ArtificialGrape's Evolution Primer [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : ArtificialGrape's Evolution Primer


ArtificialGrape
07-14-2011, 02:24
I will almost certainly come to regret the can of worms that this will open, but who doesn't like worms, so without further ado...

ArtificialGrape's Evolution Primer

It is not always clear when members really don't understand the basics of the theory of evolution or when they are intentionally misrepresenting them as some sort of strawman argument. The intent of this article is not to provide some all encompassing intro to evolution (see the Additional Reading section for some recommendations) but perhaps we can at least reach a common understanding of what the theory is and is not.

In this context, there is one illusion that you must do your level best to escape -- an error to guard against with all due caution. You must not imagine that the bright orbs of our eyes were created purposely, so that we might be able to look before us; that our need to stride ahead determined our equipment with the pliant props of thigh and ankle, set in the firm foundations of our feet; that our lower arms were fitted to stout upper arms, and helpful hands attached at either side, in order that we might do what is needful to sustain life. To interpret these or any other phenomena on these lines is perversely to turn the truth upside down. In fact, nothing in our bodies was born in order that we might be able to use it, but whatever thing is born creates its own use. --Lucretius, circa 80 BCE
First, what evolution (descent with modification) is not:

Evolution is not "just a theory". Here is a 10 minute video explaining how the term "theory" is used among scientists.
Evolution is not a theory of how life first began (nor is it a theory on cosmology).
Evolution does not claim that man evolved from monkeys or modern apes (nor that cross-pollinating roses could beget a dog).
Evolution does not occur at the same rate across different species, or at the same rate throughout the history of a species.
Evolution does not mandate that each species branches off new species.
Evolution (by natural selection) is not the only mechanism through which species change -- though it is the predominant one.
Evolution is not moving species towards one ideal species.
Evolution does not act with foresight.
Evolution cannot start from scratch, it may only modify an organism's current form.
Evolution is not random. While individual mutations and gene recombining from mother and father into child DNA may be random, the ultimate results of the modifications that survive are not random.


Now for what evolution is:

Evolution is the theory that the diversity of life on earth began with a single species that gradually evolved branching off new species, and that natural selection was the mechanism for most of this evolutionary change.
Evolution is gradual -- substantial changes can require hundreds, thousands or millions of generations.
Evolution tells us that all species (e.g. humans and ostriches) can be linked back to a common ancestor (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIHistory.shtml).
Common ancestry (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) allows for testable predictions about evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/patterns_intro.gif

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/unique-ancestor.gif
Evolution, at it's core, is natural selection which states that if genetic differences within a species impacts an individual's ability to survive and reproduce, then the next generation will have more of the "favorable" (to survival and reproduction) genes, and fewer copies of the "less favorable" genes. Subsequent generations become better suited to their environment over time as additional favorable mutations are preserved and accumulated while injurious mutations are eliminated. This simple process only requires that genetic variances within a species impact the likelihood of survival and reproduction. The ultimate effect can give the appearance of design, though the changes were accomplished entirely through a natural process.
Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc) generally occurs when a population becomes separated, reproductively isolated, and begins to diverge. These barriers are commonly geographic such as mountains rise, continents drift, drought splits a large forest into 2 forests with a joining grassland, etc. Once the populations diverge to the extent that they are not exchanging genes, and will no longer interbreed after they are reintroduced, they have become separate species.
There has never been a fossil found that was anachronistic to what evolution would predict.

Speaking of predictions:
Archaeopteryx (feathered dinosaur) was found in the fossil record where evolution would have predicted -- 145 million years ago between modern bird fossils from 70 million years ago, and theropod dinosaurs from 200 million years ago.
Evolution predicted a transition from fish to amphibian, and when in history that would have occurred. There were lobe-finned fish, but no vertebrates 390 million years ago, and there were land vertebrates 360 million years ago. Transitional species would have to occur between this range. Using the theory of evolution Neil Shubin predicted that if there were transitional fossils they should be found in fossils around 375 million years old, and in areas that were freshwater. Studying geological text books the team identified a region of the Canadian arctic. After 5 years of digs they found what has been named Tiktaalik with features between amphibians and earlier lobe-finned fish.
Marsupials: Marsupials are predominantly found in Australia.
The oldest marsupial fossils (about 80 million years old) are found in North America.
Marsupials evolved and spread to the south and were to the tip of South America around 40 million years ago.
Marsupials were found in Australia around 10 million years later.
Marsupials in Australia diverged into the 200+ species found there today.
Question: how did they cross the South Atlantic?
Hypothesis: we know that before the continents split, South America and Australia were joined by modern Antarctica, so marsupials must have traveled across Antarctica between 30 and 40 million years ago.
Prediction: marsupial fossils should be found in Antarctica dating to 30-40 million years ago.
Findings: scientists that traveled on an expedition to Antarctica looking for these fossils found fossils of more than a dozen marsupial species, and the fossils were dated to 35-40 million years ago.
Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Apes originated in Africa. Prediction: earliest hominids would be found in Africa. And they were.


For any of the Creationists, how would a "theory" of Creation explain these?


The fossil record clearly shows the development of simpler organisms prior to more complex organisms. If all species were created at the same time why would that be?


Why would the recurrent laryngeal nerve that only needs to travel from the brain to the larynx travel down to the heart, wrap around it, and return to the larynx? Here's a giraffe dissection demonstrating the 15ish foot path when about 15 inches would have done it.


5 weeks after fertilization you had a tail and pharyngeal pouches (predecessors of gills). Why would that be the case if you did not have ancestors with a tail and fish-like gills?


Within the eukaryotic cell, mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA. Why would God Design these organelles with their own DNA separate from the rest of the cell?

The Ichneumonidae family of wasps (3000+ species) reproduce by the female stinging her prey, laying her eggs inside the paralyzed prey, then after they hatch the larvae slowly eat their way out of the prey by eating the least essential parts first, then only at the end eating the essential parts and killing the host. Why would a benevolent God Design this into his Creation?
Atavisms, vestigial traits, and embryology -- too tired to elaborate tonight.

Southern continents (Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand) each have at least one species of flightless birds (ostrich, rhea, emu, etc.). How does that distribution make sense given a Great Flood?

More on biogeography, but first 2 terms for background:
Continentals islands were once part of mainland continents, but separated through continental drift (e.g. Japan and the British Isles)
Oceanic islands arose from the ocean floor (without any life) (e.g. the Hawaiian Islands and the Gallapagos)

The following are well documented:
Oceanic islands lack native mammals, amphibians and freshwater fish.
Continental islands contain native mammals, amphibians and freshwater fish.

Populations, such as birds, that are found on oceanic archipelagos islands today have many related species (e.g. the variety of finches on the Gallapagos).

Species, plant and animal, found on oceanic islands are most similar to those on the nearest mainland.

Very similar animals in similar habitats between Australia and the Americas have significant biological differences (marsupial and placental versions of moles, anteaters, flying squirrels).
Marsupial species are common in Australia and surrounding islands, but fairly rare outside of Australia.
How does Creation explain these observations?

Additional Reading:

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne (http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/people/coyne.html)
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero
The Annotated Origin
UC Berkeley's Evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml)
PBS Evolution Site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/)
TalkOrigin Evolution/Creation Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org)
TalkOrigin's evidence of speciation (macroevolution) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)


Revision History:
10/24/2013 -- minor wording
12/29/2011 -- revised Creationist questions
07/14/2011 -- Initial Post

ArtificialGrape
07-14-2011, 02:31
I'm not particularly interested in addressing every argument from ignorance / God of the gaps attack that people may choose to mount. Questions that are not yet answered, and may perhaps never be answered, by the theory of evolution do not diminish what has been established.

