originally posted by johnnymk
As I have stated before, it takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion "Evolution" as it is in "Creation".And you are mistaken. Evolution doesn't require faith, it requires proof by the scientific method. Scientific predictions can be made based on evolution. How can it require more faith to "believe in" a natural, observable process than to believe an invisible man in the sky created all of this?

Put evolution to the test of the Scientific Method and it will fail it everytime. Oh, bull. If it didn't pass scientific tests it wouldn't be around. Scientists are more than happy to prove each other wrong; that's progress. How come the scientific method is used in all other disciplines? Is the scientific method wrong?

[Edited because I can't close my tags properly]

[hoey222]

ok - my question is this.....

if we are to "believe" that creature evolve from other creatures there has to be a point at which 1 species becomes another. species cannot inter breed to produce viable offspring (unless it's nija). if the evolitionary process is continuous, shouldn't there be evidence of that now. where one species becomes another.


mind you - i am not a proponent of creationism - but this is a question of evolution that puzzles me. - granted, evolution "happens" over thousands of millions of years (or whatever) but a some point..........
o good god i've gone cross-eyed

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

I don't care if people debate the issue, because whatever the essential truth is wont be changed due to human conceptualization.

Good point. I wish I could leave it at that. But, it may not be true. Assuming macroevolution is true, perhaps scientist could control evolution. I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm just saying "human conceptualization" could lead humans to discover how to do this.
Here's what I believe: Microevolution is true (Bacteria A can evolve over several generations into Bacteria B. This is observable) Macro evolution is approximately true. While microevolution indicates that Macro evolution is true and there is all sorts of evidence (such as bone structures) for Macro evolution, I'm not quite sure it's 100% on the money, but that's okay because getting an approximation and refining it is what science is all about.
And don't give me your "It's just a theory" BS. That's a bunch of crap (excuse redundancy). Yes it's a theory but everything is. In theory I am seeing this LCD but I can't prove it because there's always a chance that we're in the matrix. Theory must be treated as fact until there is a more probable theory. Granted you shouldn't trust it 100% but that doesn't mean you shouldn't trust it. Right now, the best fit theory is evolution. Therefore, evolution should be treated as fact.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by hoey222
ok - my question is this.....

if we are to "believe" that creature evolve from other creatures there has to be a point at which 1 species becomes another. species cannot inter breed to produce viable offspring (unless it's nija). if the evolitionary process is continuous, shouldn't there be evidence of that now. where one species becomes another.


mind you - i am not a proponent of creationism - but this is a question of evolution that puzzles me. - granted, evolution "happens" over thousands of millions of years (or whatever) but a some point..........
o good god i've gone cross-eyed
First off I don't get your question. As far as I know, this evidence is found all the time. If you are talking in human history, that's only something like 15K years. Evolution takes somethings like 10X more than that. Also, there may ice age history that indicates evolution. I'm not sure if any of these factoids answer your question.
Second of all, there are interspecies offspring all the time
Dogs and Wolves, Horses and Donkeys, etc.

[johnnymk]

Evolution is not "observable". How can you prove something happened a million years ago, much less hundreds of millions of years ago.
And yes, scientists do disagree over evolution versus creation. If all scientists believed in evoltion,there wouldn't be the debate that has gone on in the past 150 years.
Show me which part of evolution will pass the test of the scientific method. It's a theory and will remain one for a long time, because there are no facts to back it up. As to the Grand Canyon being formed from the flood, where did you read that? If God created all of the planets and the mountains and the vallys of the Earth, I really don't think it would be a big deal to carve canyons out of the dirt and rock. Besides, he was the one who ordered the flood to happen, anyway.
Evolution is just another religion to try to get God out of their lives and minds.

[mojo]

Originally posted by ShortStack
According to evolution, we came from simple one-celled organisms and have evolved into birds, mammels, bugs, etc...but I find it hard to believe that one. We DO evolve to our habitat, I don't think any logical person can deny that. But I believe that we were intially made by God, and not just us, but the entire world. God made birds, mammels, bugs, and us along with the mammels and over the hundreds of years we have evolved into what we are today.you can believe whatever you want. but if you really understand the initial thesis you stated, then it's not that hard to swallow (since it's defined within the initial statement). we evolve, and there aren't parameters set aside from what is given as a possibility genetically. that which becomes another thing via offspring is actually defined as that which had the possibility to do so, and therefore is the predecessor and not so much that a miracle happened. not to undermine miracles, but the thesis includes that, for example, we did not come "from apes," but rather from beings that were "ape-like." the proof of this is that if we did, apes would still be evolving into us. since they are not, then of course there are genetic factors that come into play that prevent this and promote stasis.

aaaanyways, i'm glad you got your learn on :D

[brainsmile]

<whitney houston> I believe the children are our future... teach them well and let them lead the way... show them all the beauty they possess inside... </whitney houston>

[InfiniteNothing]

Actually evolution is observable. You can the evolution in the bones of ape like creatures transformitng into us. It's hard to explain, but if you lay out the skeletons we have next to each other, take pictures, put them in a flip book and flip the pages real fast, you can actually see humans evolving. And, there is specific evidence that it came of a natural process rather than from a creator.
Also more convincing is the DNA evidence. This stands up to the scientific methodHere's your "proof" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

Originally posted by johnnymk
It's a theory and will remain one for a long time, because there are no facts to back it up.
Wait are we talking about God or evolution here?
Lastly, I'd like ask you what you think about the "been observed" microevolution. True of false? People argued about this for a while too but now we seem to have an answer.

[topane]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Evolution is not "observable". How can you prove something happened a million years ago, much less hundreds of millions of years ago. Measurements. Observations based on known events.


And yes, scientists do disagree over evolution versus creation. If all scientists believed in evoltion,there wouldn't be the debate that has gone on in the past 150 years.Most scientists agree that evolution is the best answer based on all the evidence. Their disagreement is more often with its mechanism as opposed to whether or not it happened.


Show me which part of evolution will pass the test of the scientific method. It's a theory and will remain one for a long time, because there are no facts to back it up. Here's a brief blurb (http://www.utm.edu/~rirwin/391EvidEvol.htm). Evolutionary hypotheses are used, with success, in modern medicine. If these hypotheses were wrong, then why would scientists keep using them? Perhaps you could share with us the scientific evidence which refutes evolution?


Evolution is just another religion to try to get God out of their lives and minds. I'd be willing to bet my life that is this were but a few centuries ago, you'd be saying "This whole thing about Earth orbiting the sun is just another religion to try to get God out of their lives and minds." That's very sad that you think that way. Proof of evolution does not equal abandonment of deity.

[johnnymk]

Most scientists agree on evolution? Which ones?
And yes, believing in evolution does deny God. God does not have to "practice" to get things right. He can create perfection the first time around. If anything, man is devolving into something lower than what he created, not into something better.
For the most part, show me an evolutionist and I will show you an atheist.
I explained in one of the earlier discussions which parts of evoltion can not be proven. I am not going to waste my time going over those points again.
Besides, the debate over evolution is such a waste of time. I am amazed that they teach it in schools as a fact.

[Cantacuzene]

So you do think the world is under 20,000 years old? This "old Earth" vs "young Earth" debate is a side issue and of little importance, because no scientist worth the name claims the Earth is under 4 billion years old.

As far as evolution goes, there is a huge body of scientific evidence in favor of evolution; fossil record, micro-evolution, DNA, genetic laws, mutational laws etc.

There is no scientific evidence that God plopped Adam and Eve down on the Earth in the garden of Eden. Even if evolution isnt 100% proven now and is only, say, 75% proven, thats still 75% more than Creationism, which is just as much a matter of faith now as it was when the story was first written down a few thousand years ago.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Most scientists agree on evolution? Which ones?
And yes, believing in evolution does deny God. God does not have to "practice" to get things right. He can create perfection the first time around. If anything, man is devolving into something lower than what he created, not into something better.
For the most part, show me an evolutionist and I will show you an atheist.


So completely incorrect its not even funny....

Which ones? Look around, the overwhelming majority, thats who.
God didn't "practice," you're right, God's system of evolution was perfect the second he created it and has been working ever since.

Man is devolving huh? Where is your proof of that? Humans are healthier and stronger than they ever were. Smarter to boot.

You again pidgeon hole people into nice little categories. "all evolutionists are athiets," "all catholics are going to hell" blah blah blah. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are wrong or bad. The world is a more complicated place with many diverse points of view and every issue has a grey area, but you seem to be blind to that.

[Chinpoko_Mon]

God created evolution.... umm.. yeah...that's my opinion...

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
[B]


Man is devolving huh?

/B]
You make some great points, thanks. Anyhow I thought I'd provide a little biblical evidence that humans are improving. A comon theme in the old testimate was to relate peoples life span to their worthyness. At first we lived to be 900 some odd years old then it dropped way down, and then God smited us and with all the bad people gone, we started living longer.
Add that to "we've doubled our life expectancy" and you have a better human
Okay, this was pretty stupid being agnostic and all (not athiest) but I found it a little amusing.
Anyhow you said the debate was pointless. Why is that?

[topane]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Most scientists agree on evolution? Which ones?Try here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm). 95% seems like a pretty substantial margin.


And yes, believing in evolution does deny God. Gee, look at all the people who have posted here who believe in a god but also see the truth in evolution.


God does not have to "practice" to get things right. He can create perfection the first time around. Yes, that must explain poor design and junk DNA. And all those extinctions? Why?


If anything, man is devolving into something lower than what he created, not into something better.But if evolution isn't true, how can we possibly do the reverse (de-evolve)?


For the most part, show me an evolutionist and I will show you an atheist.Here's (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/OH/878_survey_of_scientists_supports__10_11_2002.asp) a link to a survey stating, in part: "Science addresses the nature of the physical universe, not the supernatural or the eternal. Like me, 84% of my colleagues also report that they find evolutionary theory compatible with belief in God. " So much for your atheist theory. At least you didn't say "heretic". BTW, what did all those atheists think before Darwin proposed his theory?


I explained in one of the earlier discussions which parts of evoltion can not be proven. I am not going to waste my time going over those points again.Could you at least point us there?


Besides, the debate over evolution is such a waste of time. I am amazed that they teach it in schools as a fact. I'm amazed that they propose alternatives which haven't even been tested.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


So completely incorrect its not even funny....

Which ones? Look around, the overwhelming majority, thats who.
God didn't "practice," you're right, God's system of evolution was perfect the second he created it and has been working ever since.

Man is devolving huh? Where is your proof of that? Humans are healthier and stronger than they ever were. Smarter to boot.

You again pidgeon hole people into nice little categories. "all evolutionists are athiets," "all catholics are going to hell" blah blah blah. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are wrong or bad. The world is a more complicated place with many diverse points of view and every issue has a grey area, but you seem to be blind to that. someone woke up on the condescending side of the bed this morning :hehehmm:

[johnnymk]

I knew that once I entered into this discussion, it would end up the way it always does. I believe it was about a year ago that this topic was discussed ad nauseum and the same arguments were made.
I am no longer discussing such a silly topic. I don't believe in old wive's tales and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
If 94% of today's scientists want to believe in nonsense, let them. Until mankind evolves into living forever and defeats death, then put me on the evolution bandwagon. I know it ain't gonna happen, though.
End of discussion.

[topane]

Originally posted by johnnymk
I am no longer discussing such a silly topic. I don't believe in old wive's tales and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.That's a shame. No chocolate for you this Easter!

If 94% of today's scientists want to believe in nonsense, let them. I don't understand why everyone accepts what science has to say about so many other things, when they are arrived at through the same methods, but when it comes to evolution it's "nonsense". Can anyone explain this to me?

Until mankind evolves into living forever and defeats death, then put me on the evolution bandwagon.I don't think living forever is a possibility, that would seem to violate some laws of nature. Besides, imagine the crap that would be on TV 5,000 years from now.

[Blu]

Originally posted by johnnymk
I knew that once I entered into this discussion, it would end up the way it always does. I believe it was about a year ago that this topic was discussed ad nauseum and the same arguments were made.
I am no longer discussing such a silly topic. I don't believe in old wive's tales and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
If 94% of today's scientists want to believe in nonsense, let them. Until mankind evolves into living forever and defeats death, then put me on the evolution bandwagon. I know it ain't gonna happen, though.
End of discussion.

What we need to realize here is that some of us are devoted enough to believe in absolutes. johnnymk believes absolutely that God made earth and all it's sundry items. For johnnymk, there is no other option, b/c he absolutely believes the Bible. Others think the complete and total opposite, and do so absolutely. Why sit here and argue about it? Not much will change, you can air your opinion, which is great, but you really think that arguing the opposite will change anything?

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by spigidygak
I believe in micro-evolution, but find macro-evolution a little too far-fetched.

Alright, we haven't all be in classes, and since I'm just beginning mine I don't feel I am knowledged enough to explain it so...could someone explain the differences between microevolution & macroevolution? We want everyone to be able to follow along, don't we?


Originally posted by topane
<rant>
Do you also "believe in" electricity? Believe in gravity? Believe in astronomy? I don't understand why people refer to acceptance of evolution with "believe in". I'm sorry, I find that ridiculous.
</rant> [/B]

Um, the reason we don't "believe" in electricity or gravity per say is because these once "theories" have been accepted by society so therefore they are considered current fact. But, the theory of evolution has not been fully or even partially accepted by society so you can believe in it or not believe in it, make sense? It's still just a theory while electricity and gravity are facts.


Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

Theory must be treated as fact until there is a more probable theory. Granted you shouldn't trust it 100% but that doesn't mean you shouldn't trust it. Right now, the best fit theory is evolution. Therefore, evolution should be treated as fact.

I totally agree, but I don't think evolution has been completely proven in some aspects, like in the aspects of macroevolution. (and excuse me for my misuse of vocabulary). I still think there are too many holes in macroevolution, for example, like someone mentioned before, why aren't we still evolving into new species? How is it possible for one species to become a whole new species? I just can't imagine it...something higher had to help, or perhaps that's just the religion kicking in. But I do ABSOLUTELY agree, beyond no doubt, that microevolution is true.

[gear02]

Originally posted by johnnymk

Put evolution to the test of the Scientific Method and it will fail it everytime.

Put RELIGION to the test of the Scientific Method and it will fail everytime.

I do believe in evolution, and I think I believe in a higher being. I don't believe in religion because religion is a man's (or woman's) interpretation of sacred texts, etc. Almost every conflict in the world has come from some sort of Religion, the Crusades, the Middle East conflicts, Bosnia (ethnic cleansing), and maybe even WW2 (the Nazi party was a form of religion i guess).

In any case, why do you need a religion to be good and righteous? Why do you need to follow a ceremony that determines what you say, when you stand up and sit down, what to sing, etc. to make you a good person in this world?

I'm not saying Religion is all that bad. It does allow a place for people to meet others. It gives people a sense of bonding and of community. It gives people hope. But I feel like people take it too literal. People have died because their religious leader told them they should die or kill others. People have died because the religion they practice is different from others. People have died because of religion.

Oh well...flame away.

[gear02]

Originally posted by johnnymk

If 94% of today's scientists want to believe in nonsense, let them. Until mankind evolves into living forever and defeats death, then put me on the evolution bandwagon. I know it ain't gonna happen, though.
End of discussion.

Btw this is nothing against you johnnymk since I don't know you.