I will try my best to answer honest questions that people may have, and I'll look to the evolution savvy members to help keep me in line.

Again, the intent was not to teach people everything they need to know about evolution -- there are lots of great resources for that -- but rather to (hopefully) preemptively address the "descended from apes" and "yeah, but where did the matter for evolution come from" remarks.

Thank you and good night.

-ArtificialGrape

GreenDrake
07-14-2011, 04:41
But...but...that book of fiction is right because He said so.

Great post AG, saving this one.

eracer
07-14-2011, 04:50
Does evolutionary theory really suppose that all life descended from a single species?

I thought that current theory holds that in the earliest days of protein aggregation, that many different 'species' sprang forth (practically) simultaneously, and the first elements of speciation occurred rather rapidly as mutations happened rather randomly. Cellular differentiation set life on its current track, but those cells arose (and disappeared) from many different different alpha sources.

ArtificialGrape
07-14-2011, 07:52
Does evolutionary theory really suppose that all life descended from a single species?

I thought that current theory holds that in the earliest days of protein aggregation, that many different 'species' sprang forth (practically) simultaneously, and the first elements of speciation occurred rather rapidly as mutations happened rather randomly. Cellular differentiation set life on its current track, but those cells arose (and disappeared) from many different different alpha sources.
Darwin referred to a single "primordial progenitor" of all life, and my reading of Dawkins, Coyne, Shubin and others still share this view. I'm not sure that we would have the same DNA record that we have today if that were not the case, but I would certainly be interested in reading contrary opinions if you have any pointers.

-ArtificialGrape

dbcooper
07-14-2011, 09:30
Great post.

I would add the punctuated equilibrium theory of Eldridge and Gould in with evolution being gradual change over long periods. Some can be quite dramatic in short periods

frank4570
07-14-2011, 09:44
Great post.

I would add the punctuated equilibrium theory of Eldridge and Gould in with evolution being gradual change over long periods. Some can be quite dramatic in short periods

I think it too much too fast for the class AG is teaching. He's already put up a ton of info.

ArtificialGrape
07-14-2011, 10:56
Great post.

I would add the punctuated equilibrium theory of Eldridge and Gould in with evolution being gradual change over long periods. Some can be quite dramatic in short periods

Here is some dissent to punctuated equilibria (http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/6740papers/charlesworth.pdf), and some additional responses between Eldredge/Gould and Coyne/Charlesworth (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/science_on-punctuated-equilibria.html) that may interest you.

Coyne recently wrote "that stasis and jumpiness suggested by Gould and Eldredge is simply wrong, as is their notion that many trends in the history of life (indeed, Gould maintained many features of organisms) are molded by species selection. In fact, in his last book, Gould couldnít come up with a single good example of the process that he earlier considered of paramount importance in evolution. I donít think that many paleobiologists, and certainly almost no microevolutionists, consider the mechanisms of punctuated equilibrium to be important (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/steve-gould-gets-it-in-the-neck/)".

Additionally Richard Dawkins responds to the theory in The Blind Watchmaker.

-ArtificialGrape

dbcooper
07-14-2011, 15:40
Here is some dissent to punctuated equilibria (http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/6740papers/charlesworth.pdf), and some additional responses between Eldredge/Gould and Coyne/Charlesworth (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/science_on-punctuated-equilibria.html) that may interest you.

Coyne recently wrote "that stasis and jumpiness suggested by Gould and Eldredge is simply wrong, as is their notion that many trends in the history of life (indeed, Gould maintained many features of organisms) are molded by species selection. In fact, in his last book, Gould couldnít come up with a single good example of the process that he earlier considered of paramount importance in evolution. I donít think that many paleobiologists, and certainly almost no microevolutionists, consider the mechanisms of punctuated equilibrium to be important (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/steve-gould-gets-it-in-the-neck/)".

Additionally Richard Dawkins responds to the theory in The Blind Watchmaker.

-ArtificialGrape

I've gone through most of it. Part of the I.D. movements claims of the "controversy" is the debate over punctuated equilibrium and gradual change. Cause iffin the scientists can't agree on how it happened then maybe it didn't. Gotta love it.

ArtificialGrape
07-14-2011, 15:58
I've gone through most of it. Part of the I.D. movements claims of the "controversy" is the debate over punctuated equilibrium and gradual change. Cause iffin the scientists can't agree on how it happened then maybe it didn't. Gotta love it.
Yep, disagreements between scientists often provide rich fodder for Creationist quote mining. I've read several scientist authors write about reading with amazement how they have been quoted out of context to represent their position opposite of what they were really saying.

Even this issue is really about how gradual evolution is. There is no disagreement with "life evolves".

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
12-22-2011, 00:43
Bump... still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of even the basics.

lomfs24
12-22-2011, 13:03
Bump... still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of even the basics.

Great initial post AG. As I have mentioned in another thread. I haven't completely given up on the idea of a power greater than ourselves. I have, however, given up on the idea of organized religion.

With that in mind, I have read your post and feel that it is very informative. I have not read all the extra reading yet, with my current schedule it may take me several days to get through it all.

I am the sort of person who's mind works chronologically. I understand that evolution is the theory, simply put, of how we got to where we are today and that it does not address how it all started. My question is, what area of science, if any, really addresses the origin of life? And do you have any suggestions on good reads for that topic?

Like I said, my mind works chronologically. I have a rough understanding of what evolution is about but before I can really wrap my head around that I have to ask the question, "What happened before that?"

Please do not read into this that I am trying to be inflammatory in any way. I am trying to wrap my head around the idea of, for the lack of better words, there was a "big bang" and the universe began to form. Through some weird twist of fate we end up with a planet that is the right distance from the sun, right gasses present, with the right mixture of land and water. But, is sterile. I am OK up to that point. Then, a few million years later, however long that may be, we begin to see single cell organisms. What happened in that period of time and does science have a theory or area of study for that time frame?

ArtificialGrape
12-22-2011, 14:15
Great initial post AG. As I have mentioned in another thread. I haven't completely given up on the idea of a power greater than ourselves. I have, however, given up on the idea of organized religion.

With that in mind, I have read your post and feel that it is very informative. I have not read all the extra reading yet, with my current schedule it may take me several days to get through it all.

I am the sort of person who's mind works chronologically. I understand that evolution is the theory, simply put, of how we got to where we are today and that it does not address how it all started. My question is, what area of science, if any, really addresses the origin of life? And do you have any suggestions on good reads for that topic?

Like I said, my mind works chronologically. I have a rough understanding of what evolution is about but before I can really wrap my head around that I have to ask the question, "What happened before that?"

Please do not read into this that I am trying to be inflammatory in any way. I am trying to wrap my head around the idea of, for the lack of better words, there was a "big bang" and the universe began to form. Through some weird twist of fate we end up with a planet that is the right distance from the sun, right gasses present, with the right mixture of land and water. But, is sterile. I am OK up to that point. Then, a few million years later, however long that may be, we begin to see single cell organisms. What happened in that period of time and does science have a theory or area of study for that time frame?
Abiogenesis is in the realm of chemists because you're beginning with inert compounds. I provide some details around abiogenesis in the longer section towards the end of this post (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17723115&posted=1#post17723115).

-ArtificialGrape

lomfs24
12-22-2011, 14:26
Thanks AG, I'll take a look at that in the near future. We've gotten some pretty good snow here in KS this week and I've been busy on the ambulance. Not really sure what day it is today.

Thanks again!

Texas357
12-23-2011, 00:48
Wrong forum. Keep your observable facts and logic in the Science forum where it belongs. This is the religion forum, and we'll have none of that here.

:whistling::whistling:

Smacktard
12-23-2011, 16:58
Dear Mr. Grape, the Bible tells me you are wrong! Do you love Jesus or not?


...

Roering
12-24-2011, 00:15
Why is an evolution thread in the religious issues forum?

Syclone538
12-24-2011, 01:04
Why is an evolution thread in the religious issues forum?

Because some religious people disbelieve evolution, while not understanding it, because of religion.

Roering
12-24-2011, 01:11
Because some religious people disbelieve evolution, while not understanding it, because of religion.

A lot of religious people don't believe we should embrace socialism, while not understanding it, because of religion. Doesn't mean it will get moved from political issues to here.

Last I checked evolution was a scientific theory. Not a tennant of faith.

Texas357
12-24-2011, 02:24
Last I checked evolution was a scientific theory. Not a tennant of faith.

Last I checked, David Tennant was the tenth Doctor. Why said anything about Timelords?

ArtificialGrape
12-24-2011, 05:09
Last I checked evolution was a scientific theory. Not a tennant of faith.
Those 'round here that insist on making straw man arguments are largely doing so because they are unable to reconcile it with their faith.

I personally have never seen a rose bush turn into a puppy. Hmmm... This evolution thing must be a scam.

Cheers.

GreenDrake
12-24-2011, 06:19
All too often as children question the religious faiths their parents raised them with, throughout history, they were told not to question but to believe. As with the topic here, fact, knowledge and the ability to think for themselves evolves. To deny that evolution occurs, to me of course is just plain silliness. Then again, that's just me.

ksg0245
12-24-2011, 06:35
Because some religious people disbelieve evolution, while not understanding it, because of religion.

That's certainly troubling, but the problem is then that some religious people want aspects of their religion to be taught and accepted as science.

English
12-24-2011, 06:37
Great initial post AG. As I have mentioned in another thread. I haven't completely given up on the idea of a power greater than ourselves. I have, however, given up on the idea of organized religion.

With that in mind, I have read your post and feel that it is very informative. I have not read all the extra reading yet, with my current schedule it may take me several days to get through it all.

I am the sort of person who's mind works chronologically. I understand that evolution is the theory, simply put, of how we got to where we are today and that it does not address how it all started. My question is, what area of science, if any, really addresses the origin of life? And do you have any suggestions on good reads for that topic?

Like I said, my mind works chronologically. I have a rough understanding of what evolution is about but before I can really wrap my head around that I have to ask the question, "What happened before that?"

Please do not read into this that I am trying to be inflammatory in any way. I am trying to wrap my head around the idea of, for the lack of better words, there was a "big bang" and the universe began to form. Through some weird twist of fate we end up with a planet that is the right distance from the sun, right gasses present, with the right mixture of land and water. But, is sterile. I am OK up to that point. Then, a few million years later, however long that may be, we begin to see single cell organisms. What happened in that period of time and does science have a theory or area of study for that time frame?

The book Life Ascending: The Ten Great Iventions of Evolution by Nick Lane will answer many of your questions and some you haven't asked yet. It will take you from the Krebs Cycle and the anti Krebs Cycle to the formation of two different forms of primitive unicellular life, the bacteria and the archaea. It will explain the limits preventing bacteria from forming multicellular life and how the incorporation of a bacterium into an archaea cell formed the basis for eukaryotic cells with the capacity for multicellular life forms. It will give you a time scale of a very long time with the existence of these two primitive life forms existing and evolving before this unlikely combination and then an astoundingly rapid evolution of eukaryotic animals, plants and fungi from this single unicellular accident.

It is worth noting that both the more primitive forms of life evolved separately and that evolution from a single common ancestor only applies from the first eukaryote.

I can't recommend this book highly enough.

English

ksg0245
12-24-2011, 06:44
A lot of religious people don't believe we should embrace socialism, while not understanding it, because of religion. Doesn't mean it will get moved from political issues to here.

Last I checked evolution was a scientific theory. Not a tennant of faith.

It becomes a religious issue when religious people insist their religious beliefs be accepted as an alternative scientific theory.

IhRedrider
12-24-2011, 06:57
Why is an evolution thread in the religious issues forum?

Why would you ask such a question? It absolutely belongs here. It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory.

p.s. Do not question or argue with anyone that believes in evolution, it is disrespectful of their faith. You would not appreciate it if it was done to you on a tenant of your faith. Treat others as you wish to be treated.

English
12-24-2011, 07:38
A lot of religious people don't believe we should embrace socialism, while not understanding it, because of religion. Doesn't mean it will get moved from political issues to here.

Last I checked evolution was a scientific theory. Not a tennant of faith.

Religions in general attempt to explain the origin of life as we know it. Their explanation vary in form but share the common characteristic that they cannot be tested and depend on an accident of an individual's faith being attached to one religion rather than another.

The theory of evolution is indeed a scientific theory but in this instance in particular it is in direct conflict with religious attempts to explain the origin of life. Unlike those attempts it is a coherrent structure which can be tested against verifiable facts and scientific theories at many levels, and which is consistent with any branch of science which contacts it.

It is this conflict which generates so much opposition and anguish from people of faith. The theory of evolution is, quite simply, irreconcilable with any traditional faith and the depth of anguish created by this leads to arguments against it founded in ignorance and deeply integrated intellectual nonsense such as Intelligent Design.

Religions claim a priviledged position in claiming that their beliefs are not open to scientific or logical question and yet they claim the right to question and denigrate science from a psychological position which will not allow them to understand the science they question. It is this position that justifies the presence of this thread within the Religious Issues forum. It is an issue affecting people with or without faith.

The psychological principle of cognitive dissonance claims that people are uncomfortable if their ideas, beliefs and feelings are not consitent from one to the other and that people in this state of discomfort will modify one or two of the three in order to regain a level of comfort. There is much to support this idea and little reason to deny it. The cogitive dissonance gap between a faith based belief and the idea of, and the ideas following from, the theory of evolution is so great that it causes high levels of anxiety which can be escaped in only two ways. The most probable truth of the theory of evolution can be rationalised away with false arguments, of which there are many, or the belief in religion can be discarded.

This is, of course, a cruel position, but it is not one of my making. The idea of the theory of evolution is at large and the anxiety it creates predates my existence. We see from the current thread "Fellow Atheists" that there are many trying to escape the mental clutches of religion. For these people, the theory of evolution is a considerable comfort because it shows that the religious belief that entangles their lives is not based on some universal truth or any great truth at all. It facilitates their process of reconciling their ideas, beliefs and feelings.

It can be argued that their benefit should not be weighed against the anxiety of those who cannot leave their faith, but that would be a false argument. For those who are locked into their faith and so lack the free will to consider ideas which conflict with that faith, the idea of the theory of evolution cannot be removed from their minds. In the end there is probable truth and probable untruth and we have to decide between living with one or the other.

English

English
12-24-2011, 07:48
Why would you ask such a question? It absolutely belongs here. It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory.

p.s. Do not question or argue with anyone that believes in evolution, it is disrespectful of their faith. You would not appreciate it if it was done to you on a tenant of your faith. Treat others as you wish to be treated.

Ah yes! Another false rationalisation. Does it take faith to belive that unsupported things fall? Does it take faith to believe that the world is an approximately round plannet travelling in an elipse round the sun? Does it take faith to believe that plants use chrorophyll to use the energy of sunlight to create energy rich hydrocarbon compounds? Does it take faith to believe that 1+1 = 2?

English

ArtificialGrape
12-24-2011, 08:32
Why would you ask such a question? It absolutely belongs here. It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory.

p.s. Do not question or argue with anyone that believes in evolution, it is disrespectful of their faith. You would not appreciate it if it was done to you on a tenant of your faith. Treat others as you wish to be treated.

What is it with evolution that troubles you so?
The fossil evidence?
The DNA evidence?
The biogeographical evidence?
The embryological evidence?
All the anatomical oddities, vestiges and atavisms that only make sense in the light of evolution?