This kind of arguement is typical of religious zealots and the Religious Right. Their arguement is simply to huff and to stick their chests out and decree that they're right and everyone else is wrong, even in the face of facts (maybe not in this case, but in other issues). Oh and it also usually involves the statement that those who don't believe them will also go to hell.

I really really really detest the Religious right...grrr...

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

First off I don't get your question. As far as I know, this evidence is found all the time. If you are talking in human history, that's only something like 15K years. Evolution takes somethings like 10X more than that. Also, there may ice age history that indicates evolution. I'm not sure if any of these factoids answer your question.
Second of all, there are interspecies offspring all the time
Dogs and Wolves, Horses and Donkeys, etc.

But dogs and wolves, horses and donkeys are both from the same family. After doing a little bit of research, we are closely related to apes, but we are not in the same family. So it is a little different than that, but I see your point. I guess the point they were trying to make, or ask, was if we came from apes, why aren't apes still evolving into us?


Originally posted by Cantacuzene
In science theories and hypothesis can be changed due to the appearence of new evidence or findings. In creationism the "law" is set in stone and no matter what else scientists discover, creationism will be creationism and their theory wont change. That is contrary to the Scientific Method, and if you go against the scientific method, are you really doing science?


I think it really depends on what you believe in. I mean, I believe that the "set in stone" stuff has been misinterrupted on a lot of things. Just because he made it in 7 days doesn't mean it was 7 earth days. So there is a lot in the bible that can be interrupted differently. If you say there's only one interruptation, then why are there so many religions? If we had one set idea, then we'd all be united in one religion.
So I think it really depends with that one...creationism is more concerned with faith, not that it has to be proven. I mean, if it could be proven, what's the point? God doesn't want to just show us that it's true because he wants us to figure it out for ourselves...otherwise, why there be a test at all? He wants us to believe and know it for ourselves, so it's really not a theory that needs to be proven. I probably lost ya in my rambling, but it makes sense in my head. :D

[apmiller]

I'm a firm believer in whatever some wacky scientist can tell me is real. This is do to the fact that they can show me, let me touch, smell, see and whatever. Faith is just that...faith. Someone long, long time ago said there was a god that made everything. Where did this person(s) get this information? Humans are very good at making stuff up when they can't explain it. How do we know this didn't happen thousands of years ago? Why is it that over the years know one can can be sure if there is one god or many? There are too many holes in these different faiths for me to follow any one of them. I rather stick to what I can get my hands on.

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Evolution is just another religion to try to get God out of their lives and minds.

A religion? I don't really think it's a religion, it's a theory. And you're right, the Grand Canyon could have just been carved out by God - again, it doesn't need to be proven. If you believe it, great, if you don't, great.

But I don't think evolution is completely false, like I mentioned before. Yes, God made the earth and he made the universe...and I can go on to say many more things on that, but that would turn into another topic. But I do think that we evolve here on earth, like I have mentioned before. For example, we evolve to survive in our habitat. The eskimos build are much different than people living in Africa, but they are both homo sapiens, no? While eskimos are shorter and puggy to stay warm, people who live in Africa are usually taller and skinner to stay cooler. Now I don't mean the people who have migrated there, but I mean the people that have lived in these places for hundreds and thousands of years.

There are many more examples of this kind of evolution, but I think people are scared because they feel that you can either accept the entire theory of evolution, or not accept it at all. There can be a middle ground, and the theory itself does need some work, but there is SOME truth to it.


Originally posted by mojo
for example, we did not come "from apes," but rather from beings that were "ape-like." the proof of this is that if we did, apes would still be evolving into us. since they are not, then of course there are genetic factors that come into play that prevent this and promote stasis.

Thank you for putting it in words that I could not express at the time. Learning more about this in my anthropology class makes me think, well yes...this species was ape-like, but they were not apes. We come from a close family...but you said all of this in your post. Just thanks for clearing up my confusion. :)


Originally posted by johnnymk
Most scientists agree on evolution? Which ones?
And yes, believing in evolution does deny God. God does not have to "practice" to get things right. He can create perfection the first time around. If anything, man is devolving into something lower than what he created, not into something better.
For the most part, show me an evolutionist and I will show you an atheist.
I explained in one of the earlier discussions which parts of evoltion can not be proven. I am not going to waste my time going over those points again.
Besides, the debate over evolution is such a waste of time. I am amazed that they teach it in schools as a fact.

I think you're getting a little hot and bothered over a mere discussion. But I believe in God, but because I believe in some of the ideas of evolution, I'm an atheist? Like I stated earlier, you can believe in both to an extent...and I think you just need to open your mind and remember that in the end you will believe what you believe, so does it matter if you voice your opinion? I think it's neat to just talk about intelligent things every once inawhile.

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by apmiller
I'm a firm believer in whatever some wacky scientist can tell me is real. This is do to the fact that they can show me, let me touch, smell, see and whatever. Faith is just that...faith. Someone long, long time ago said there was a god that made everything. Where did this person(s) get this information? Humans are very good at making stuff up when they can't explain it. How do we know this didn't happen thousands of years ago? Why is it that over the years know one can can be sure if there is one god or many? There are too many holes in these different faiths for me to follow any one of them. I rather stick to what I can get my hands on.

And you are indeed not the only person in the world who believes this. I mean, of course! How can anyone believe in something so farfetched? But I guess that's just me and that's just, the evolution of humans being different from each other (imagine that!). But one of your questions, where did they get the info? Well, from God of course...I believe in my deepest heart that they did, but that's my opinion. What I think is great is that you have your own opinion and that's the magic! :angel:

Edit: I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who is participating in this string, I love hearing other views because all you can do is learn from these sort of things (or get annoyed and leave), but I feel discussions are really important in life. I mean, ponder for a moment ALL of the things you have learned by word of mouth or through a discussion like this one. Anywho, that's that. Continue the discussion! I plan on bringing up other issues on my mind later.

I also wanted to say that I posted a few times to divide my ideas - I didn't want a HUGE long post for fear that no one would read it. So sorry post Gods! :laugh:

[Nija]

Originally posted by ShortStack


What I think is great is that you have your own opinion and that's the magic! :angel:



<waterboy>
magic is the devil.... momma told me so...
</waterboy>

[hapoo]

Originally posted by hoey222
ok - my question is this.....

if we are to "believe" that creature evolve from other creatures there has to be a point at which 1 species becomes another. species cannot inter breed to produce viable offspring (unless it's nija). if the evolitionary process is continuous, shouldn't there be evidence of that now. where one species becomes another.


mind you - i am not a proponent of creationism - but this is a question of evolution that puzzles me. - granted, evolution "happens" over thousands of millions of years (or whatever) but a some point..........
o good god i've gone cross-eyed



Heres just one of the ways it can happen.
Say we've got one species of lets say dog. Now, for example say we have 100 of them on and island and through some act of nature the island gets split into two. 50 dogs on one side and 50 on the other. Now lets say that because of elevation or some other reason one side has much colder winters than the other. Well the dogs that can't handle the cold will die off and the ones who are best suited will continue to pass on their genes. On the other side of the island the other dogs are going on just like they had before. After hundreds of years if you put these two dogs next to each other you'll notice that they look different. The one in the cold weather may have a thicker coat or more fat to keep them warm while the dogs from the other side look more like the original ones. Give it thousands of years and they may drift far enough to split into separate species (meaning the two cannot produce children if they were to mix).

[apmiller]

Originally posted by ShortStack


And you are indeed not the only person in the world who believes this. I mean, of course! How can anyone believe in something so farfetched? But I guess that's just me and that's just, the evolution of humans being different from each other (imagine that!). But one of your questions, where did they get the info? Well, from God of course...I believe in my deepest heart that they did, but that's my opinion. What I think is great is that you have your own opinion and that's the magic! :angel:

Nicely put...

[topane]

Originally posted by apmiller
I'm a firm believer in whatever some wacky scientist can tell me is real. This is do to the fact that they can show me, let me touch, smell, see and whatever. Faith is just that...faith. Someone long, long time ago said there was a god that made everything. Where did this person(s) get this information? Humans are very good at making stuff up when they can't explain it. How do we know this didn't happen thousands of years ago? Why is it that over the years know one can can be sure if there is one god or many? There are too many holes in these different faiths for me to follow any one of them. I rather stick to what I can get my hands on. Supernatural beings have been used over our history as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. As science has an ever-increasing ability to explain what's around us, there's less substance to the "God of the gaps" argument. Still, even if evolution is true, and the big bang theory is true, and all those other ideas are true, it doesn't mean that a supreme being does not exist. Who knows? We might build a huge telescope 200 years from now and see some guy 15 billion light-years away with puppet strings ;).

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by hapoo
Give it thousands of years and they may drift far enough to split into separate species (meaning the two cannot produce children if they were to mix).

Can you explain to me why they would produce another species? See, that's where I don't think it fits. I mean, it's the fight for the fittest, right? Well, why would a species have to change to a competely different kind of species in order to survive? This is one of the parts of evolution that is hard to swallow for me because there shouldn't be a reason for an entire species to have the need to become something else. I understand that they can change into a subspecies, but do they have the physicalicality to change into a whole new thing? I know it's a little confusing, but that's like saying a cat changed into a dog because somehow it was better. Isn't that somehow against a scientific law? Physically impossible?

[CornMonkey]

hey, look what i dug up! [beware: old thread]

http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=7037&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

i'd rather link this than repeat myself.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Blu


What we need to realize here is that some of us are devoted enough to believe in absolutes. johnnymk believes absolutely that God made earth and all it's sundry items. For johnnymk, there is no other option, b/c he absolutely believes the Bible. Others think the complete and total opposite, and do so absolutely. Why sit here and argue about it? Not much will change, you can air your opinion, which is great, but you really think that arguing the opposite will change anything?
Why sit here and argue about it???? I think we might change someone's opinion (at least just a little)
Okay, it seems fair enough to say that person X absolutely believes in the bible... I just want the people who do to know that historically people who do usually are proven wrong. And then they are laughed at (i.e.. sun at center of earth or age of earth) Usually, they have to change their interpretations of the Bible and such. Which kinda makes you wonder what is absolutely believing the Bible? Seems to me that absolutely believing in the bible is believing whatever is most convenient for you at the time

[mojo]

Originally posted by ShortStack


Can you explain to me why they would produce another species? See, that's where I don't think it fits. I mean, it's the fight for the fittest, right? Well, why would a species have to change to a competely different kind of species in order to survive? This is one of the parts of evolution that is hard to swallow for me because there shouldn't be a reason for an entire species to have the need to become something else. I understand that they can change into a subspecies, but do they have the physicalicality to change into a whole new thing? I know it's a little confusing, but that's like saying a cat changed into a dog because somehow it was better. Isn't that somehow against a scientific law? Physically impossible? if you work with a truncated timetable it would be harder to imagine. but since you're working with extended periods of time, it's not so hard.

thing of it is, a dog doesn't become a cat. it would be more likely they shared common roots than that. over a short period of time, things evolve to like things. over extended periods of time, more differences are apparent.

i know you get the basic idea of the theory of evolution. but really, the common superficial idea of it is wayyyyyy oversimplified compared to the actual theory. it does sum stuff up...but it also has confusing implications. yours is one of them.

like i said earlier, what evolves to a man didn't leave behind a bunch of things that are still evolving. those things ceased to exist or evolved into humans/hominids. it actually just takes one to create the successful offspring and cross-breed to propagate...which means that the evolutionary chain can get a new link from a single host that becomes a new "eve" for that species.

anyhow, i could go on about it for a while. but suffice it to say that apes didn't become humans, goldfish didn't become hippos, etc. you don't have to worry about coke becoming pepsi or anything like that. but over an extended period of time, things can become very different from how they started. and yes, that does include becoming what would later be recognized as a different species. it's just not so obvious because other stuff that links it died off and isn't around for the comparison.

[Blitz]

Just skimmed but I gota put my 2 cents in sorry all for bringing it up again...

One thing you got to know first and foremost, creation requires faith and so does evolution; let me ramble plz :D

Evolution:
-No evidence of so called "missing links" at all. You would think, out of all these years that we have been researching evolution we would have found one. Piltdown man, peking man, neanderthal man(which discovery chanel did a whole history about) are all false! Think it was neanderthal man which was based off of a pigs tooth? I dont feel like looking it up but one was an old man who had arthuritus, one a fake jaw bone, etc., etc., etc.
-I dont know specifics nor do I fell like looking again but I remember reading the "thing" the world and everything came out of form the big bang was the size of a period like on a piece of paper.<---(dot) It began spinning with all this force, then BANG! Wouldnt everything come out spinning the same dirrection, but we have planets that spin counter clockwise/clock wise.
-If we did evolve why do we still have apes, birds?, whales? rocks? shouldnt they be evolving at a continues rate till that race is extinct?
-Carbon dating is false, its been proven not reliable, even saw that on cnn :hmm: So dont try to prove it is...
-There are many other things that prove evolution to be false, if anyone wants to respond, I will tell you some... BUT!

Everything boils down to is God/Bible real? Why you ask?
-If God is real in Christian aspect, then that means the Bible is true.
-If the Bible is true, then everything in the Bible is true, disproving evolution therefore evolution is false and all other religions.

How is God/Bible real?
-How old is the oldest tree known to man? One we found was around 2,000 years old. How do we know? Rings inside trunk (proven to be true)
-Sahara desert expands at a rate of every 5 years I think it was, date it back, would be gone 2,000 years ago.
-Scientific studies from an "evolutionist" have proven that it is possible for all females to come from one female. (eve anyone?)
-YES there is evolution, micro and macro, they are totaly different, adaptation and total mutation.
-Remanants of the ark have been found (anker stones which held it stable durring storm..
NOTE:you may ask where is the ark then. I forgot really, think it was in turkey. Everytime there is an expidition, the border patrol interferes or a storm or wat not? Maybe "God" doesnt want to reveal it yet. (you might not understand that part unless you understand the Bible in a Christian aspect of Gods plan)
-Marry and Joseph went back to bethlehem where Jesus was born? The census was found from that time period....weird huh?
-Dead sea scrolls are original copies of the book of Isiah, we also have other texts which prove the Bibls hasnt been changed.(one evolutionist told me the Bible was changed, new king james version, etc. They are translations. Like Dante's inferno, there are so many translations, but only one original)
-All prophecys in the Bible have come TRUE! Many years ago everyone would have scoffed about Isreal becomming a nation again, it did didnt it..only one prophecy remains to be fullfilled, I will let you find that one out.
-Architectual evidences of sights from the books of the Bible
-More if you want can be listed.

I am a Christian to let you know, but I am open to any evidence of Evolution, I would even change to believe Evolution if one could prove it...no one has(If you think you can do you want $250,000? visit www.drdino.com and prove it to Dr.kent hoven and get the money...no one has). BOTH are based on FAITH! Now think about this, the Bible says God created the world(eye witness),evolution accident/big bang(no eyewitness)...which would you rather believe?

Now this does bring up topics about other religions, and if it turns into that I will post some stuff if you would like..This summer two evolutions challenged me about my faith, at the end of the summer they both didnt believe in evolution. I am not trying to convert you to Christianity, because it is your choice. I am only laying out facts, and you can judge on your own from those.

Sorry its so long...I'll go back to the Angel game now...

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by Blitz
your stuffs.
hey, you said a lot of the things i said in that old thread i posted. did we read the same resource? hmm...

[Blitz]

Sorry I didnt read to much of the stuff lol...

im watching the angels game..

and for those of you who arent, OMG!!!!! YEA GO ANGELS! YEAH! its 10-4, nice play...WATCH IT NOW!

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Blu


What we need to realize here is that some of us are devoted enough to believe in absolutes. johnnymk believes absolutely that God made earth and all it's sundry items. For johnnymk, there is no other option, b/c he absolutely believes the Bible. Others think the complete and total opposite, and do so absolutely. Why sit here and argue about it? Not much will change, you can air your opinion, which is great, but you really think that arguing the opposite will change anything?
very good comments, blu.

i happen to be one who believes in absolutes enough to accept the creation story from the bible as fact. however, i'm open to other perspectives, and have heard much information about evolution from a variety of sources.

quite frankly, i've found none of it to be convincing. perhaps it is my pre-existing biases, but i've changed my mind about a hell of a lot of topics over my lifetime, and i have yet to run across arguments in favor of evolution that even began to convince me.

what it comes down to, contrary to what some people said earlier in this thread, is that scientists come to the issue with their own perspectives. they are looking at the past, and trying to reconstruct what happened at a time when they could not see what was happening. creationists, just as much as evolutionists, have these biases. both theories require that one ignore some pieces that don't seem to fit with the rest of the theory. and both require that you put your faith in the explainations that are being offered to explain an often unclear fact pattern.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Evolution is not "observable". How can you prove something happened a million years ago, much less hundreds of millions of years ago.
And yes, scientists do disagree over evolution versus creation. If all scientists believed in evoltion,there wouldn't be the debate that has gone on in the past 150 years.
Show me which part of evolution will pass the test of the scientific method. It's a theory and will remain one for a long time, because there are no facts to back it up. As to the Grand Canyon being formed from the flood, where did you read that? If God created all of the planets and the mountains and the vallys of the Earth, I really don't think it would be a big deal to carve canyons out of the dirt and rock. Besides, he was the one who ordered the flood to happen, anyway.
Evolution is just another religion to try to get God out of their lives and minds.

Evolution is every bit as concrete a theory as anything else in science. In fact, it's understood quite a bit better than most things because it's very logical. The only scientists who don't agree w/ Evolutionary theory are those that do so for religious reasons. There is NO valid scientific data that refutes evolutionary theory. The only reason this is such a debated topic is because it doesn't jive with religious teachings.

[hapoo]

Guess it all depends on how literally you take the bible. If you look at it figuratively i see no problem with it. Just the way a particle can behave as matter and as a wave at the same time, i feel both the literal and figurative interpretations must exist.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Blu


What we need to realize here is that some of us are devoted enough to believe in absolutes. johnnymk believes absolutely that God made earth and all it's sundry items. For johnnymk, there is no other option, b/c he absolutely believes the Bible. Others think the complete and total opposite, and do so absolutely. Why sit here and argue about it? Not much will change, you can air your opinion, which is great, but you really think that arguing the opposite will change anything?

Yes, debating this is very useful. If we all come to the table with an open mind and objectively state our views, perhaps we'll be better able to understand each other. Probably our beliefs won't change much, if at all, but hopefully one side will be able to appreciate the other a bit more, rather than writing them off as "a bunch of idiots".

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


Evolution is every bit as concrete a theory as anything else in science. In fact, it's understood quite a bit better than most things because it's very logical. The only scientists who don't agree w/ Evolutionary theory are those that do so for religious reasons. There is NO valid scientific data that refutes evolutionary theory. The only reason this is such a debated topic is because it doesn't jive with religious teachings.
actually, microevolution, or adaptation, is pretty concrete. but Evolution, with a capital "E," (man forming from slime) doesn't have much substance to it.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by ShortStack



I totally agree, but I don't think evolution has been completely proven in some aspects, like in the aspects of macroevolution. (and excuse me for my misuse of vocabulary). I still think there are too many holes in macroevolution, for example, like someone mentioned before, why aren't we still evolving into new species? How is it possible for one species to become a whole new species? I just can't imagine it...something higher had to help, or perhaps that's just the religion kicking in. But I do ABSOLUTELY agree, beyond no doubt, that microevolution is true.

Who said we stopped evolving? The human population changes just as much as anything ever has. Look at Africa and the effect that malaria has had on its population. The reason that sickle cell anemia exists is because it provides a significant resistance to malaria. Over the past few thousand years the incidence of sickle cell anemia has grown very rapidly because of this. Effectively, the population of Africa has evolved to deal with the influence of malaria. There are many, many examples similar to this where the human population can be shown to have undergone evolution on a small scale.

As far as macroevolution goes, there are many mechanisms by which species can evolve. Consider the classic example of Darwin's Finches. As Darwin explored some of the small islands off the West coast of South America, he noticed that many of these islands had similar, but different, species of finches. He theorized that long ago the islands were colonized by a few individuals of the same species. Due to different habitats, climates, food sources, etc... each island promoted certain microevolutionary changes in the population (ie. the finches on one island evolved to eat ants, while the ones on another evolved to eat seeds, etc..). Eventually enough of these changes occured that the finches could no longer interbred, meaning that they must be considered different species. In this example, isolation from each other in different environments caused the finches to evolve in different directions. linkage (http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/Courses/Heins/Evolution/lecture17.html)

It is likely that somewhere on the web there's a Christian science web page that will try to refute the example of Darwin's finches. Keep in mind that the goal of such sites is to defend the religious view point, rather than to objectively and scientifically test the hypothesis. Considering this, anything they have to say really doesn't mean jack. There is no valid scientific data from a solid objective source that disproves the example.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Blitz
-If we did evolve why do we still have apes, birds?, whales? rocks? shouldnt they be evolving at a continues rate till that race is extinct?because you don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. you already made up your mind, so won't actually read about it to understand that you oversimplified something.

oh, and your other points...there is evidence. you'll find a lot of it in an anthropology class.

instead of skimming the thread, you may do well to read it. it would actually address a lot that you seem to misrepresent.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by CornMonkey

actually, microevolution, or adaptation, is pretty concrete. but Evolution, with a capital "E," (man forming from slime) doesn't have much substance to it.

It is easy to say that macroevolution is a bunch of BS. Humans look nothing like birds, fish, or amoebae. Why the heck would a bunch of crazy scientists suggest that we all came from the same place? Here's some good evidence.

If you look at all life at the biochemical level, it's nearly identical. Amoeba and fish and humans and every other type of organism utilizes energy in the same way. Glucose is broken down and converted into ATP by the same mechanisms. All organisms have DNA and reproduce by copying this DNA and distributing it in the same way. The biochemical pathways are the same, regardless of what an organism looks like. There are hundreds, thousands of ways in which these functions could be performed. Yet we all seem to do things in the same ways. Interesting.

Compare life at the cellular level. A human liver cell looks identical to an ape liver cell, which looks identical to a fish liver cell, etc. Heck, compare a human macrophage to an amoeba- you'll see very few differences. All cells have the same parts that perform the same functions by the same biochemical pathways. Aside from the obvious differences in appearance, all life is very similar and is based on the same basic blueprint. All of this screams one thing: COMMON ANCESTOR!!

[ufcrusher]

Originally posted by johnnymk
I knew that once I entered into this discussion, it would end up the way it always does. I believe it was about a year ago that this topic was discussed ad nauseum and the same arguments were made.
I am no longer discussing such a silly topic. I don't believe in old wive's tales and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
If 94% of today's scientists want to believe in nonsense, let them. Until mankind evolves into living forever and defeats death, then put me on the evolution bandwagon. I know it ain't gonna happen, though.
End of discussion.

Ok, I wasnt going to lambast anyones point of view, but you are comparing evolution to the easter bunny? I mean come on...if anything, G-D would be the thing to compare to the easter bunny. Evolution, through the use of bones and other scientificly provable things, can be shown. Show me G-d through the same methods?

As for my thoughts, I think its clear, I believe in evolution. It might help that I have an anthropology degree so I have played with the bones of our ancestors. I also find it interesting that creationist say that G-d made us in his image. So what is he, white, african american, hispanic, asian? Does he (or she) have to wear glasses? Have sickle cell? Have Downs syndrome? I mean these are all things that are present in the world....and if he put everything here and created it perfectly, why are these things here?

I have no problem with people wanting to believe in G-d. He might exist..and just in case, I follow my religion and believe in certain parts. But I think its ludicrious to believe creationist theory to its end point. Maybe God created the first bacteria...but I think ever since then evolution has had the major say.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Blitz
Just skimmed but I gota put my 2 cents in sorry all for bringing it up again...

One thing you got to know first and foremost, creation requires faith and so does evolution; let me ramble plz :D

Evolution:
-No evidence of so called "missing links" at all. You would think, out of all these years that we have been researching evolution we would have found one. Piltdown man, peking man, neanderthal man(which discovery chanel did a whole history about) are all false! Think it was neanderthal man which was based off of a pigs tooth? I dont feel like looking it up but one was an old man who had arthuritus, one a fake jaw bone, etc., etc., etc.

Please DO look it up. Your claims aren't valid if you can't support them.

One theory that explains the relative lack of "missing links" is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This suggests that evolution is more sporatic than gradual in nature. Thus, "missing links" don't exist for more than a few dozen generations- mere seconds in the grand scheme of things- and thus account for a very small number of the individuals that have ever lived.

http://rainbow.ldgo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/gradpunct.gif linky (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html)


-I dont know specifics nor do I fell like looking again but I remember reading the "thing" the world and everything came out of form the big bang was the size of a period like on a piece of paper.<---(dot) It began spinning with all this force, then BANG! Wouldnt everything come out spinning the same dirrection, but we have planets that spin counter clockwise/clock wise.
I'll leave this to the physicists. Not relevant to evolution.


-If we did evolve why do we still have apes, birds?, whales? rocks? shouldnt they be evolving at a continues rate till that race is extinct?
Apes and birds and whales still exist because there are places in the environment (niches) in which they survive the best. Humans can not live in the ocean and eat the things that whales eat; thus we have not out-competed them or taken over their niche. They're better suited to that kind of life than we are.

And they ARE still evolving. Who said they stopped? Whales are still evolving to become better whales, to better survive and better exploit their niches. Each generation of whale is in some small way better at being a whale than the one before it.


-Carbon dating is false, its been proven not reliable, even saw that on cnn :hmm: So dont try to prove it is...


Again, please support your claims. Cite some objective, peer-reviewed publications that "prove" this. It is in the best interest of scientists to know the truth. There is no set agenda that we're out to prove. We only want to know the truth. If carbon dating is that unreliable, it would've been abandonned long ago.



-There are many other things that prove evolution to be false, if anyone wants to respond, I will tell you some... BUT!
Please do.



Everything boils down to is God/Bible real? Why you ask?
-If God is real in Christian aspect, then that means the Bible is true.
-If the Bible is true, then everything in the Bible is true, disproving evolution therefore evolution is false and all other religions.
Those are very big 'if's, and the logic sounds kinda screwy to me.



How is God/Bible real?
-How old is the oldest tree known to man? One we found was around 2,000 years old. How do we know? Rings inside trunk (proven to be true)
Bristlecone pines have been aged at around 5000 years old.linky1 (http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/bristlecone_pine.htm) linky2 (http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/inyo/vvc/bcp/trees.htm)
[b] [QUOTE]

-Sahara desert expands at a rate of every 5 years I think it was, date it back, would be gone 2,000 years ago.

Provide a reference? I'm not familiar w/ this argument, but it must assume that the Sahara's expansion is constant. Sounds kinda shallow.



-Scientific studies from an "evolutionist" have proven that it is possible for all females to come from one female. (eve anyone?)

WTF are you talking about?

BTW, the word "prove" has no place in science.



-YES there is evolution, micro and macro, they are totaly different, adaptation and total mutation.

Okay, so now evolution does occur? I'm not understanding you.

[hapoo]

the Summation of all Microevolution = Macroevolution

[Memo]

Evolution. That's all there is to it. Is it really that hard to believe that some unexplained event created life? People focus so much on trying to prove where man came from. So they come up with "God." But where did "God" come from? Oh right, he just appeared. But it's IMPOSSIBLE for an Amoeba to just appear and evolve.

I'll never understand religion or why people even waste their time with it. Like it's been said above, everyone already has their thoughts set, discussing will do nothing. Sure I UNDERSTAND that people believe in creationism and god and I respect it? But when it comes down to it, I still believe their thoughts are idiotic. And comparing evolutino to the Easter Bunny? haha! If anything should be compared to the Easter Bunny is God.

I think my favoritel little CJ site said it best:


I contend that we are both atheists -- I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by UT Memo

I think my favorite little CJ site said it best:



Whoa, I like. Who said that???

[kimchicowboy]

if y'all are so confident about evolution, take this test and win $250,000!

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

this reminds me of a old comic strip from the cartoon "bloom county." one character is explaining the big bang. another asks "what came before the big bang?" the first character replies "yupp, one big bang." the 2nd again asks, "but what about before the big bang?" the first gets frustrated and says "that's all there is! a big bang! it makes complete sense!" heheh. :P

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by kimchicowboy
if y'all are so confident about evolution, take this test and win $250,000!

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

this reminds me of a old comic strip from the cartoon "bloom county." one character is explaining the big bang. another asks "what came before the big bang?" the first character replies "yupp, one big bang." the 2nd again asks, "but what about before the big bang?" the first gets frustrated and says "that's all there is! a big bang! it makes complete sense!" heheh. :P

Let me clear up a few common misconceptions:

1) Evolution does not explain the origins of the universe. Evolution and the Big Bang are two separate and unrelated theories.

2) Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution merely explains how all life forms on this planet diversified from a common ancestor. It says nothing about where the first organism(s) came from.
---

"How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence"

The contest is a joke. Scroll down to the bottom of that contest and look at what they want you to "prove". It is blatantly obvious that that organizer of this contest hasn't made the slightest attempt to understand Evolutionary theory (see the misconceptions listed above).

Furthermore, these people do not understand the process of science. There is no place for the word "prove" in science. That's simply not how things work. The goal of science is to offer the best explanation for a set of observations in the form of a theory. The theory is then tested until it is disproven, and until it that happens, it can be considered true. In science, a theory is fact until it is disproven. Proof is not the goal, nor is it possible. Essentially, theories can be proven wrong, but never can be proven right. Additionally, it is the nature of science to ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING. To say that evolution is the only scientific explanation is contradictory. There are always other possibilities. Our job is to try to figure out which is most likely. No scientist will ever rightly tell you "this is the only possiblity" or "this is proven".

A more appropriate contest would be this:

To all the creationists: offer me empirical evidence showing that evolutionary theory is flawed. If I had the $quarter million, I'd put it up in a heart beat.

[Napoleon54]

I've yet to recieve anything close a satisfactory answer to this question: If you can posit a God that has always existed, then why can't I posit a universe that has always existed?

[mojo]

Originally posted by ShortStack
Thank you for putting it in words that I could not express at the time. Learning more about this in my anthropology class makes me think, well yes...this species was ape-like, but they were not apes. We come from a close family...but you said all of this in your post. Just thanks for clearing up my confusion. :) my bad. i just noticed this. glad someone got something out of it. i mean, maybe someone else did as well that didnt say...but you did, so...well you know what i mean.

i hope you enjoy anthropology as much as i did :)

[Napoleon54]

There seems to be a belief among the Creationist camp that scientists are banded together in defense of Evolution, that we have a theory and we're going to stick by it to no end. That's a religious mind set and does not apply to scientists. Let me explain.