Or would accepting evolution perhaps not make you feel special?

Feel free to take a crack at the questions in the initial post.

lomfs24
12-24-2011, 09:42
The book Life Ascending: The Ten Great Iventions of Evolution by Nick Lane will answer many of your questions and some you haven't asked yet. It will take you from the Krebs Cycle and the anti Krebs Cycle to the formation of two different forms of primitive unicellular life, the bacteria and the archaea. It will explain the limits preventing bacteria from forming multicellular life and how the incorporation of a bacterium into an archaea cell formed the basis for eukaryotic cells with the capacity for multicellular life forms. It will give you a time scale of a very long time with the existence of these two primitive life forms existing and evolving before this unlikely combination and then an astoundingly rapid evolution of eukaryotic animals, plants and fungi from this single unicellular accident.

It is worth noting that both the more primitive forms of life evolved separately and that evolution from a single common ancestor only applies from the first eukaryote.

I can't recommend this book highly enough.

EnglishThanks English! I will definitely put it on my to do or to read list.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

robbcayman
12-24-2011, 09:59
Nice thread, Grape. I would highly suggest reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is first and foremost a scientist and he lays out how evolution truly works and blows out dumb myths like the crocoduck, how the modern dog came to be etc.

Many in the church try to run from science in the realm of evolution, but accept science in so many other areas of life i.e. cell phones, tv, DNA evidence in trial, modern medicine etc... The thing that makes me sad is that many religious people are trying to oppress science that could alter lives, because it doesn't jive with some old book they have.

packsaddle
12-24-2011, 16:04
yep, i thought your "evolution primer" looked familiar.

it is also known as the "Church of Darwin Articles of Faith".

when reciting it, you're supposed to toss a small pinch of incense to Pope Charlie's statue and give praise to the bearded buddha at his altar.

well done!

juggy4711
12-24-2011, 17:04
Great OP Grape. If I'm ever up to it I do a Physics primer. There are a lot of misunderstandings and intentional misrepresentation on that subject as well.

Kingarthurhk
12-24-2011, 17:18
yep, i thought your "evolution primer" looked familiar.

it is also known as the "Church of Darwin Articles of Faith".

when reciting it, you're supposed to toss a small pinch of incense to Pope Charlie's statue and give praise to the bearded buddha at his altar.

well done!

Well, it's interesting that they wrote their own bible.

IhRedrider
12-24-2011, 18:57
What is it with evolution that troubles you so?
The fossil evidence?
The DNA evidence?
The biogeographical evidence?
The embryological evidence?
All the anatomical oddities, vestiges and atavisms that only make sense in the light of evolution?

Or would accepting evolution perhaps not make you feel special?

Feel free to take a crack at the questions in the initial post.

What makes you so bold as to assume that the theory of evolution troubles me at all?

I was simple defending your right to speak what you believe. Sorry if that bothers and or offends you. It seems to me you should be upset at Roering for questioning why you posted in the religious issues forum. I believe you have every right to bring up religious issues in this forum.

My acceptance or lack of acceptance of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with me being special or not being special. So I don't know how to answer that question.

As to feeling free to take a crack at the questions in the original post. That was the point of my post, to defend your rights. I damn sure don't need your permission to speak my mind about anything I wish to, but thank you I suppose.

ArtificialGrape
12-24-2011, 20:19
What makes you so bold as to assume that the theory of evolution troubles me at all?

I was simple defending your right to speak what you believe. Sorry if that bothers and or offends you. It seems to me you should be upset at Roering for questioning why you posted in the religious issues forum. I believe you have every right to bring up religious issues in this forum.

My acceptance or lack of acceptance of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with me being special or not being special. So I don't know how to answer that question.

As to feeling free to take a crack at the questions in the original post. That was the point of my post, to defend your rights. I damn sure don't need your permission to speak my mind about anything I wish to, but thank you I suppose.

In your previous message you stated that "It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory." This demonstrates two things right away. One, you don't appear familiar with the evidence that supports evolution, and two, you don't seem to understand how the word "theory" is used among scientists -- this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzEqs&feature=player_embedded) might help with that last point.

I'm glad that your ability to feel special is not tied to whether or not you accept evolution, but many here believe that the everything about the earth as well as the billions of galaxies and billions of billions of stars were created just for them. It seems to me that recognizing primates, fish and archaebacteria in their family tree would reduce their feeling special. :dunno:

Sarge1400
12-24-2011, 20:58
It seems to me that recognizing primates, fish and archaebacteria in their family tree would reduce their feeling special. :dunno:

Exactly. Which is why they refuse to recognize them.

IhRedrider
12-24-2011, 21:20
In your previous message you stated that "It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory." This demonstrates two things right away. One, you don't appear familiar with the evidence that supports evolution, and two, you don't seem to understand how the word "theory" is used among scientists -- this video might help with that last point.

I don't know how you determined from my statement, "It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory." that I don't appear familiar with the evidence that supports evolution.

Don't play word games. Is evolution a PROVEN fact or is it, what I referred to, a THEORY? If it is a PROVEN fact, just present ALL the facts necessary to move it from theory to fact. Or just admit it requires faith to believe just as creation does. I don't understand why you are reluctant to admit that you have stepped out in faith and believed a particular theory of existence. What do you have against faith anyway? Do you live a life the is based entirely in fact with nothing that is not known and proven?

I have not bashed you for the statements of what you believe. As a matter of fact I defended your rights to vocalize your opinions in this forum against someone who cast a judgmental position on your original post. Why do you assume to know what I believe or call into question what I know or don't know? You don't know me.

Neither the theory of evolution and creation can be proven at this time. If one could be proven, the supporters would do just that and PROVE the other camp wrong. I have not seen this happen.

And before anyone jumps on me for leaving them out, I only referred to the THEORY of evolution and creation, because they are the two main theories of existence. If you hold some other theory of existence other than evolution or creation, great. Hold on in faith to your beliefs, or PROVE your theory, and it will become known as FACT. Until then, enjoy your freedom to express your theories, but know that they are theories. And know that I support your right to do so. Just understand that I also support the rights of others to express their theories. That does not mean I have to believe ANY of them. What I believe, is what I have chosen to step out in faith and believe. I can PROVE it no more than ANYONE else can. I will not even try to prove that which is unable to be proven.

Just as a side note, if you can PROVE evolution, WTF are you wasting your time on a gun forum? You should go make your fortune in some scientific endeavor. You could be famous, greater than Darwin. Go dog go.

lomfs24
12-24-2011, 21:41
Don't play word games. Is evolution a PROVEN fact or is it, what I referred to, a THEORY? If it is a PROVEN fact, just present ALL the facts necessary to move it from theory to fact. Or just admit it requires faith to believe just as creation does. I don't understand why you are reluctant to admit that you have stepped out in faith and believed a particular theory of existence. What do you have against faith anyway? Do you live a life the is based entirely in fact with nothing that is not known and proven?


A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. Gravity is a theory, yesterday I let go of my phone and it fell, that is a fact. I have faith that if I let go of my phone tomorrow it will fall again. Yet gravity remains a theory. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment. This is precisely was makes a theory scientific. Best way to get rid of this pesky little problem of evolution is to simply disprove it. You could be more famous than Darwin. Go dog go!

ArtificialGrape
12-24-2011, 23:39
I don't know how you determined from my statement, "It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory." that I don't appear familiar with the evidence that supports evolution.

Because if you understood the evidence you would realize that it is not a matter of faith. As English tried to point out above, no more faith is involved in accepting evolution than in accepting that our sky appears blue -- that is unless God Designed you color blind because he has some special purpose for you which requires that you not be able to distinguish certain colors. In that case I suppose you would have to take it on faith that the sky is blue.