Darwin published The Origin of Species (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/) in 1859. That's absolutely ANCIENT as far as modern science is concerned. Everybody, scientists and non-scientists alike, knows the name of Darwin. He's one of the most famous scientists in history, up there with Newton, Edison, etc. That's because Evolution disproved a lot of other theories (ex. Lamarch), and has itself yet to be disproven. I personally would LOVE to disprove Darwin, as would any other scientist. That's easily Nobel Prize material. Science rewards new discoveries. If Darwin were disproved the scientific community would go nuts with excitement. It'd be huge, the discovery of the century. Trust me, we'd like it even more than the Creationists. The new theory would better explain the world around us, which is the goal of science.

This is where science and religion differ. Religion holds to a set of beliefs that are absolute, handed down from God, no questions asked. Religion is not flexible and the ideas do not change, whereas science is all about asking questions and discovering new answers. Where religion is based on faith and stability, science is based on questioning and discovery.

[topane]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


Whoa, I like. Who said that??? Stephen Roberts.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


It is easy to say that macroevolution is a bunch of BS. Humans look nothing like birds, fish, or amoebae. Why the heck would a bunch of crazy scientists suggest that we all came from the same place? Here's some good evidence.

If you look at all life at the biochemical level, it's nearly identical. Amoeba and fish and humans and every other type of organism utilizes energy in the same way. Glucose is broken down and converted into ATP by the same mechanisms. All organisms have DNA and reproduce by copying this DNA and distributing it in the same way. The biochemical pathways are the same, regardless of what an organism looks like. There are hundreds, thousands of ways in which these functions could be performed. Yet we all seem to do things in the same ways. Interesting.

Compare life at the cellular level. A human liver cell looks identical to an ape liver cell, which looks identical to a fish liver cell, etc. Heck, compare a human macrophage to an amoeba- you'll see very few differences. All cells have the same parts that perform the same functions by the same biochemical pathways. Aside from the obvious differences in appearance, all life is very similar and is based on the same basic blueprint. All of this screams one thing: COMMON ANCESTOR!!
this is an example of what i was talking about above.

each of us comes to this debate with our preconceived idea of what theory is true and what isn't.

there is absolutely no reason why all of the above evidence couldn't "scream" one thing: COMMON CREATOR!!

if indeed the universe is the result of the work of an intelligent creator, why wouldn't we see similar systems duplicated throughout? i mean, there's no sense in re-inventing the wheel. if you have a cell structure that works for monkey livers, there is no reason not to use the same structure for a human liver.

so to someone coming from a creationist perspective, this is perfectly rational evidence for the idea of an intelligent creator.

to someone coming from an evolutionary perspective, it is rational evidence for the idea of evolutionary origins.

who's right? who's wrong? who knows....my point is that our perconceptions strongly color the way we interpret evidence.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by whitak24

so to someone coming from a creationist perspective, this is perfectly rational evidence for the idea of an intelligent creator.

to someone coming from an evolutionary perspective, it is rational evidence for the idea of evolutionary origins.



I'll not disagree with that.

My intention was to show some scientific evidence for macroevolution, to support the claim that it is a sound theory, because the scientific basis of evolution has been questioned. Hopefully I've been able to clarify the scientific view point to some degree. As far as science is concerned, evolution is as good as gold. An effective argument against evolution will not be have a scientific basis. Religion is another matter entirely.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by whitak24

if indeed the universe is the result of the work of an intelligent creator, why wouldn't we see similar systems duplicated throughout? i mean, there's no sense in re-inventing the wheel.

Hmmmm... code re-use....

Was God the first java developer??

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by hapoo
the Summation of all Microevolution = Macroevolution

AYE! Very true. If you can accept that the Earth is several billion years old and life on it has existed for a good portion of that time, then the microevolution logically leads to macroevolutionary change.

[CornMonkey]

i disagree. microevolution deals with horizontal change whereas macroevolution deals with vertical change. the two aren't tied together as closely as we would like to think.

some quotes from a 1980 Univ. of Chicago conference on "Macroevolution" (http://www.id.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/ORIGINS/QUOTES/macroevolution.html):

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."

"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."

mind you, this was a conference of leading evolutionist thinkers.


as for carbon dating, it's accurate to a degree. it's limited only up to a few thousand years. some speculate up to 16,000...others 65,000. in any case, it's nowhere in the millions. a quick google search should give the proof you need.

[Blitz]

:thumb: for cornmonkey!

Im sorry, I am not expert I will admit! I will look for all the articles and shows etc so I can show you, might take a little bit. It was on cnn long time ago but I will look. Anywho, everything corn said from the convention sumed up everything I said.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."

"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."

mind you, this was a conference of leading evolutionist thinkers.

Even evolutionists are doubting their own "beliefs" because there is no factual evidence of evolution! And dont say "oh now you believe in evolution" as there are differences between micro and macro evolution.

Really, if you are confident there is factual evidence, PROVE IT! Like I said before, why dont you just take 250k with you as well while you prove it. No one else has, and you believe you can?

Then you change the topic like most evolutionists do to "prove creation". Funny..remember hearing a quote from one of the guys who researched the dead sea scrolls, it went somethig like..Even if Jesus was alive today, not everyone would believe He is the Son of God. And really, if He did come back to earth this very moment, not everyone would believe, nor did everyone believe when He was on the earth. Read the bible! Did everyone who heard His teachings head His words? think not...

Oh yea, one last note to all you who "believe" inevolution. Why would discovery chanel make a show dedicated to Neanderthal man, reiterating on the whole history, and adaptaion of how it went throughout history, then evolve into common man when NEANDERTHAL NEVER EXISTED! The only remanant found that Neanderthal was based on was FAKE!ITS NOT REAL!.... if a lie is told loud enough and long enough, people will start to believe it.

heres a link for some of you evolutionists..prind this out then answer the questions and read on....post your answers here to all the questions..just want to see what you get.Questions for evolutionists (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=3)

[InfiniteNothing]

I am sick of seeing this. The Chicago convention was before I was even born. There is much better evidence now that microevolution may accumulate. As to "large evolutionary innovations" They have been observed. Man has been able to create new species of insects. If man can do this within the time frame of a couple weeks, imagine what could happen in 150,000 years or even 3,000,000,000 years. In any case there is other evidence and even if you can disprove this, the other evidence still stands.
I hope no one will ever mention that stupid 1/4 million contest. It's rigged and they want us to prove things that have little to do with evolution. As to that creationist question linky, those questions were answerable, but, again have little to do with evolution which is the current debate. I bet I could come up with some pretty tough questions too (where did God come from?etc.)
Lastly, I learned in high school that we didn't evolve through neanderthals. At the time I heard they went extinct but that may have changed if in fact you say it was fake. I heard that we evolved through a different path (erectus, cromagnon, sapien, and finally sapien sapien) Some one can verify this with reliable sources.
Lastly, you are soooooo right, Carbon dating does work in a certain range. But, you show your ignorance. Scientists are not limited to carbon dating. While carbon has a half life of 5730 years and gives us the perfect range (not too much of it not too little after tens of thousands of years) Potassium 40 has a half life of 1.26*10^9 years.
Okay that wasn't lastly. I want to demonstrate that similar liver cells, energy conversion, macrophage, etc points to a natural process (eg. evolution) and not a common creator
There's a little something called Occam's Razor. Over simplifying, it means take the simplest solution. We have two possibilities:
Life is complex and came about of a natural procces OR
Life is complex and was created by a complex perfect God who left behind misleading evidence
Clearly my way is simpler and therefore, mine is more probable.
Also, DNA evidence recomends that there was no creator, just a natural proccess (It had to do with randomness. Also it recomends a creator would have taken a different path than nature and arive at the same result. Unless of course he/she was trying to mislead us into thinking it was natural)

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by CornMonkey
i disagree. microevolution deals with horizontal change whereas macroevolution deals with vertical change. the two aren't tied together as closely as we would like to think.

Please describe what you mean by vertical vs. horizontal changes.


some quotes from a 1980 Univ. of Chicago conference on "Macroevolution" (http://www.id.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/ORIGINS/QUOTES/macroevolution.html):

Who made these statements?


[i]"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Please explain what they mean by "doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting".


"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."

Punctuated Evolution is the current explanation for gaps in the fossil record. I've discussed it before.



"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."

If you come up with a better way of explaining macroevolution, I'll be glad to hear it. Remember, everything in science is truth until its proven false. Please disprove macroevolution.


as for carbon dating, it's accurate to a degree. it's limited only up to a few thousand years. some speculate up to 16,000...others 65,000. in any case, it's nowhere in the millions. a quick google search should give the proof you need.

That sounds reasonable.

[topane]

Originally posted by Blitz
Really, if you are confident there is factual evidence, PROVE IT! Like I said before, why dont you just take 250k with you as well while you prove it. No one else has, and you believe you can?

...

heres a link for some of you evolutionists..prind this out then answer the questions and read on....post your answers here to all the questions..just want to see what you get.Questions for evolutionists (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=3) Kent Hovind is full of more hot air than the Goodyear blimp. He uses old creationist arguments which even Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org) says not to use. Do a little searching about Hovind on the 'net. You'll be a bit surprised at what you see.

His list of questions covers areas which aren't remotely related to evolution. How would evolution explain the big bang? It wouldn't because the big bang has nothing to do with evolution!! Sheesh.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Blitz

Even evolutionists are doubting their own "beliefs" because there is no factual evidence of evolution! And dont say "oh now you believe in evolution" as there are differences between micro and macro evolution.
Abundant evidence has already been presented in this thread.


Really, if you are confident there is factual evidence, PROVE IT! Like I said before, why dont you just take 250k with you as well while you prove it. No one else has, and you believe you can?
I already addressed that contest. Why don't you accept MY challenge, eh? Prove that evolutionary theory is flawed.



Oh yea, one last note to all you who "believe" inevolution. Why would discovery chanel make a show dedicated to Neanderthal man, reiterating on the whole history, and adaptaion of how it went throughout history, then evolve into common man when NEANDERTHAL NEVER EXISTED! The only remanant found that Neanderthal was based on was FAKE!ITS NOT REAL!....
I dunno, and what relevence does this have? Please support your claim about Neandertal man.


if a lie is told loud enough and long enough, people will start to believe it.
Funny, I think that statement describes Creationism rather well.


heres a link for some of you evolutionists..prind this out then answer the questions and read on....post your answers here to all the questions..just want to see what you get.Questions for evolutionists (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=3)

I'd love to.

Round #1

1-5: Irrelevant. These are questions for the physicists and have nothing to do with Evolution.

6: Irrelevant. Evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the origins of life.

7-10: Irrelevant. Evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for the diversification of life. It does not attempt to answer every little question. There is much that we do not know with much certainty; however, this does not mean that there are no answers. They simply have yet to be discovered.

11. Sure it's possible. So what? Evolution is still the best scientific explanation. Go ahead and disprove it.

12. Not true. Populations are always changing. Every individual is different. Diversity, not conformity, is a major hallmark of life.

13- 15: Irrelevant, for the same reasons as for 7-10.

16. Not true. Evolution is taught because it is the best explanation and it has not been disproven. Again, please disprove evolution and we'll gladly move on to something better.

17-21: More irrelevancy.

22. I'm a scientist.

23. I'd say that's pretty cool, may I see it?

24. Evolution doesn't predict. It explains things that have already happened.

25. WTF??

26. I dunno. So?

------ Interlude-------

Round #2

1. They are reasonable. Nothing is proveable, only disproveable. And no, I'm not certain that they're right. There very well could be a better explanation, but I have yet to see it. Again, please disprove evolution.

2. My answers do not rely on faith. They rely on observations.

3. Sure, God could have created the universe. I never said He didn't. This question is irrelevant. Evolution does not deal with the creation of the universe. Talk to a physicist.

4. Yes. It is a sound scientific theory. It will be considered fact until it is disproven. Please disprove evolution.

5. I dunno.

6. All of the above are possible. More likely, however, is that they accept evolution because there is no reason, other than religious, not to accept it. It is a scientifically valid theory that has not been disproven.

7. There is plenty of good evidence, whether your religion agrees or not.

8. Religious based theories (those based on the Bible, etc) can not be taught in public schools. If parents are unwilling to present religous theories at home and in church, then send the kids to a private school.

9. I risk nothing. I'm open minded and welcome new ideas.

10. Again, religious theories have no place in public schools. Evolution is a valid scientific theory, not a religious ideology.

11. No., and no.

12. I'm not interested, but thanks for the offer. I already participate in a Bible study group.

[hapoo]

Originally posted by CornMonkey

as for carbon dating, it's accurate to a degree. it's limited only up to a few thousand years. some speculate up to 16,000...others 65,000. in any case, it's nowhere in the millions. a quick google search should give the proof you need.





WAIT?!
I thought the earth was only 5000 years old or something? If carbon dating is acurate up to 65 thousand years, and we have found objects to be that old, how could that be?

[Cantacuzene]

I've been offline for a while so I don't wanna dredge up replies to things said in page 1 or 2.

Blitz, you can't just say Neanderthal man never existed. One, you have yet to show evidence in favor of your opinion, and secondly, that evidence can't be one scientists interpretation, it has to be the conclusion of many, AND the best theory based on all the evidence.

I don't trust ancient man enough to use his calender. I don't trust ancient man enough to use his medical practices. I don't trust ancient man enough to use his hygene practices. I don't trust ancient man enough to use his systems of government. Why should I be expected to believe in ancient science?

As far as the Chicago Convention, this is one of those things that creationists point out always. Its like, "look, one group of evolutionists 20 years ago didnt agree with the theory, so it must be false!" By that same logic, I could point out a group of religious scholars who don't take Genesis word for word and that would be sufficent to disprove Genesis.

Evolution will only be disproved when a more accurate theory is proposed, based on empirical data. Like when Einstien replaced Newtons laws because he had better empirical data.

I'm sure the current notions of evolution will eventually change. Little by little some aspects will be added and others dropped, until eventually there is an entirely new theory compared to what we have now. Hmmmmm, what does that sound like? :P

[Napoleon54]

Cornmonkey, Blitz, et. al-

Seeing that you don't like evolution, could you discuss what you do believe?

[Cantacuzene]

As far as the age of the earth is concerned, according to the Bible it would be at oldest 10,000 years.

10,000 years ago humans were already here and well established. Wheat domestication was and still is the greatest event in human history, and I dare anyone to challenge that. human civilization would only have gotten so far without wheat agriculture. Wheat domestication takes thousands of years. To think the world was created in 8000bc and then a few hundred years later humans domesticated wheat is ridiculous.

And frankly, we humans are good hunters and tool makers, but we arent good enough to have wiped out all the dinosaurs in the 2000 years from the "creation" of the earth to written history.

So Blitz has decreed that the oldest tree is 2000 years old. What does that prove? It proves that trees can grow to be 2000 years old. Julius Caesar is 100 years older than that tree. I'm sure there were trees on the planet in his day. In fact, I'm sure there were trees during Hammurubi's day 6000 years ago.