Don't play word games. Is evolution a PROVEN fact or is it, what I referred to, a THEORY? If it is a PROVEN fact, just present ALL the facts necessary to move it from theory to fact. Or just admit it requires faith to believe just as creation does. I don't understand why you are reluctant to admit that you have stepped out in faith and believed a particular theory of existence. What do you have against faith anyway? Do you live a life the is based entirely in fact with nothing that is not known and proven?

I'm not playing word games, and I'll again suggest that you watch the video that I recommended. As lomfs24 explained, a theory is the highest level of confidence among scientists. A fact is merely an observation -- not particularly interesting or useful in itself. For example, an apple released from the top of a building is observed to fall towards the earth. That is the fact (the observation). It does not explain anything. The theory of gravity can be used to explain and predict many other outcomes from tides to planetary movement.

I have not bashed you for the statements of what you believe. As a matter of fact I defended your rights to vocalize your opinions in this forum against someone who cast a judgmental position on your original post. Why do you assume to know what I believe or call into question what I know or don't know? You don't know me.

Nor have I bashed you, I have shared my observations based on your chosen words, and your follow-up reinforced my previous interpretation.

I have no problem with Roering, and often find him amusing. I always know that if he gets too out of line I can tell the pope that he had a vasectomy. :cool:

Neither the theory of evolution and creation can be proven at this time. If one could be proven, the supporters would do just that and PROVE the other camp wrong. I have not seen this happen.

A theory is never "proven", because one of the great things about science is that it is self-correcting -- any theory can be disproven. However, a theory can be supported by such a metric butt load of evidence that it becomes a de facto "fact" in the sense that you think of the word. In this regard the claim that "life evolved" is as much a fact as "the sky is blue." Could some of today's specific understanding of evolution through natural selection turn out to be wrong? Could current research into homeobox (hox) genes change some understanding of speciation? It's certainly possible, but the evidence supporting the statement that "life evolved" is so overwhelming it is nearly unimaginable that it would be falsified.

Creation is not a theory in the sense that scientists use the word. Have I mentioned this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzEqs&feature=player_embedded) that explains the terminology? Once "God did _______" comes into the picture, you are no longer in the realm of science. That is the ultimate trump card, because science cannot make predictions about what an omnipotent ruler of the universe will do. If science advanced to the point that kids could have their own mini-Hadron colider science set and create miniature universes at will, and an abiogenesis chemistry set to spawn life from inert material, it may demonstrate that God was not necessary, but it would still not disprove God.

And before anyone jumps on me for leaving them out, I only referred to the THEORY of evolution and creation, because they are the two main theories of existence. If you hold some other theory of existence other than evolution or creation, great. Hold on in faith to your beliefs, or PROVE your theory, and it will become known as FACT. Until then, enjoy your freedom to express your theories, but know that they are theories. And know that I support your right to do so. Just understand that I also support the rights of others to express their theories. That does not mean I have to believe ANY of them. What I believe, is what I have chosen to step out in faith and believe. I can PROVE it no more than ANYONE else can. I will not even try to prove that which is unable to be proven.

One last time, a theory is not just some wild guess, or an out of the blue hypothesis. Please watch the video.

If you wish to participate in a discussion of science, it would be helpful if you would at least learn some basic vocabulary so that we have a common ground to start from. That was really the point behind this thread in the first place.

Cheers.

IhRedrider
12-25-2011, 08:53
You are wrong, a theory is just that, a Theory. When a theory is proven, it becomes scientific law. In responsible study, there are facts that are used to develop a theory. Using your example, the phenomena of your phone being attracted to the earth is FACT. The scientific explanation of the exact mechanism that cause this OBSERVABLE action is THEORY, Theory because it's exact operatives cannot be proven.

Scientists have observed the FACT of the existence of different species. Yet no one has observed the actual event of evolution, therefore evolution is a theory.

As lomfs24 explained, a theory is the highest level of confidence among scientists. A fact is merely an observation -- not particularly interesting or useful in itself.

This speaks volumes about what you believe. Valid scientific theories are based in fact, not emotion. If you truly believe "A fact is merely an observation -- not particularly interesting or useful in itself." then what do you base theories on? If you do not hold facts as useful than I guess you your support of evolution must come from emotions and or faith.



A theory is never "proven", because one of the great things about science is that it is self-correcting -- any theory can be disproven. However, a theory can be supported by such a metric butt load of evidence that it becomes a de facto "fact" in the sense that you think of the word.

So ANY theory can be disproven, except evolution. Because YOU deem it "de facto". You claim that the people that believe creation have stepped out of science when they bring "God" into the equation. Yet you place yourself as the judge of what is fact based upon what fits in your ass.

If you wish to participate in a discussion of science, it would be helpful if you would at least learn some basic vocabulary so that we have a common ground to start from. That was really the point behind this thread in the first place.

If the point of the original post was to debate "science" as opposed to religion/faith, I guess I owe an apology to Roering. He must have had an insight to your true motivation in the original post. That's kinda like going to the "1911" forum and explaining to everyone that your Smith M&P is the best thing ever and all 1911's are crap. That truly is a **** stirring move.

I have a solution to propose to you, don't call other people's baby ugly, and they won't point out your ugly baby.

English
12-25-2011, 15:30
IhRedrider,
Unfortunately, we are talking at cross purposes because we have different meanings for the same words.

In general usage "facts" are associated with truth. Facts are true but true things are not necessarily facts. Anyone can see the same fact and therefore all can agree that it is true. For example, something that is unsupported falls, and we have all spent our lives with this fact. The next stage of understanding is naming a phenomenon so in this case we can say, "It falls because of the force of gravity." but that explains nothing.

The next stage is some kind of guess about why or how some phenomenon happens. In this case someone might have thought, "The earth is a big thing and little things fall towards it. So perhaps the way that gravity works is that little things fall towards big things." It is worth noting that this inspired idea could not happen when people thought that the world was flat. It took the understanding that the Earth was a planet and that things fell not just towards the ground but towards the centre of the planet. Clearly the extension of knowledge depends on the accumulation of previous knowledge.

To most people this might be a satisfactory and pleasing idea which would be taken no further. Someone with a more scientific disposition and a little mathematical ability might want to investigate further and would try to put together ideas about falling. Such a person might reach the second inspiration that an object thrown upwards was without support from the moment it left the thrower's hand and so was falling even when moving upwards. By watching objects thrown upwards at an angle he might observe the fact that the path of the object looked like a parabola which he knew from the mathematics of conic sections. If he had access to a stop watch and a tower he might make interesting observations about the downward acceleration of a falling body but without that he might think that if a falling body is connected to one conic section then others might be connected to other conic sections. Such a person with access to the detailed observations of planetary motions amassed by astronomers would then be close to a theory of the effects of gravity which could be applied to the movements of artillery shells, planets, comets and apples falling from trees.

Given the necessary mathematical ability such a person could then guess that the gravitational force of an object was proportion to its mass and fell away with distance according to an inverse square law and he could test this against the velocity and curvature of the trajectory of shells and do the same for the movement of planetary bodies. It is worth noting at this point that he would be unable to do these calculations in full for planetary bodies and would be unable to calculate or measure the elliptical motion of the earth induced by the moon but he would be very certain that it would be there and that it could probably be measured as science and technology developed.

This is the nature of a theory. It is an explanation of some group of phenomena which are often not previously linked in general thought. It allows predictions to be made about previously unsuspected phenomena which could in time be verified, unless, of course, the theory was wrong. A single such fact predicted by the theory which did not match the theory would then falsify that theory and the scientist would have to start again. Because we cannot test all possible predictions of a theory we can never be sure that a theory is true. All we can say at any time is that it has not yet been proved wrong or that it has been proved wrong. Anyone who asks for a theory to be proved true does not understand the nature of theories. No matter how many facts agree with a theory we cannot claim that it is true.

It should be clear from this that facts and theories are entirely separate categories of things. A fact is a simple or moderately simple observation. A theory is an explanation of how some category of things that can be observed behave as they do. Even if a theory could be declared to be true it could not be declared to be a fact. This simple statement applies to all theories, even to those as simple as the theory of the effects of gravity. The theory of evolution is no different. It is true beyond all reasonable, experimental, historical, geological and logical doubt but it can never be declared true because no theory can be declared true. This is not a matter of faith in anything but human intelligence and the philosophy and methodology of science. Anyone who believes it to be false is either insufficiently educated or intelligent to understand the nature of the multi faceted evidence or refuses to examine that evidence.

It is true that spinach is not a super food but just something for which a scientist got the decimal point in the wrong place. It is equally true that aluminum should really be spelled aluminium but for the fact that a USA customs official made a copying error. Individuals make mistakes and scientists are not immune from the same problem, but the advantage of science is that other scientists can repeat the same experiments or make other predictions from the same theory. Whenever those theories do not match observation the theory dies. In 150 years of related scientific enquiry, no fact or observation has falsified the theory of evolution.

What that theory means now with present knowledge is not quite what it meant in Darwin's time but the principle is essentially as valid now as then. We now know that bacteria have evolved in the linear Darwinian sense but that they also swap, or steal, sections of DNA from other sometimes unrelated bacteria. So rather than bacterial evolution being representable by a tree structure it must be represented as a network where the evolutionary development of one species can jump sideways into another species. We also know that the eukaryote section of life, of which we are an example, is the result of a chimera between two different types of life; the prokaryotes and the archaea. We know that life existed for some two billion years before this seemingly extremely rare accident and that eukaryote life then radiated into many different multicellular creatures within a very short time after that. If it took two billion years it could well have taken four or six or ten billion years and we would not be here and neither would be anything much bigger or more interesting than a bacterium. How do we know this? We know it from biochemistry and gene sequencing, but if you want, or are brave enough, to learn more, the information is all out there ready to read and understand.

English

IhRedrider
12-25-2011, 18:05
English

Unfortunately, we are talking at cross purposes because we have different meanings for the same words.

OK. Under this circumstance we will probably never agree on anything. Which is fine with me. I will still support your right to believe what you want and to even express those beliefs. Which was my original position to start with. I read through your post and I can see that you put a lot of thought into what you wanted to say, I truly do appreciate that. There are some who only seem to answer posts out of emotion. While I do enjoy emotion (and some times suffer from it) from a woman, I find it to be a bit illogical and counterproductive when engaging in a discussion.

The theory of evolution is no different. It is true beyond all reasonable, experimental, historical, geological and logical doubt but it can never be declared true because no theory can be declared true.

I find this interesting. You claim that the theory of evolution is true, however you state that it can never be declared true.

Anyone who believes it to be false is either insufficiently educated or intelligent to understand the nature of the multi faceted evidence or refuses to examine that evidence.

This seems to me to be a very judgmental statement that could be spoken about ANY theory. Just out of curiosity, do you believe that there is a theory of creation, like there is a theory of evolution?

ArtificialGrape
12-25-2011, 22:20
You are wrong, a theory is just that, a Theory. When a theory is proven, it becomes scientific law. In responsible study, there are facts that are used to develop a theory. Using your example, the phenomena of your phone being attracted to the earth is FACT. The scientific explanation of the exact mechanism that cause this OBSERVABLE action is THEORY, Theory because it's exact operatives cannot be proven.

I would have been glad to continue the conversation, but you insist on continuing to flaunt your lack of understanding of even the terminology used among scientists. Your impression that theories once proven become laws is just flat out wrong. Theories cannot be proven, as pointed out previously they may be supported by a metric butt load of evidence, but that doesn't make them proven -- just well supported -- they are always subject to being falsified -- science is pretty cool that way. If you had watched the video that I've repeatedly pointed you to, and which was the very first bullet in the initial post to this thread you would understand that.

Scientists have observed the FACT of the existence of different species. Yet no one has observed the actual event of evolution, therefore evolution is a theory.

Again, you don't understand, and I don't see me changing that.

This speaks volumes about what you believe. Valid scientific theories are based in fact, not emotion. If you truly believe "A fact is merely an observation -- not particularly interesting or useful in itself." then what do you base theories on? If you do not hold facts as useful than I guess you your support of evolution must come from emotions and or faith.

Yes, theories are built on facts (finally something we agree upon), You will notice that I clarified my statement with "in itself". A fact by itself is not very interesting -- the sun rises in the east -- facts become part of something interesting and useful when they are stitched together into a theory. Emotion has nothing to do with it.

So ANY theory can be disproven, except evolution. Because YOU deem it "de facto". You claim that the people that believe creation have stepped out of science when they bring "God" into the equation. Yet you place yourself as the judge of what is fact based upon what fits in your ass.

Of course evolution can be disproven, my point about "de facto" was trying to put it in terms that you would understand. Theories can be falsified, even laws can be falsified. I expect the theory of evolution to continue undergoing refinements, as mentioned before, research into hox genes may demonstrate that some body plan changes occurred faster than previously thought, but I believe the likelihood of "life evolved" being completely falsified to be nearly nil due to the mountain of evidence that supports it. I suspect that you would have a hard time finding a handful of biologists with reputations to lose that would argue otherwise. I'm not sure what has struck such a chord with you that compels you to make this personal.

If the point of the original post was to debate "science" as opposed to religion/faith, I guess I owe an apology to Roering. He must have had an insight to your true motivation in the original post. That's kinda like going to the "1911" forum and explaining to everyone that your Smith M&P is the best thing ever and all 1911's are crap. That truly is a **** stirring move.
The purpose of this thread had nothing to do with stirring the pot. If you've read this forum long enough you will have seen attempts to dismiss evolution because it doesn't answer big bang and where the *stuff* came from, or that it doesn't address the origin of the first self-replicating molecule. Evolution is silent on these matters, so these objections bear no weight. The mention in the initial post regarding a rose bush begeting a dog was based on another actual objection in this forum.

As I've stated again, the intent was to at least set a base understanding of what the theory of evolution is and is not. Then when the same objections and strawman arguments come up, the answer to the ignorance vs. dishonesty question becomes obvious.

I have a solution to propose to you, don't call other people's baby ugly, and they won't point out your ugly baby.

I can try to make information available, I can't make somebody open their mind or want to learn.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
12-25-2011, 22:33
While directed to English, I'm sure he won't mind if I weigh in...
I find this interesting. You claim that the theory of evolution is true, however you state that it can never be declared true.
The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years. It has not yet been falsified. There has never been a fossil found anachronistic to what evolution would predict. "Life evolved" is supported by a preponderance of evidence, but scientific theories and laws are always falsifiable.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that there is a theory of creation, like there is a theory of evolution?
A scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. How would you falsify "God did it"?

-ArtificialGrape

Kingarthurhk
12-26-2011, 04:12
While directed to English, I'm sure he won't mind if I weigh in...

The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years. It has not yet been falsified. There has never been a fossil found anachronistic to what evolution would predict. "Life evolved" is supported by a preponderance of evidence, but scientific theories and laws are always falsifiable.

A scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. How would you falsify "God did it"?

-ArtificialGrape

The "theory of Creation" has been around longer than that and it has yet to be "falsified".

Aditionally, the theory of evolution cannot be "falsified" because it is neither observable, testable, or verifiable.

English
12-26-2011, 06:32
The "theory of Creation" has been around longer than that and it has yet to be "falsified".

Aditionally, the theory of evolution cannot be "falsified" because it is neither observable, testable, or verifiable.