You say that the saharra expands 5 miles in a given length of time and that if done in reverse it makes it nothing at the turn of the AD days. So you assume that it has been expanding at a constant the whole time? It rained 3 inches yesterday. Does that mean it will rain 3 inches today? The desert has expanded that much since we started measuring it the 1800's. The Earth's climate has gotten much hotter (on a geological scale) since we started measuring it. To further disprove your theory. Alexander the Great traversed the Saharra to get to the Oracle of Siwae. He traversed the Saharra in 330 bc, a full 330 years before you claim it existed! And he only crossed a tiny part of it, in fact Siwae was an oasis in the outlying area.

I think its fair to say the Earth is a bit older than 2000 years old. More to the order of 4 billion.

[hapoo]

Originally posted by Yossarian
earth is about 3 billion years old hapoo...written history has been around for about 5k years tho.



I'll be sure and use the <sarcasm> tags next time i know your going to read one of my posts.

[topane]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
As far as the Chicago Convention, this is one of those things that creationists point out always. Its like, "look, one group of evolutionists 20 years ago didnt agree with the theory, so it must be false!" It's almost become a political smear campaign. They can't disprove it scientifically, so they resort to grasping at straws. Rather than tout the merits of their own "scientific" research, they just attack and attack, hoping something will stick.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
As far as the Chicago Convention, this is one of those things that creationists point out always. Its like, "look, one group of evolutionists 20 years ago didnt agree with the theory, so it must be false!" By that same logic, I could point out a group of religious scholars who don't take Genesis word for word and that would be sufficent to disprove Genesis.
i think that the "conclusions" of the Chicago Convention were brought up in response to what hapoo said a few pages back: "macroevolution = the sum of all microevolution" (or something like that).

the conclusion of the chicago conference seems pretty clear to me: they said that processes that enable microevolution are not sufficient to explain how macroevolution occurs. moreover, since there is not "current macroevolution" that they know of, they can't examine it to see what processes it does use. therefore, they concluded (although it went against the opinions of some at the conference) that microevolutionary theory was not sufficient to explain macroevolution.

so what does this mean? it means that there is at least some scientific belief that macroevolution <> the sum of all microevolution.

just because one conference 20 years ago said it, does that make it true? of course not. but it is a point to consider: at least some scientists say microevolution does not explain macroevolution.

did the conclusions this conference call into doubt the validity of the concept of macroevolution? no. i don't think anyone said it did (if they did, then they should have read what they were quoting more closely). it just points out that according to the majority of scientists at this conference, you can not only have microevolution without macroevolution, the former cannot be used to explain the latter.

[Blitz]

"Blitz, you can't just say Neanderthal man never existed. One, you have yet to show evidence in favor of your opinion, and secondly, that evidence can't be one scientists interpretation, it has to be the conclusion of many, AND the best theory based on all the evidence."

Want me to find out who discovered Neanderthal man? I will look it up then, but you can to if you want. Who discovered it? Most likely one man. So you believe that something is real based on one man, why cant I disprove it with one man then? Read on..

Heidelberg Man- Built from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human

Nebraska Man- Scientificly built up from one tooth and later found to be a tooth of a pig

Piltdown Man- Jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape

Peking Man- 50,000 years old. All evidence has dissapeared

Cantacuzene this one is just for you :bigmouth:

Neanderthal Man- At the Int'l Congress of Zoology(1958) Dr.A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal Skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from artheritis. On the Discovery chanel, they showed how they grew up, survived the wild terrain, had nose's specially evolved to endure the cold...It was disproven in 1958!

Modern Man- thinks they came from apes

WHY would I have to prove this when you could your self. The internet is a great source of information, you could find out who disproved these things yourself and who found them. Fact is..well...there not real..

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Blitz

WHY would I have to prove this when you could your self. The internet is a great source of information, you could find out who disproved these things yourself and who found them. Fact is..well...there not real..

YOU are the one making these claims. The onus of supporting YOUR claims is on YOU, not everyone else.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Blitz
"Blitz, you can't just say Neanderthal man never existed. One, you have yet to show evidence in favor of your opinion, and secondly, that evidence can't be one scientists interpretation, it has to be the conclusion of many, AND the best theory based on all the evidence."

Want me to find out who discovered Neanderthal man? I will look it up then, but you can to if you want. Who discovered it? Most likely one man. So you believe that something is real based on one man, why cant I disprove it with one man then? Read on..
<snip>
Neanderthal Man- At the Int'l Congress of Zoology(1958) Dr.A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal Skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from artheritis. On the Discovery chanel, they showed how they grew up, survived the wild terrain, had nose's specially evolved to endure the cold...It was disproven in 1958!
<snip>and all this time i thought that homo sapiens neandertalensis was discovered first in the neander valley in germany in 1857. and the skullcap would suggest far more going on than arthritis.

and btw, they've found the remains of over a hundred hsn individuals. saying that one was a homo sapiens sapiens with arthritis says very little about the rest.

[Blitz]

"YOU are the one making these claims. The onus of supporting YOUR claims is on YOU, not everyone else."

Really, if evolution has enough facts and evidence that has been proven, I would believe it myself...You are asking me find stuff so I am. Without me asking these questions, stating what scientists have stated, then it would be like letting germany win ww2 and the states not stepping in to help. We have to ask these questions to further our knowledge for our own purpose, and for the purpose of the world. Now for your own good, to know what you know is true for sure, you could by yourself research this while I do. You cant waste time trying to discover truth :D

"and all this time i thought that homo sapiens neandertalensis was discovered first in the neander valley in germany in 1857. and the skullcap would suggest far more going on than arthritis.

and btw, they've found the remains of over a hundred hsn individuals. saying that one was a homo sapiens sapiens with arthritis says very little about the rest."

Really now? I didnt know this, I will look into it. But like most of you said, about conventions and all this jiberish being "old". Well those bones or what not are old, this discovery of the "man" being arthritis was recent. You wanted recent stuff didnt you? But I will look into the other hundreds of findings...any links? would help me a little...

as I said before, I seek the truth and nothing more.

[kimchicowboy]

Originally posted by Napoleon54

"How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence"

The contest is a joke. Scroll down to the bottom of that contest and look at what they want you to "prove". It is blatantly obvious that that organizer of this contest hasn't made the slightest attempt to understand Evolutionary theory (see the misconceptions listed above).

Furthermore, these people do not understand the process of science. There is no place for the word "prove" in science. That's simply not how things work. The goal of science is to offer the best explanation for a set of observations in the form of a theory. The theory is then tested until it is disproven, and until it that happens, it can be considered true. In science, a theory is fact until it is disproven. Proof is not the goal, nor is it possible. Essentially, theories can be proven wrong, but never can be proven right. Additionally, it is the nature of science to ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING. To say that evolution is the only scientific explanation is contradictory. There are always other possibilities. Our job is to try to figure out which is most likely. No scientist will ever rightly tell you "this is the only possiblity" or "this is proven".

A more appropriate contest would be this:

To all the creationists: offer me empirical evidence showing that evolutionary theory is flawed. If I had the $quarter million, I'd put it up in a heart beat.
why don't you e-mail the guy and ask him to clarify things up? :P

and in the above statement, you write "The goal of science is to offer the best explanation for a set of observations in the form of a theory. The theory is then tested until it is disproven, and until it that happens, it can be considered true. In science, a theory is fact until it is disproven." yet, at the end you state "No scientist will ever rightly tell you 'this is the only possiblity' or 'this is proven'."
so, we are supposed to believe things as fact that are not proven?

also, can i make a theory that says "God exists" and it be considered a fact since it hasn't been disproven? heh. sorry, i'm sick and need sleep.

[Blitz]

Oh yea, if you guys want proof God is real....well...

CNN and All the news stations have just showed what some scientists found. It was some box with the remains of some guy, think it was john. Said here lie the remains of John(or Joseph I dont know I will look on the net, friend told me he just saw on tv 2 days ago) brother to Jesus.

He said he saw it on WB chanel 5 and on CNN chanel 10 for me. Both said this is the "oldest" historic finding EVER! The writings on the box are legit...im gona look on cnn.com before I log off, cya guys in lil bit.

edit: found one link. -link (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1026146665566&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News)

edit:In his "BAR" article, the Sorbonne's Lemaire lays out the case for the ossuary's authenticity. He says microscopic examination shows no evidence of modern tampering. Lemaire says Joseph and Jesus were common names in that time, James less so. But, he says, a brother would not ordinarily be named on an ossuary unless he were prominent. He says the likelihood of more than one person named James with a father named Joseph and a prominent brother named Jesus is miniscule. From-link (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/23102002155823.asp)

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by kimchicowboy

why don't you e-mail the guy and ask him to clarify things up? :P

and in the above statement, you write "The goal of science is to offer the best explanation for a set of observations in the form of a theory. The theory is then tested until it is disproven, and until it that happens, it can be considered true. In science, a theory is fact until it is disproven." yet, at the end you state "No scientist will ever rightly tell you 'this is the only possiblity' or 'this is proven'."
so, we are supposed to believe things as fact that are not proven?
Yes. You must realize, however, that NOTHING is or can be scientifically "proven". For example: the laws of physics are not proven; there's a hell of a lot of evidence suggesting that they work, but this is not "proven". The word "proof" has no place in science. There is no such thing as "scientific proof"- it's an oxymoron.

"What is meant by scientific evidences and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish "truth" or "fact" in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. "Proof," then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear "proof" mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means." Even though one may hear "proof" used like this, it is a careless and inacurrate handling of the term. Consequently, this is the last time you will read the terms "proof" or "prove" in this essay." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html


"Please notice that we do not prove hypotheses! Proof exists when the chance for error is 0. There is always some chance for error (no matter how small it is!) and this existence of chance means we cannot prove anything in true, honest, science.

The words "scientific proof" therefore constitute an oxymoron (think: "Little Giant"). Advertisers are either scientifically-challenged or consider the American population incredibly gullible. This oxymoron abounds on US television advertising. Viewers should question the validity of any claims in advertising that includes such oxymorons. How good can the science behind the advertisement be if they don't know this critical and elementary point of science? The credibility of such ads should be exceedingly low!" http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plants_Human/scimeth.html#dec



also, can i make a theory that says "God exists" and it be considered a fact since it hasn't been disproven? heh. sorry, i'm sick and need sleep.

Exactly. "God exists" is a valid theory, but not a very good one because you'll have a hard time gathering scientifically valid evidence to support it. It is a valid theory nonetheless. I know of no scientific evidence that disproves the existence of God. Therefore the possibility can not be ruled out.

[InfiniteNothing]

Who cares if Jesus's brother existed or not? I don't know how they are going to prove this anyways. Even if you could prove Jesus existed, it would say nothing about him being the son of God. Perhaps I'll believe a dark dude who calls himself Jesus comes back (way late) for his 2nd comming.

And Cow Boy, I think we all can see you are really pulling at straws. This has been covered before (by me for one) You need a large amount of evidence that is tested for validity and then it is a theory that is TREATED as fact but is not proven. Go read my post about nothing being proven. Also this (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52192#post443670) post might be of some help too.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Blitz
"and all this time i thought that homo sapiens neandertalensis was discovered first in the neander valley in germany in 1857. and the skullcap would suggest far more going on than arthritis.

and btw, they've found the remains of over a hundred hsn individuals. saying that one was a homo sapiens sapiens with arthritis says very little about the rest."

Really now? I didnt know this, I will look into it. But like most of you said, about conventions and all this jiberish being "old". Well those bones or what not are old, this discovery of the "man" being arthritis was recent. You wanted recent stuff didnt you? But I will look into the other hundreds of findings...any links? would help me a little...first of all, i'm not here to debate if God exists. just to get that out of the way off the bat.

second of all, feel free to use the quote button. it'll help things blend in more so we know you're quoting us instead of something you read somewhere. it's a formatting issue, really...not an issue with you.

now, if you want a link to hsn stuff, here's one:

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/neander/neander-a.html

as far as stuff all being linked to, well, i learned most of my stuff in school and not online. but i figure that link should be safe enough, as it's from a school as well and not just potentially some crackpot (although it could be some university crackpot).

but as far as the arthritis guy being recent...well, i dont recall it being my request. maybe you have me confused with someone else. personally i think the stuff stands ground until disproven. i don't care if it's a 200 year old discovery or one that happened an hour ago. i'll go with the one that proves the test of time and the scientific method. all the same, you said it was disproven in 1958...and that was a single case. ok, so the french neandertal wasnt a hsn. since the first one happened almost 100 years before the french discovery, i'd think that it would seriously be bigger news to debunk that one. especially since the finding pre-dated darwin's origin of species and they had no idea what to make of it.

anyways, good luck in your quest. i'm not sure what your motives are at this point. if you want facts, you have them. if you want to disprove stuff, you have your work cut out for you.

[Blitz]

"Who cares if Jesus's brother existed or not? I don't know how they are going to prove this anyways. Even if you could prove Jesus exist, it would say nothing about him being the son of God. Perhaps I'll believe when Jesus comes back (way late) for his 2nd comming."

If it proves Jesus existed, and the Dead sea scrolls prove authenticity of the Bible and the divine inspiration of God from all the other artifacts, texts, then that means He is the Son of God. A common understanding of the Bible, even for someone who is not a believer will find that in the Bible it stats Jesus is the Son of God. Now is God real or the Bible authentic to original texts and was it inspired by a divine being and not by man is another. We must look at what we have found(box,other stuff)and what we know(Bible). Match them up and see what you get.

Not everyone would believe Jesus is God if He walked right in front of their very eyes therefore there will always be those who won't listen nor believe to what we have found and "proven" to be real hard evidence...(dont say we havent proven anything...no evolutionist can deny the existance of the dead sea scrolls and their significance.)

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Blitz
"Who cares if Jesus's brother existed or not? I don't know how they are going to prove this anyways. Even if you could prove Jesus exist, it would say nothing about him being the son of God. Perhaps I'll believe when Jesus comes back (way late) for his 2nd comming."

If it proves Jesus existed, and the Dead sea scrolls prove authenticity of the Bible and the divine inspiration of God from all the other artifacts, texts, then that means He is the Son of God. A common understanding of the Bible, even for someone who is not a believer will find that in the Bible it stats Jesus is the Son of God. Now is God real or the Bible authentic to original texts and was it inspired by a divine being and not by man is another. We must look at what we have found(box,other stuff)and what we know(Bible). Match them up and see what you get.

Not everyone would believe Jesus is God if He walked right in front of their very eyes therefore there will always be those who won't listen nor believe to what we have found and "proven" to be real hard evidence...(dont say we havent proven anything...no evolutionist can deny the existance of the dead sea scrolls and their significance.)
Some people wouldn't belive in evolution if an elephant gave birth to a neoelephant. Pointless rambling as usual.
How in the world could the dead sea scrolls prove the Bible is the devine inspiration of God. I hate to get side tracked but DAMN I'm curious. BTW where is your buddy John?

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

And frankly, we humans are good hunters and tool makers, but we arent good enough to have wiped out all the dinosaurs in the 2000 years from the "creation" of the earth to written history.




psst! Blitz! That's your cue to say that dinosaurs never existed!

[mojo]

hey blitz, your belief in the bible and jesus does not...i repeat, does not...disprove evolution.

how the heck did the bible get into this? sure, jesus existed. so did buddha. what does that prove? nothing in regards to evolution.

there comes a time within one discussion that too many different issues are brought up for any of them to be given justice. you want to talk about religion? make a new thread. this one is about evolution...which has nothing to do with religion or disproving jesus or anything of that nature.