A scientific theory cannot be scientific unless it can be falsifiable - that is, it must be possible in principle to find evidence that is incongruent with the theory. What I believe you mean by the "theory of Creation" is the biblical story of God creating the world in 7 days and the creation of Adam and Eve. In one sense this is not a falsifiable theory since it can be claimed that God created rocks 6000 years ago that would seem to scientific tests to be millions or billions of years old and a range of fossils embeded in more "recent" rocks that would fit in with the heretical theory of evolution in order that God could weed out the unbelievers, and so on.

In another sense, if we leave out the "God can do anything" get out, the "theory of Creation" has been completely falsified by all of that evidence about plate tectonics, the understanding of the formation of different kinds of rocks, the evidence that modern man evolved from more or less man like species and the fossil and that modern man can be shown to be some 170,000 years old, and structural and biochemical evidence that all multicellular life has evolved from the same single celled ancestor. In short, there is not a single aspect of the "theory of Creation" that has not been falsified by more than one piece of factual evidence. In utter contrast to this there is not a single piece of factual evidence that falsifies the theory that multicellular life evolved from a single unicellular ancestor or, horror of horrors, thast man's ancestry is shared with, chimpanzees, gorillas, lemurs, mice, elephants, birds, dinosaurs, fish, octopi and so on.

Since the theory generally known as "God" is not falsifiable within the terms of its definition we can not say that it is true or false in any scientific or rational sense. What we can say is that a God who planted such a wealth of purposfully deceitful evidence about creation and the evolution of life, while doing such a shoddy job of the design of so many creatures, has to be very peculiar indeed and must be considered far from admirable.

I supose I should also answer your second sentence. A theory is an explanation, or idea, that predicts the behaviour of a category of phenomena. It is no more possible to "observe" a theory than to "observe" any other idea. Theories are tested by observing the behavious, or facts, that they predict. Observations that agree with the predictions support the truth of the theory but can never "verify" it. A single observation, if shown to be valid rather than an error of observation, that does not agree with the predictions of the theory destroys the theory. This relatively simple statement of the fundamental principle of the development of knowledge has been made several times already in this thread. Please make an effort to understand it.

English

steveksux
12-26-2011, 07:07
The "theory of Creation" has been around longer than that and it has yet to be "falsified".It has also yet to be supported by any facts, unlike evolution. And in point of fact the geological record conclusively proves that the world wasn't created 6000 years ago. Light from countless starts more than 6000 light years away also conclusively prove that the universe was not created 6000 years ago. And human fossils hundreds of thousands of years old have proven that humans have been around more than 6000 years. So creation "theory" is complete and utter balderdash, and proven so. Tested, verified by facts observed. Repeatedly.



Aditionally, the theory of evolution cannot be "falsified" because it is neither observable, testable, or verifiable.Of course it can be falsified.

Biology, genetics, DNA sequencing, fossil records, geologic dating, radiological dating, all sorts of things COULD have falsified evolution. Yet al of these things independently confirm it.

Randy

ksg0245
12-26-2011, 07:47
It has also yet to be supported by any facts, unlike evolution. And in point of fact the geological record conclusively proves that the world wasn't created 6000 years ago. Light from countless starts more than 6000 light years away also conclusively prove that the universe was not created 6000 years ago. And human fossils hundreds of thousands of years old have proven that humans have been around more than 6000 years. So creation "theory" is complete and utter balderdash, and proven so. Tested, verified by facts observed. Repeatedly.

Of course it can be falsified.

Biology, genetics, DNA sequencing, fossil records, geologic dating, radiological dating, all sorts of things COULD have falsified evolution. Yet al of these things independently confirm it.

Randy

I'd also point out that evolution has been repeatedly observed happening in both the lab and in the wild.

9jeeps
12-26-2011, 08:12
:dunno::yawn::tongueout: I really doubt that any of this thread has changed anyone's mind about anything.

We do love to sit around and enlighten each other with our brilliance at articulating nonsense.

Creationist AND Evolutionist alike.

What could one learn from the Creation of Evolutionary science?
Can Evolutionist really explain the Evolution of Creation?

Aren't you thankful that God has given everyone here a choice to believe as one wishes!?

Really, Tis sad that that same choice has not been given all the other evolved creatures. Why is that?

All the revered foundational Evolution authors of theory remind me of some of the great Theologins! All try to disprove God and fail miserably.

How are the Evolutionist handling the recent discovery of the "GOD FACTOR"?

ArtificialGrape
12-26-2011, 09:14
The "theory of Creation" has been around longer than that and it has yet to be "falsified".
The story of creation has certainly been around longer -- Hindu, Chinese, Japanese, Egyptian, Iroquois, other Native American, ... creation stories and even Judeo-Christian. Just how would you suggest "God did it" could be falsified? It cannot be. As pointed out before, even if all creation activities attributed to God can be recreated at will in a laboratory, that would only prove that God was not necessary, it still would not falsify "God did it".

Aditionally, the theory of evolution cannot be "falsified" because it is neither observable, testable, or verifiable.

Of course it's falsifiable. Darwin even listed ways that it could be falsified in Origins. Compelling anachronistic fossil evidence could falsify it. DNA evidence could falsify it, but any wholesale falsification seems pretty unlikely.

Given that you hold a young earth belief, there's no amount of evidence to the contrary that I can imagine you accepting, so it's really not worth bothering.

-ArtificialGrape

robbcayman
12-26-2011, 10:07
Didn't the Pope proclaim evolution as true? Wasn't this man appointed by God, so why aren't the religious followng suit?

ksg0245
12-26-2011, 10:20
:dunno::yawn::tongueout: I really doubt that any of this thread has changed anyone's mind about anything.

We do love to sit around and enlighten each other with our brilliance at articulating nonsense.

Creationist AND Evolutionist alike.

What could one learn from the Creation of Evolutionary science?
Can Evolutionist really explain the Evolution of Creation?

Aren't you thankful that God has given everyone here a choice to believe as one wishes!?

Really, Tis sad that that same choice has not been given all the other evolved creatures. Why is that?

All the revered foundational Evolution authors of theory remind me of some of the great Theologins! All try to disprove God and fail miserably.

Evolution doesn't say anything about deities.

How are the Evolutionist handling the recent discovery of the "GOD FACTOR"?

If you mean the "God particle," that wasn't the nickname it started out with, and there are a lot of scientists annoyed that that's the nickname the media promotes.

ArtificialGrape
12-26-2011, 11:14
Didn't the Pope proclaim evolution as true? Wasn't this man appointed by God, so why aren't the religious followng suit?
As I recall, the Pope/Vatican accepts a sort of Evolution Lite which I believe excludes human evolution. Schabesbert or one of the other Catholics can probably clarify the official position.

-ArtificialGrape

Kingarthurhk
12-26-2011, 12:05
Didn't the Pope proclaim evolution as true? Wasn't this man appointed by God, so why aren't the religious followng suit?

It depends on who you ask. I don't subscribe to the Roman Catholic Church. So, I could care less what the man in the funny hat says.

steveksux
12-26-2011, 12:12
As I recall, the Pope/Vatican accepts a sort of Evolution Lite which I believe excludes human evolution. Schabesbert or one of the other Catholics can probably clarify the official position.

-ArtificialGrape
I thought they include human evolution, but God had his finger on the scales. Also I think this Pope walked back a little on the last Pope's position on the matter.

So I guess one of those Pope's must be Infallible Lite... lol

Randy

Kingarthurhk
12-26-2011, 12:17
The story of creation has certainly been around longer -- Hindu, Chinese, Japanese, Egyptian, Iroquois, other Native American, ... creation stories and even Judeo-Christian. Just how would you suggest "God did it" could be falsified? It cannot be. As pointed out before, even if all creation activities attributed to God can be recreated at will in a laboratory, that would only prove that God was not necessary, it still would not falsify "God did it".