[ShortStack]

Originally posted by mojo
anyhow, i could go on about it for a while. but suffice it to say that apes didn't become humans, goldfish didn't become hippos, etc. you don't have to worry about coke becoming pepsi or anything like that. but over an extended period of time, things can become very different from how they started. and yes, that does include becoming what would later be recognized as a different species. it's just not so obvious because other stuff that links it died off and isn't around for the comparison.

Alright, I totally understand now. Don't know if I completely believe it, but I understand what you mean. The animals that connect to the now two different species didn't survive, therefore there is no proof of it...you explained it very well. But still, one question - wouldn't there still be SOME out there where the middle animals still existed? Perhaps those cases are the cases like the donkey and the horse. Perhaps dogs used to once be a kind of horse and they kept shrinking! But any other thought on it?


Originally posted by Napoleon54


Who said we stopped evolving? The human population changes just as much as anything ever has. Look at Africa and the effect that malaria has had on its population. The reason that sickle cell anemia exists is because it provides a significant resistance to malaria. Over the past few thousand years the incidence of sickle cell anemia has grown very rapidly because of this. Effectively, the population of Africa has evolved to deal with the influence of malaria. There are many, many examples similar to this where the human population can be shown to have undergone evolution on a small scale.

As far as macroevolution goes, there are many mechanisms by which species can evolve. Consider the classic example of Darwin's Finches. As Darwin explored some of the small islands off the West coast of South America, he noticed that many of these islands had similar, but different, species of finches. He theorized that long ago the islands were colonized by a few individuals of the same species. Due to different habitats, climates, food sources, etc... each island promoted certain microevolutionary changes in the population (ie. the finches on one island evolved to eat ants, while the ones on another evolved to eat seeds, etc..). Eventually enough of these changes occured that the finches could no longer interbred, meaning that they must be considered different species. In this example, isolation from each other in different environments caused the finches to evolve in different directions. linkage (http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/Courses/Heins/Evolution/lecture17.html)

First - the example about the sickle cell versus malaria is an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, because it's more involved with the passing down of the sickle cell gene and adaptation. This example hasn't created an entire new thing really...I guess in a way...but in my books it's classified more as microevolution. I do see your point a little though. And I do see your point, I have studied that in our class so I do know the details of it.

Second - the finches are not a completely new species, they still stay within the finch family. (sub-species) So again, not a complete example of macroevolution. According to my book, macroevolution is still very much in debate, and the scientists are still trying to figure it out.

[InfiniteNothing]

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). Some specific examples (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) The FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by ShortStack


Second - the finches are not a completely new species, they still stay within the finch family. (sub-species) So again, not a complete example of macroevolution. According to my book, macroevolution is still very much in debate, and the scientists are still trying to figure it out.

The finches are classified as different species of the genus Geospiza ... ex: Geospiza fortis, Geospiza conirostris, Geospiza fuliginosa, etc.

Tryhere (http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beginners.html). You'll need to scroll down a bit to get to the segment that will answer this particular question (see "But does all this bring about new species, or just variation within the same species?"), but I hope it'll be worth your while. I skimmed through this site and am very impressed with how well written it is. I hope this helps.

[topane]

Blitz (or anyone else sharing his views who cares to answer)

Please answer some questions for me:

1. Why do creationists think that proof of evolution disproves God?
2. Why do creationists insist on using old research, out-of-context quotes, and sometimes outright lies to disprove evolution, rather than simply offering scientific evidence for their own views?
3. ToE was arrived at by observations and evidence. Other scientific achievements throughout the centuries have been arrived at in the same fashion. Are there any other sciences which have the same problems (in your views) as evolution? Why or why not?
4. Scientists are happy to disprove each other when possible. Why has no scientist or team of scientists published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal on all these alleged lies and false data regarding evolution?
5. Do you see the historical parallels between the evolution/creation debate and geo-/heliocentrism all those years ago?

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Blitz
If it proves Jesus existed, and the Dead sea scrolls prove authenticity of the Bible and the divine inspiration of God from all the other artifacts, texts, then that means He is the Son of God. A common understanding of the Bible, even for someone who is not a believer will find that in the Bible it stats Jesus is the Son of God. Now is God real or the Bible authentic to original texts and was it inspired by a divine being and not by man is another. We must look at what we have found(box,other stuff)and what we know(Bible). Match them up and see what you get.
Blitz-
two points:

- the dead sea scrolls do not prove divine inspiration of the bible, although they do help to support the accuracy of the bible over a period of time. from this, one could posit that this accuracy is a result of God protecting his inspired scriptures. but NOTHING is proved re: the inspiration of the bible

- the discovery of an ancient reference to Jesus, while supporting the bible's claim that someone named jesus lived, does not prove the divinity of jesus. does it contribute to establishing the historical accuracy of the bible? of course. but just because the bible is relates historically proven events and has been accurate over time does not mean that qualitative claims (ie: jesus is the son of god), are "proven" or anything close to it. all it shows is an internal consistency within the bible, which is good (if it was inconsistent, then it would be very difficult to believe), but internal consistency does not prove that everything contained within is true.

ok, i'm going to try to answer topane's questions

disclaimer: i'm answering these for myself. i make no claims that i'm speaking for anyone else in this thread

Originally posted by topane
Please answer some questions for me:

1. Why do creationists think that proof of evolution disproves God?
it depends on the creationist, and it depends on how they view evolution.

if one interprets the bible in its most literal way, evolutionary challenges the account of creation in genesis, which claims that God created the earth in six days.

other christians solve this problem by holding to the idea that God "directed" evolution over a period of thousands of years (often, the bible says "a thousand years is but a moment" for God, so this interpretation has some weight. however, if i understand it correctly, the hebrew used to describe the time lapse in creation "and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day", etc, indicates literal 24-hour days, so this interpretation definitly requires stepping outside the "literal" boundaries of the bible).

but the most important isssue is the problem of God, the "creator". in many ways, a Christian's belief in God is centered around the idea that God is an all-powerful creator who made us and everything around us. that is why we follow God's laws and believe the bible. not because we're picking out a religion from a selection of equally valid religious choices, but because he made us and therefore he has dominion over us.

so in many ways, reducing God as the creator also reduces him as "God".

but can he remain the creator-God if we follow a theory of intelligently directed evolution? i would suppose so, but i don't really know.

Originally posted by topane
2. Why do creationists insist on using old research, out-of-context quotes, and sometimes outright lies to disprove evolution, rather than simply offering scientific evidence for their own views?
because there are idiots in the world of every philosophical stripe.

the same question could be asked of why evolutionists have fabricated supposed "missing links" out of pig's teeth to prove evolution.

my point is that there are people who will use "any means" i both sides of the issue. that doesn't excuse any of them. it just means all of the frauds are idiots.

why don't creationists try to find scientific evidence for their own views? many do. i would find links, but it's never really been something i've been that concerned about.

but many other scientists who are intersted in proving creation try to do so by DISPROVING evolution due to the fact that many evolutionists will ignore any "creationist" research off the bat, so creationists try to disprove evolutionists instead.

Originally posted by topane
3. ToE was arrived at by observations and evidence. Other scientific achievements throughout the centuries have been arrived at in the same fashion. Are there any other sciences which have the same problems (in your views) as evolution? Why or why not?
to me, the primary problem is that evolution is talking about events that (according to evolutionists) happened millions of years ago. therefore, forming theories involves finding and analyzing evidence from far in the past and trying to "connect the dots" with a theory.

i would contrast that to research going on currently in genetic engineering, nuclear physics, or medicine, where currently observable events can be analyzed, a hypothesis developed, tests conducted, and the hypothesis supported.

as napoleon has explained, the current science holds that evolution occurred in "bursts", which means that we have evidence of a variety of lifeforms that have been ranked in order of how complicated they are, and then a hierarchy is established. this could indicate evolution. but it isn't enough to convince me.

Originally posted by topane
4. Scientists are happy to disprove each other when possible. Why has no scientist or team of scientists published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal on all these alleged lies and false data regarding evolution?
as i understand it, evolutionary theory is a constantly evolving discipline (pardon the pun :P) correct me if i'm wrong, but evolutionists are constantly "disproving" older parts of the theory and updating it with a theory that they think describes things more accurately.

it appears that napoleon gave us an example of this with the punctuated equlibrium theory of evolution, which is a newer theory than the constant gradual model.

however, no matter what is disproved, everything stays within the same framework, because that is where the scientists are coming from. they don't think outside the box, because they already believe evolution is true. they just tweak the theory.

Originally posted by topane
5. Do you see the historical parallels between the evolution/creation debate and geo-/heliocentrism all those years ago?
from a casual observation, yes. however, i think there are some key differences.

- the church's defense of geocentrism came as a result of a couple key misunderstandings of the Bible. first, the passage in Joshua which claims "the sun stood still". now even today, when we all know that the sun does not move (relative to the earth) and that sunrise and sunset occur due to the earth's rotation, we say things like "the sun dropped toward the horizon". it's a figure of speech, because that's what it looks like is happening. so there's no problem (imo) with the Bible's statement.

second, the church had an inaccurate perception that they were the only planet in the universe. i think that a comprehensive look at the bible indicates that there are a lot of other parts out there that God has created. basically, the church wanted to believe that the whole universe revolved around them. it doesn't, and that's fine. there is no problem with that vs. the Bible.

- i think the geocentrism debate had a lot more to do with control than anything. after all, i haven't seen any evolutionists imprisoned or executed for their beliefs as of late. the church wanted to control all aspects of life, including science. the heliocentrics threatened this control.

today, in my belief, it is a battle of competing theories. i do not begrudge anyone who believes evolution. i relize that due to the direction that science as taken in the past 150 years, there is much evidence on their side. i do not demand that anyone stop believing evolution. it's really not something i wake up and go to sleep thinking about.

[topane]

Thanks for your answers, whitak :).

Originally posted by whitak24
as i understand it, evolutionary theory is a constantly evolving discipline (pardon the pun :P) correct me if i'm wrong, but evolutionists are constantly "disproving" older parts of the theory and updating it with a theory that they think describes things more accurately.You're absolutely right. Same as every other scientific discipline. That's one of the beautiful things about science: it's never set in stone. There is never 100% certainty about anything. I won't pardon the pun, though :P.


however, no matter what is disproved, everything stays within the same framework, because that is where the scientists are coming from. they don't think outside the box, because they already believe evolution is true. they just tweak the theory.I think it would depend on what is disproved. If I find a 2 million year-old skeleton wearing Nikes then, yeah, that would cause a problem. Tweaking the theory isn't wrong at all, it's good science. It's just saying "We were 50% sure this was the case, but now we see it's not" (as an example).


but many other scientists who are intersted in proving creation try to do so by proving evolution due to the fact that many evolutionists will ignore any "creationist" research off the bat, so creationists try to disprove evolutionists instead. I'm not sure I follow you here. Why would a creationist attempt to prove evolution? That seems sort of self-defeating.
I don't think there's much creationist research to ignore. It's mostly stuff like this from the ICR:

The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'. "Goddidit" is not an acceptable scientific argument.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by topane
I'm not sure I follow you here. Why would a creationist attempt to prove evolution? That seems sort of self-defeating.
hmmm....i think i made a little typo ;)

i meant to say "try to do so by disproving evolution" oops!

i edited my original statement above

Originally posted by topane
I don't think there's much creationist research to ignore. It's mostly stuff like this from the ICR:
"Goddidit" is not an acceptable scientific argument.
i don't think the ICR is using "Goddidit" as a scientific argument. rather, they seem to be using the first law of theromdynamics to imply that creation (presumably by God) happened all at once, not over time, as evolution suggests.

of course, this is a silly argument, as evolution does not suggest that new energy is being created, only that it is changing forms, which the law allows :rolleyes:

but yes, i agree, the quality creation research is scant (of course, i also don't look for it that much. it's really not that big of an issue for me). however, i think there is some decent research that helps to reconcile how the observed facts could fit in with the biblical creation account.

i think it's when so-called creation scientists try to say that these possible explainations are not only proof that there was instantaneous creation, but that they PROVE that god was responsible that they are really in error. we can believe that, but it can never be proved.

[brainsmile]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Perhaps I'll believe a dark dude who calls himself Jesus comes back (way late) for his 2nd comming.
Perhaps?

[brainsmile]

I think ShortStack's little thread is now getting way large

[topane]

Originally posted by whitak24

hmmm....i think i made a little typo ;)

i meant to say "try to do so by disproving evolution" oops!

i edited my original statement above
Darn, and I thought you were coming over to the dark side...

[mojo]

Originally posted by brainsmile
I think ShortStack's little thread is now getting way large well, it's evolving ;)

[CornMonkey]

wow. lots of replies, lots of questions. let me just throw one in myself (in response to evolution not dealing w/ the beginnings of life)...

in terms of evolutionary thought, especially with that of macroevolution, is it not inherent, under its own theory, to ask "where did this common ancestor come from?" assuming, of course, that all living things can be traced to a common ancestor. is that not the basis of evolution in the first place? ...trying to explain a particular species came about?

so how can evolution not try to explain how life began? i figure this why some evolution books out there start with a "Origins of..." frankly, i've never heard of anyone saying that evolution doesn't explain how life began so this is all very interesting to me.


ok...that was like seven questions...:D

[topane]

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. It doesn't attempt to explain the beginnings of life because that is outside the scope of evolution. Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life.

[CornMonkey]

so, under the theory, are you saying people arbitrarily pick and choose when evolution starts?

btw, i like your sig.

[Blitz]

Alright many of you have taken what I have said out of context...

- the dead sea scrolls do not prove divine inspiration of the bible, although they do help to support the accuracy of the bible over a period of time. from this, one could posit that this accuracy is a result of God protecting his inspired scriptures. but NOTHING is proved re: the inspiration of the bible

If it proves Jesus existed, and the Dead sea scrolls prove authenticity of the Bible AND the divine inspiration of God FROM all the OTHER artifacts, texts...Sorry, might have typed it up a lil weird..but didnt mean inspiration from Dead sea scrolls..read it again.

- the discovery of an ancient reference to Jesus, while supporting the bible's claim that someone named jesus lived, does not prove the divinity of jesus. does it contribute to establishing the historical accuracy of the bible? of course. but just because the bible is relates historically proven events and has been accurate over time does not mean that qualitative claims (ie: jesus is the son of god), are "proven" or anything close to it. all it shows is an internal consistency within the bible, which is good (if it was inconsistent, then it would be very difficult to believe), but internal consistency does not prove that everything contained within is true.

Evidences and discoverys of artifacts etc. demonstrate that the Bible has always been acurate, and always will be(in my view of course). The Bible knew more about history than man did for many periods of time. Many scoffed at certain societys of man existing like the macadiens(think thats it) in the Bible. We now know through research and discovery that many of the sites, people, events, are true.

I think Whitak answered the questions so.....

Im just wondering, what are we all pulling out of this thread? What did we learn and gain in knowledge?

For me, I will look at the link I got about the neanderthals which will prove interesting :P And go back to learning studio max n' playin some games. How bout you guys? Its always nice to have discussions like this....dont get it to often

[mojo]

Originally posted by Blitz
Alright many of you have taken what I have said out of context...

- the dead sea scrolls do not prove divine inspiration of the bible, although they do help to support the accuracy of the bible over a period of time. from this, one could posit that this accuracy is a result of God protecting his inspired scriptures. but NOTHING is proved re: the inspiration of the bible

If it proves Jesus existed, and the Dead sea scrolls prove authenticity of the Bible AND the divine inspiration of God FROM all the OTHER artifacts, texts...Sorry, might have typed it up a lil weird..but didnt mean inspiration from Dead sea scrolls..read it again.how does it prove anything aside from "hey, we found this old text" :hmm:


- the discovery of an ancient reference to Jesus, while supporting the bible's claim that someone named jesus lived, does not prove the divinity of jesus. does it contribute to establishing the historical accuracy of the bible? of course. but just because the bible is relates historically proven events and has been accurate over time does not mean that qualitative claims (ie: jesus is the son of god), are "proven" or anything close to it. all it shows is an internal consistency within the bible, which is good (if it was inconsistent, then it would be very difficult to believe), but internal consistency does not prove that everything contained within is true.

Evidences and discoverys of artifacts etc. demonstrate that the Bible has always been acurate, and always will be(in my view of course). The Bible knew more about history than man did for many periods of time. Many scoffed at certain societys of man existing like the macadiens(think thats it) in the Bible. We now know through research and discovery that many of the sites, people, events, are true.
it can show a rough timeline of alleged events. again, no proof here. move along.

I think Whitak answered the questions so.....

Im just wondering, what are we all pulling out of this thread? What did we learn and gain in knowledge?

For me, I will look at the link I got about the neanderthals which will prove interesting :P And go back to learning studio max n' playin some games. How bout you guys? Its always nice to have discussions like this....dont get it to often there you have it. you want to believe something, and so you will. when faced with questions that you can't answer, your faith is still the basis of your view. which is fine by me...but i just have a hard time with the whole "facts vs faith" deal. sorry, but your faith doesn't make my fact.

but again, this is about evolution, which ultimately is a different issue than the bible stuff. i'm sorry if some religions feel intimidated by a quest for truth, but some of us gotta know what the deal is, as opposed to being told what to think/believe.

[topane]

Originally posted by CornMonkey
so, under the theory, are you saying people arbitrarily pick and choose when evolution starts?

btw, i like your sig. Not arbitrarily. If (for example) we have a clear path in the evolution of horses, we can go through what fossils are related and their ages and come up with a window in which the jump from one to another occured. These windows are millions of years wide, so no one can say with 100% certainty that this occured "exactly 1 million years ago". There would be a range of dates (like "between 2 and 5 million years") I'm not sure what the exact accuracy is.

[mojo]

Originally posted by topane
Not arbitrarily. If (for example) we have a clear path in the evolution of horses, we can go through what fossils are related and their ages and come up with a window in which the jump from one to another occured. These windows are millions of years wide, so no one can say with 100% certainty that this occured "exactly 1 million years ago". There would be a range of dates (like "between 2 and 5 million years") I'm not sure what the exact accuracy is. well they are actually different issues. they may be addressed collectively, but evolution itself can be like other scientific "equations" in that you can say "given that we have horses, then..."

but you don't have to solve for the horses as well. that's a gig for another team of scientists in itself :hihi:

[Blitz]

how does it prove anything aside from "hey, we found this old text"

it can show a rough timeline of alleged events. again, no proof here. move along.

there you have it. you want to believe something, and so you will. when faced with questions that you can't answer, your faith is still the basis of your view. which is fine by me...but i just have a hard time with the whole "facts vs faith" deal. sorry, but your faith doesn't make my fact.

"when faced with questions that you can't answer, your faith is still the basis of your view..."

Dont think just cause I want to end this doesnt mean you defeated my faith in some way, it just shows your ignorance in your own view.
No matter what I tell you, show you, you wont either understand or just come up with a remark like posted above. Actually, I was trying to end the thread because I want to learn program(just got studio 5 baby!) without having to come back and read some more remarks but you just tend to scoff at what I say and I will in return to you. :P

[mojo]

Originally posted by Blitz
Dont think just cause I want to end this doesnt mean you defeated my faith in some way, it just shows your ignorance in your own view.
No matter what I tell you, show you, you wont either understand or just come up with a remark like posted above. Actually, I was trying to end the thread because I want to learn program(just got studio 5 baby!) without having to come back and read some more remarks but you just tend to scoff at what I say and I will in return to you. :P i know you don't think anything about your faith. i don't question your faith. but you rely on it for facts.

sorry, i didn't put the holes in your story. they came that way.

and if you think i'm ignorant, then i guess that's up to you. fact is, you just didn't prove anything. you can't present "i think" and claim it's a fact. sorry, but it wouldn't hold up in court, science, or here. but i guess in your mind it's fine.

and i'm the ignorant one :heh:

besides, religion doesn't belong in this thread. don't end the thread, but yes, please leave religion out of it. oh, and don't go and call me ignorant just because i didn't take your reasons as very good. this isn't personal, and making it personal just reflects your sincerity in wanting to "know the truth."

[topane]

Originally posted by Blitz
Dont think just cause I want to end this doesnt mean you defeated my faith in some way, it just shows your ignorance in your own view.No one's trying to defeat your faith. You're the one who brought it up ;).

No matter what I tell you, show you, you wont either understand or just come up with a remark like posted above. Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by topane
Not arbitrarily. If (for example) we have a clear path in the evolution of horses, we can go through what fossils are related and their ages and come up with a window in which the jump from one to another occured. These windows are millions of years wide, so no one can say with 100% certainty that this occured "exactly 1 million years ago". There would be a range of dates (like "between 2 and 5 million years") I'm not sure what the exact accuracy is.
but i'm talking about waaaaaay before horses... i'm talking about "the common ancestor."

i'm just saying here that i don't see how evolution doesn't deal with the beginnings of life.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by Blitz


"when faced with questions that you can't answer, your faith is still the basis of your view..."


LOL, Because that's so much better than actually trying to find an answer.
A: "Why do people get sick?"
B: "I don't know... 'Cuz God "

You call us ignorant but I just want you to know that when you're creationist theories go the way of the "helio centric" ideas... we'll be laughing at you. Perhaps you'll say "Oh, we must have misinterpreted the bible" But we'll know.

Also, CornMonkey, we've told you. That's a different science. Perhaps you should start a new post?

[topane]

Originally posted by CornMonkey

but i'm talking about waaaaaay before horses... i'm talking about "the common ancestor."

i'm just saying here that i don't see how evolution doesn't deal with the beginnings of life. It doesn't because evolution deals with changes in life, and attempts to explain how life got to where it is today from its past. Evolution is not concerned about how the first living cell(s) got here, it deals with what happened next - its increasing complexity and mutations are what evolution deals with. I'm sure there are plenty of evolutionists who speculate about life's beginnings, but it really is another discipline (abiogenesis).

[whitak24]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
You call us ignorant but I just want you to know that when you're creationist theories go the way of the "helio centric" ideas... we'll be laughing at you.
not to call anyone ignorant......but if exactly what you described above happened, wouldn't blitz be the one with the last laugh? :heh:

[Blitz]

:laugh2: :thumb: :thumb: 2 thumbs for whitak...

[mojo]

yup, good point whitak. i think i understood what IN really meant tho... :P

now, can we discuss evolution some more? percentage-wise we're prolly below 70% on the actual thread topic :hmm:

[whitak24]

Originally posted by mojo
i think i understood what IN really meant tho... :P
of course. i did too. i just found it rather amusing that someone who was being a dick and calling others ignorant apparently confused the meanings of "geo-" and "helio-". pot, kettle. kettle, pot :hihi:

Originally posted by mojo
now, can we discuss evolution some more? percentage-wise we're prolly below 70% on the actual thread topic :hmm:
in a typical thread, i'd say we run at about 15% on topic, so we're up by 55% here. i'd think we should get a pat on the back :heh:

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by CornMonkey
microevolution deals with horizontal change whereas macroevolution deals with vertical change. the two aren't tied together as closely as we would like to think.


What do you mean by vertical versus horizontal change?

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by whitak24

not to call anyone ignorant......but if exactly what you described above happened, wouldn't blitz be the one with the last laugh? :heh:
:eek:Where's that blushing smilie when you need it. Must get more sleep and spend less time arguing evolution. I'll keep it uneditied just for fun.;) Okay back to writing my Humanities paper.

[topane]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


What do you mean by vertical versus horizontal change? I think he means:

Horizontal = changes within a species

Vertical = speciation

Cornmonkey: Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html) talk about observed speciation.

[topane]

Originally posted by whitak24
in a typical thread, i'd say we run at about 15% on topic, so we're up by 55% here. i'd think we should get a pat on the back :heh: How about a kick in the jimmy instead? :P

[whitak24]

Originally posted by topane
How about a kick in the jimmy instead? :P
maybe for you :P

/me kicks topane in the jimmy

/me kicks topane in the jimmy again, just for good measure

/me puts up my hands to defend myself :heh:

[mojo]

Originally posted by whitak24

maybe for you :P

/me kicks topane in the jimmy

/me kicks topane in the jimmy again, just for good measure

/me puts up my hands to defend myself :heh: um....if your hands are up...what exactly are you defending? :confused:

[Nija]

Originally posted by mojo
um....if your hands are up...what exactly are you defending? :confused:

:shrug:
the air around his shoulders?

[whitak24]

Originally posted by mojo
um....if your hands are up...what exactly are you defending? :confused:
hahaha. good point.

BUT.....you didn't get me. see, i'm sitting down. therefore, if my arms are allowed to hang free, my hands are below my jimmy. consequently, if i want to cover dick and the boys, i have to lift my hands up to protect myself.

boo-ya! :P

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by topane
I think he means:

Horizontal = changes within a species

Vertical = speciation


yes.

so, back to my point, when does evolution "begin?" does it even have a beginning point? IF all living things can be traced back to "one common ancestor," what species evolved into this ancestor?

am i making sense here? i feel like my point isn't getting across. i'm just trying to figure out how the theories of evolution CAN'T be attributed to the formation of life.

[mojo]

Originally posted by CornMonkey

yes.

so, back to my point, when does evolution "begin?" does it even have a beginning point? IF all living things can be traced back to "one common ancestor," what species evolved into this ancestor?

am i making sense here? i feel like my point isn't getting across. i'm just trying to figure out how the theories of evolution CAN'T be attributed to the formation of life. if there is no life, then how is life supposed to evolve? if a non-organic substance becomes life, that's not evolution. evolution is given that there is already life. the formation of life is another topic.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by CornMonkey

yes.

so, back to my point, when does evolution "begin?" does it even have a beginning point? IF all living things can be traced back to "one common ancestor," what species evolved into this ancestor?

am i making sense here? i feel like my point isn't getting across. i'm just trying to figure out how the theories of evolution CAN'T be attributed to the formation of life.

The existence of life is an assumption of evolution.

Assume that all life used to be one type of organism. No diversity, all exactly the same, carbon copies of themselves. Another assumption is that they could reproduce. Evolution explains how these identical, reproducing organisms diversified into many different species.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Yossarian



/me kicks whitak in the head


/me kicks whtaik in the jimmy as he falls out of said chair


:P

Oh yeah? well-

/me kicks myself in the jimmy.

yeah, take THAT.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Napoleon54
carbon copies of themselves.

:heh: Carbon copies.. heh.. that's a good one. :thumb:

[craziepanda]

boy i don't read GA forums for a while and look what i miss...most of you probably don't even recognize me anyway though =p

most of my replies are actually going back to posts made in page 3...forgive me for going back so far. here i go:



If Darwin were disproved the scientific community would go nuts with excitement. It'd be huge, the discovery of the century. Trust me, we'd like it even more than the Creationists.

ok, so my first reply isn't even necessarily on topic. but i'd have to say i disagree with this. when you look back at most of revolutionary discoveries made in science, they were all initially rejected as preposterous. classic example would be the sun being the center of the solar system instead Earth being the center of the universe. but even in much more recent times, it's still the same. when a discovery on a scale of this magnitude is made, history tells me that it'll take a LONG time for the scientific community to accept it. especially in this age, most scientists may even ridicule the discoverer.



Okay that wasn't lastly. I want to demonstrate that similar liver cells, energy conversion, macrophage, etc points to a natural process (eg. evolution) and not a common creator
There's a little something called Occam's Razor.

this is a little hypocritical. if i remember correctly, you're one of the people who challenge believers of creationism to offer empirical evidence, when you yourself do not offer empirical evidence to prove a point. occam's razor is simply just an assumption when you don't have facts. i'm not saying i can offer some concrete facts/empirical evidence for creationism (yet, but i will soon), but i definitely don't think this is very cool.



Life is complex and was created by a complex perfect God who left behind misleading evidence

misleading evidence? that's just your opinion. i believe what whitak said (and what i think napolean seemed to agree with): we see this information, and we interpret it based on what we believe. so what you believe to be misleading evidence, i believe to be along the lines of, "why put in an entire overhaul when there's already something here that works." that's the simpler version at least. i have a more in-depth idea of perhaps why everything was created so similar, but it'll take an open mind to listen. anyone with an open mind?



DNA evidence recomends that there was no creator, just a natural proccess

what DNA evidence? that large segments of DNA are conserved through different families of organisms? once again, i don't think that says very much, because the "why change what works" line of reasoning sounds just as reasonable to me as "no creator." what other "DNA evidence" is there? be more specific.



Punctuated Evolution is the current explanation for gaps in the fossil record

not entirely. from what i know about fossil records (which i admit isn't very much though), even through the punctuated evolution lineage, there are many gaps and no evidence of where divergences and convergences are hypothesized. i would imagine that these animals would live for a long enough period of time to have fossils available.



7-10: Irrelevant. Evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for the diversification of life. It does not attempt to answer every little question. There is much that we do not know with much certainty; however, this does not mean that there are no answers. They simply have yet to be discovered.

recap: this is referring to the list of questions on the website challenging evolution, and these four in particular are questions about reproduction. i think the idea of reproduction is very relevant. sexual reproduction is the only known means of exchanging/passing new genetic material into other organisms, whether it's progeny or just an exchange (e.g. between bacteria). diversification cannot occur without this process. now, if you mean that it is "irrelevant" with the same reasoning that the origin of life is a different discussion as well, then i acknowledge that for this thread. but don't dismiss it...it'll be good for your brain to chew on if you haven't thought about it before.



22. I'm a scientist.

just curious...what kind?



quote:



Originally posted by Cantacuzene
As far as the Chicago Convention, this is one of those things that creationists point out always. Its like, "look, one group of evolutionists 20 years ago didnt agree with the theory, so it must be false!"



It's almost become a political smear campaign. They can't disprove it scientifically, so they resort to grasping at straws. Rather than tout the merits of their own "scientific" research, they just attack and attack, hoping something will stick.

whoa there. play nice. i think the point corn was making is just that even professionals who research this as their career admit that their evidence isn't rock solid...don't think he's using this guy's quote to say that all evolutionists are wrong.

someone also mentioned something about scientists creating a new species of insects somewhere earlier...i'm too tired and lazy to find the exact quote. i'm not sure if that person is talking about the same thing i saw, but basically there were biologists at ucsd who played with HOX genes and were able to breed funky mutants from your typical Drosophila (fly). these things were REAL funky...ranging from normal flies with no wings to ten legged flies or whatever variation you can find in between. and i would definitely agree that these funky mutants cannot and should not be speciated as normal "flies." however, i want to make the point that these mutants that they bred shouldn't be considered a new species either, because they couldn't mate with each other. it's been a real long time since i've had some evolutionary biology, but if i remember correctly, part of the definition of species is that the organisms must be able to mate with each other. and these new mutants couldn't. and that's the reason why mules also aren't considered a species...they can't mate with each other either for some reason. the significance of the experiments these biologists performed were more based on embryology as well rather than evolution. they were testing and figuring out the roles and regulation of the HOX genes, which dictate to cells the type of tissues they will become.

i'll post more next time...my eyes are going blind. but a lot will be more concerned with the origin of life. and even though it's a bit off topic, i think it's still important to think about, esp. for those who believe life "spontaneously" generated.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by craziepanda
ok, so my first reply isn't even necessarily on topic. but i'd have to say i disagree with this. when you look back at most of revolutionary discoveries made in science, they were all initially rejected as preposterous. classic example would be the sun being the center of the solar system instead Earth being the center of the universe. but even in much more recent times, it's still the same. when a discovery on a scale of this magnitude is made, history tells me that it'll take a LONG time for the scientific community to accept it. especially in this age, most scientists may even ridicule the discoverer.


There really wasn't a scientific community as we know it today back when people thought that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Those beliefs about the Earth were centered in church-based dogmas, and that is why the scientists of that age were ridiculed. I'm not saying that you don't make a good point--scientists today are very reluctant to acknowledge new theories, but that, IMO, is because many scientists are unhappy to have years of research disproved by something that they overlooked or didn't account for. Scientists are human after all.

Also, I personally do not know a lot about how the fossil records fit into the theory of evolution, but my GF is very knowledgeable in this area. And just from what I remember her telling me, I know for a fact that a lot of the stuff people have mentioned about fossil records is either uninformed or just plain wrong. Don't take this the wrong way, though... the reason it is wrong is because a lot of the "experts" that have developed these theories have been proven to be incorrect. Several of the paleontologists she has worked with/for are working on projects that entail correcting the original assessments of different fossilized species. A lot of the conjectures and theories based on fossilized records are turning out to be completely wrong. 20 years from now, there will probably be an extensive report detailing how wrong scientists today are. And 20 years after that? :shrug:

Either way, creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, so why worry? Basically, believe what you want to believe, but when the cockroaches under your house evolve into a giant, flesh-eating, insect species, don't come crying to me.

Alright, it is too late for me to be up writing this shiznit.

:sleep:

[Napoleon54]

Welcome to the discussion craziepanda! I thought this thread was going to die, but it looks you have some intelligent thoughts to add. I look forward to hearing more. Thanks!


Originally posted by craziepanda


ok, so my first reply isn't even necessarily on topic. but i'd have to say i disagree with this. when you look back at most of revolutionary discoveries made in science, they were all initially rejected as preposterous. classic example would be the sun being the center of the solar system instead Earth being the center of the universe. but even in much more recent times, it's still the same. when a discovery on a scale of this magnitude is made, history tells me that it'll take a LONG time for the scientific community to accept it. especially in this age, most scientists may even ridicule the discoverer.
I agree w/ Ladogaboy on this. The scientific community is much different from what it was even 30 years ago. However, I think that although initially a new theory might be questioned, it wouldn't take more than a few years to become accepted if there was good evidence for it and the logic was sound.


misleading evidence? that's just your opinion. i believe what whitak said (and what i think napolean seemed to agree with): we see this information, and we interpret it based on what we believe. so what you believe to be misleading evidence, i believe to be along the lines of, "why put in an entire overhaul when there's already something here that works." that's the simpler version at least. i have a more in-depth idea of perhaps why everything was created so similar, but it'll take an open mind to listen. anyone with an open mind?.

I'd say that it is more appropriate to believe a theory that the evidence supports. In other words, belief should come AFTER the data are analyzed, not before. Belief should be a conclusion, not a starting point. That's why I don't consider "Creation Science" to be true science. (I gather this may soon become a topic of discussion?) Just please don't resort to crack-pot theories about the radioactive decay of arctic rocks (I forget the name of the guy who did those studies) or using the Second Law of Thermodymanics to disprove evolution (I have that arguement booby-trapped, hehe). Frankly, I'm suprised none of that stuff has come up in this thread yet. But you sound more intelligent (and philisophical?) than that. Yes, my mind is open and I'd like to hear what you have to say. I'd be the first to admit that I don't have the world figured out yet; any ideas you have will be appreciated.


not entirely. from what i know about fossil records (which i admit isn't very much though), even through the punctuated evolution lineage, there are many gaps and no evidence of where divergences and convergences are hypothesized. i would imagine that these animals would live for a long enough period of time to have fossils available.

The way that punctuated evolution accounts for gaps in the fossil record is by assuming that transition species, which are relatively short-lived, get lost in the abundance of long-term species. Say a lineage is stable for 10,000 generations, then evolves quickly for 100 generations. The transition species (whose population is probably much smaller than the stable species population) should account for much less than 1% of the fossil record. (note: I made these numbers up for the sake of offering an example. I really don't know what an accepted model of PE would look like as far as number of generations and such.)


recap: this is referring to the list of questions on the website challenging evolution, and these four in particular are questions about reproduction. i think the idea of reproduction is very relevant. sexual reproduction is the only known means of exchanging/passing new genetic material into other organisms, whether it's progeny or just an exchange (e.g. between bacteria). diversification cannot occur without this process. now, if you mean that it is "irrelevant" with the same reasoning that the origin of life is a different discussion as well, then i acknowledge that for this thread. but don't dismiss it...it'll be good for your brain to chew on if you haven't thought about it before.

Here's an analogy: "How many hairs grew on Jesus's left index finger? How many times did He wipe His mouth on a napkin during the last supper? If you can't answer these questions, then Jesus didn't exist."



just curious...what kind?

I'm working on my doctorate in Biophysics at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (Buffalo, NY), but I've always had an interest in evolution. You sound like a science person as well?


someone also mentioned something about scientists creating a new species of insects somewhere earlier...i'm too tired and lazy to find the exact quote. i'm not sure if that person is talking about the same thing i saw, but basically there were biologists at ucsd who played with HOX genes and were able to breed funky mutants from your typical Drosophila (fly). these things were REAL funky...ranging from normal flies with no wings to ten legged flies or whatever variation you can find in between. and i would definitely agree that these funky mutants cannot and should not be speciated as normal "flies." however, i want to make the point that these mutants that they bred shouldn't be considered a new species either, because they couldn't mate with each other. it's been a real long time since i've had some evolutionary biology, but if i remember correctly, part of the definition of species is that the organisms must be able to mate with each other. and these new mutants couldn't. and that's the reason why mules also aren't considered a species...they can't mate with each other either for some reason. the significance of the experiments these biologists performed were more based on embryology as well rather than evolution. they were testing and figuring out the roles and regulation of the HOX genes, which dictate to cells the type of tissues they will become.

I agree.


i'll post more next time...my eyes are going blind. but a lot will be more concerned with the origin of life. and even though it's a bit off topic, i think it's still important to think about, esp. for those who believe life "spontaneously" generated.

I don't know as much about the theoretical orgins of life, but I'll try to read up on it. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis and the experiements of Stanley Miller, in particular, come to mind (if I remember correctly). This topic is much more theoretical so don't expect too much confidence on my part.

-Nap

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Napoleon54
The way that punctuated evolution accounts for gaps in the fossil record is by assuming that transition species, which are relatively short-lived, get lost in the abundance of long-term species. Say a lineage is stable for 10,000 generations, then evolves quickly for 100 generations. The transition species (whose population is probably much smaller than the stable species population) should account for much less than 1% of the fossil record. (note: I made these numbers up for the sake of offering an example. I really don't know what an accepted model of PE would look like as far as number of generations and such.)


Yeah, that is similar to some of the research she has done. They have gone through fossil records of different species looking for variations between the different fossils. According to what she has told me, most of the fossils that they have analyzed have been classified incorrectly. :shrug:

[craziepanda]

goodness...i was waiting for your reply napolean...took you long enough ;) waiting only because i know you would have good things to contribute though. :)



I'd say that it is more appropriate to believe a theory that the evidence supports. In other words, belief should come AFTER the data are analyzed, not before. Belief should be a conclusion, not a starting point. That's why I don't consider "Creation Science" to be true science.

that's true. as you can probably tell from my previous post, i'm a christian, thus i do believe in creationism. and a large part of being christian is just having pure faith. so that's why it's difficult for me (and other believers here) to give hard data for creationism...because it's one of those things that we also take with faith. i'm not saying there's absolutely no data for it though. the only thing i can think of right now, unfortunately, i can't go very in depth about, because it was my friend who read the book and told me this, i didn't read it myself. but he said that one interesting fact is that geological layers of earth (which provide information about what kind of life lived around what time period) chronologically matched with the chronological order of organisms created that was recorded in the Bible. i haven't verified this myself, but my friend is a very reliable person and i know he definitely is not the type to believe every single thing he reads/hears without some degree of verification.



Just please don't resort to crack-pot theories about the radioactive decay of arctic rocks

heh i've never heard of that, but i'm curious what his theories were



using the Second Law of Thermodymanics to disprove evolution (I have that arguement booby- trapped, hehe)
i haven't heard a really good explanation why this doesn't work, but i'm definitely open to hear and discuss your booby trap :) however, because of all that was mentioned earlier in this thread, i should be very specific and say that i believe this is a good explanation that helps disprove spontaneous generation of life, which deals with the origin of life moreso than evolution...at least in my arguments for it. i'll be glad to post it if you're interested in hearing, but just keep in mind that the arguments i thought of are geared more towards "the origin of life" type of discussion.



I'm the first to admit that I don't have the world figured out yet

let me be the second to admit then ;)



The way that punctuated evolution accounts for gaps in the fossil record is by assuming that transition species, which are relatively short-lived, get lost in the abundance of long-term species. Say a lineage is stable for 10,000 generations, then evolves quickly for 100 generations. The transition species (whose population is probably much smaller than the stable species population) should account for much less than 1% of the fossil record. (note: I made these numbers up for the sake of offering an example. I really don't know what an accepted model of PE would look like as far as number of generations and such.)

ok i just sat here for half an hour trying to figure out what i want to say about this but i can't articulate myself at this time of night so i'll try again later. =p



Here's an analogy: "How many hairs grew on Jesus's left index finger? How many times did He wipe His mouth on a napkin during the last supper? If you can't answer these questions, then Jesus didn't exist."

ok, i see your point. but at the end of that paragraph, i did say that i can see why you may think it's irrelevant purely in the field of evolution. however, i still really think they are important ideas on their own because of how much they contribute to what we know. so in this case, i think the analogy is exaggerated because the number of hairs Jesus had on his left index finger probably isn't going to make much difference with my belief of what he did for us. but, if you were to believe that evolution is a process ran by the laws of the world, then then origin of sexual reproduction is a significant factor, in my opinion, because it is the only means we know that contributes to exchanging genetic material. and evolution can't occur without exchanging and gaining new genetic material. however, i'm NOT using it as an argument that if you can't figure out the origin of sexual reproduction, then evolution never occurred. i'm just saying because of the relationship between reproduction and evolution, then the origin of reproduction is also an important topic to think about. along the same lines of origin of life.
in addition, i do also think a discussion on evolution vs creationism (and the sub-discussions that always arise such as origin of life) are both scientific and...ok the closest word i can think is philosophical, but that's prob cuz gears aren't turning in my head very well anymore. and yes, i do mean to imply that believing in evolution does take some degree of faith. after all, science is based upon math, and math is based upon philosophy. agree?



You sound like a science person as well

aspiring to be one. i'm a senior undergrad at ucsd, getting a BS in biology. trying to focus myself somewhere between microbiology and molecular biology. i'm hoping to get into a biomed doctorate program somewhere a year or two after i graduate.



I agree.

just wanna say thanks :D



I don't know as much about the theoretical orgins of life, but I'll try to read up on it. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis and the experiements of Stanley Miller, in particular, come to mind (if I remember correctly). This topic is much more theoretical so don't expect too much confidence on my part.

ooo, please do share what you know about these hypotheses...i'm interested in hearing them.

to conclude, i think i just want to make the point that i know i cannot bring down the entire evolutionary sciences with only such simple ideas that i have. all i'm hoping to do is just perhaps poke enough holes in these theories and hypotheses for you, and maybe you'll try to look at it from a different perspective and not necessarily "take it for granted" because it was written in a textbook that you read.

[ShortStack]

Wow! Never did I think it'd get this big. Some very good thoughts people, I'll dissect throught this thread when I get home. But thank you for all of the participation! :angel:

Edit: Btw, I will start another "intellectual" thread once this one dies for the most part. We need to think more on these boards!

[mojo]

Originally posted by ShortStack
Edit: Btw, I will start another "intellectual" thread once this one dies for the most part. We need to think more on these boards! some of the more profound things said are hidden in benign threads ;)

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by mojo
some of the more profound things said are hidden in benign threads ;)

So, would this thread be considered malignant? :hehehmm:

[mojo]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


So, would this thread be considered malignant? :hehehmm: :hehehmm:

[Cantacuzene]

Debating evolution is stupid. Even if you obviously win, the other side wont accept it. I know thats the case for most arguements, but this one especially so because people thoroughly uneducated on the subject (myself included) all have opinions which they think are correct.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


So, would this thread be considered malignant? :hehehmm:

the evolution thread has gone metastatic

[mojo]

i actually had to get this from the math thread, but it's pertinent.


Originally posted by Napoleon54


it was just the next logical step!

benign --> malignant --> metastatic

interesting how some mutations are beneficial, and some are malignant. cancer is a form of cell mutation that's not beneficial to evolution. but as a mutation, it's *almost* immediate proof that evolution happens. given an extended timeline, you can also see how some mutations tend to occur in some families more than others.

all it takes is for a tail to become prehensiled or a hand to get an opposable thumb, and bam! beneficial mutation. suddenly part of the population is more skilled at hunting, food gathering, and general survival. well, the bam! is actually over a period of time during which that trait is passed along, but all the same it happens. and of course we see the tendency to want to pass along "good genes" every day. people want to mate with people they see as "superior" to other suitors and such. the more base desires being in things such as smell, and the more obvious being in height and other features. but we pass along the better features and over time the "undesirable" features go the way of the bee gees' album sales.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by mojo

interesting how some mutations are beneficial, and some are malignant. cancer is a form of cell mutation that's not beneficial to evolution. but as a mutation, it's *almost* immediate proof that evolution happens. given an extended timeline, you can also see how some mutations tend to occur in some families more than others.


Aye, cancer is definitly not a beneficial development for an organism. Another way to think about it, which was presented to me in a lecture a few weeks ago (recall, I go to school at a cancer institute), is to consider cancer on the cellular level. Cancer is an amazing example of evolution. Cancer cells acquire several mutations that enable them to grow uncontrollably. They grow better and faster than normal cells. Essentially their mutations allow them to very sucessfully compete against the rest of the body's cells. Thus a tumor gets bigger and bigger, and it does so at the expense of the rest of the body. Then *BAM!!* another mutation, and they're traveling through the blood stream, colonizing new organs- hence METASTASIS (today's Word-Of-The-Day)! But anyway, the take home message: a good way to understand cancer is to recognize that it's evolution at the cellular level. I thought that was hella cool 'cause I hadn't thought of it that way before.