Of course it's falsifiable. Darwin even listed ways that it could be falsified in Origins. Compelling anachronistic fossil evidence could falsify it. DNA evidence could falsify it, but any wholesale falsification seems pretty unlikely.

Given that you hold a young earth belief, there's no amount of evidence to the contrary that I can imagine you accepting, so it's really not worth bothering.

-ArtificialGrape

So, what you are telling me, is the concept of creation is so old that it has migrated to different cultures. Much like the story of the Great Flood. So, there must be some sort of origin to all of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRJE6mQ3PY0

Animal Mother
12-26-2011, 12:43
So, what you are telling me, is the concept of creation is so old that it has migrated to different cultures. Much like the story of the Great Flood. So, there must be some sort of origin to all of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRJE6mQ3PY0 I've asked you before how one would go about falsifying the creation story. You haven't yet seen fit to answer. How about giving it a shot?

Kingarthurhk
12-26-2011, 12:51
Design in Astronomy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSzOxiMxAvc&feature=related

robbcayman
12-26-2011, 15:25
It depends on who you ask. I don't subscribe to the Roman Catholic Church. So, I could care less what the man in the funny hat says.

Why don't you subscribe to the Catholic church? I mean, isn't the Pope ordained by god? I do agree he has a funny hat. :rofl:

Kingarthurhk
12-26-2011, 15:40
Why don't you subscribe to the Catholic church? I mean, isn't the Pope ordained by god? I do agree he has a funny hat. :rofl:

No, he is not ordained by God. He is ordained by a group of guys in red gowns who also wear funny hats.:supergrin:

bleedingshrimp
12-26-2011, 16:30
Design in Astronomy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSzOxiMxAvc&feature=related

Please, don't show this video to anyone seriously interested in evolution. :rofl:

In the first 3 minutes he shows a slide that says:

"Two Explanations of How We Got Here : Evolution and Creation"

Literally. That is his first slide. Wow!

First off, there are numerous explanations floating around about "how we got here" and evolution is NOT one of them. Evolution does not, has not, and will not attempt to explain our origin....nor does it, has it, or will it ever claim to. The utter incompetence starts as soon as this fellow opens his mouth.

The very next piece of excrement that flows out of his mouth is :

"There is no need for evolution if you believe in creation"

What? Our world is rife with examples of applied evolution which enrich our daily lives. An understanding of antibiotic resistance, genetics, and evolutionary algorithms is not achieved through viewing our world through the lens of the creationist.

This assjack then proceeds to show 3 pictures of nebulae and a comet and explains that the only purpose they serve in the universe is to illustrate the handiwork of the creator.... :faint:

juggy4711
12-26-2011, 17:22
The inability of believers to reconcile their faith with science boggles my mind. It's as simple as accepting that God made the universe and humans through science are able to observe/discover how it played out. How shallow must one's belief in right and wrong be that evolution/physics would threaten it?

robbcayman
12-26-2011, 17:28
No, he is not ordained by God. He is ordained by a group of guys in red gowns who also wear funny hats.:supergrin:

HAHA we agree on something. :cool:

IhRedrider
12-26-2011, 18:16
I originally posted in this thread to defending you right to express your views. You are the one who made personal attacks, not me. You have made it a point to call into question my intelligence or ability to understand what I read, fine. All this, because you thinkyou know that I believe something you obviously stand against, the theory of creation. I never said evolution was invalid, I never said creation was law. Talk about a closed mind.

In my youth I would have not continued to defend you right to express your views. I am not that person any longer and I will continue to defend your right to express yourself.

Could you do me one favor? With a simple yes or no, do you agree that there exists a theory of creation? I am not asking if you agree with it or not, just if it exists. Thanks.

steveksux
12-26-2011, 18:19
No, he is not ordained by God. He is ordained by a group of guys in red gowns who also wear funny hats.:supergrin:
Aren't those guys in red gowns and funny hats endorsed by God, though???

They sure aren't endorsed by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.. :rofl:

Randy

ArtificialGrape
12-26-2011, 18:51
I originally posted in this thread to defending you right to express your views. You are the one who made personal attacks, not me. You have made it a point to call into question my intelligence or ability to understand what I read, fine. All this, because you thinkyou know that I believe something you obviously stand against, the theory of creation. I never said evolution was invalid, I never said creation was law. Talk about a closed mind.
While you maintain that your initial post was defending my right to express my views, your initial post (responding to Roering) was:

Why would you ask such a question? It absolutely belongs here. It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory.

p.s. Do not question or argue with anyone that believes in evolution, it is disrespectful of their faith. You would not appreciate it if it was done to you on a tenant of your faith. Treat others as you wish to be treated.
I'm sorry, but suggesting that accepting evolution requires faith, and is a tenet of my faith is insulting and not defending anything on my behalf.

In my youth I would have not continued to defend you right to express your views. I am not that person any longer and I will continue to defend your right to express yourself.

Could you do me one favor? With a simple yes or no, do you agree that there exists a theory of creation? I am not asking if you agree with it or not, just if it exists. Thanks.

My answer is "no" with the caveat that by "theory" you mean a scientific theory given that this is a thread on science. My reason was indicated earlier in that a scientific theory must be falsifiable. No explanation that involves "God did it" is falsifiable, so it cannot be a scientific theory. Providing an explanation that is not falsifiable is declaring victory at the same time.

Science can no more prove that God does not exist than you can disprove that as a child at a state fair I once rode a horsicorn -- body of a unicorn with the head of a horse.

-ArtificialGrape

juggy4711
12-26-2011, 19:05
Could you do me one favor? With a simple yes or no, do you agree that there exists a theory of creation? I am not asking if you agree with it or not, just if it exists. Thanks.

No. You seem to need the word theory to mean something that is does not as well as faith for that matter.

Kingarthurhk
12-26-2011, 19:55
Aren't those guys in red gowns and funny hats endorsed by God, though???

They sure aren't endorsed by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.. :rofl:

Randy

If you're looking for someone to defend Catholicism, I'm not your guy. I don't find anything about Catholicism endorsed by God. Not the head man with the funny hat. Not the guys in the red dresses with the funny hats. None of it.

steveksux
12-26-2011, 20:05
If you're looking for someone to defend Catholicism, I'm not your guy. I don't find anything about Catholicism endorsed by God. Not the head man with the funny hat. Not the guys in the red dresses with the funny hats. None of it.No, not at all.. just joining you, piling on making fun of the outfits... I was raised Lutheran, so Pope and co are fair game. Athough I married Catholic, it was more a matter of getting married in the wife's church rather than an actual conversion.

Randy

steveksux
12-27-2011, 11:52
So, what you are telling me, is the concept of creation is so old that it has migrated to different cultures. Much like the story of the Great Flood. So, there must be some sort of origin to all of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRJE6mQ3PY0
This has all the appearances of an honest look at the facts, but that veneer falls apart pretty quickly.

Great to try to look at genetics, mitochondrial DNA to, propose that it doesn't conflict with a common ancestor 6000 years ago. Even assuming that were true, the geologic record, fossil record, even a casual glance into the night sky all prove there was no creation event 6000 years ago, and no global flood.

The selective cherry picking of facts which can be falsely manipulated to support creation psuedoscience, and the careful and deliberate disregarding of other conflicting facts really puts the lie to the whole scheme. Its a shame people are willing to peddle such falsehoods to try to promote Christianity, and having said that, I'm not accusing you of this deceit. I think you really believe this propaganda.

Its like putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a beauty queen, there is much more to it. You need a nice swimsuit, for one thing...

Randy

eracer
12-27-2011, 12:36
Last I checked evolution was a scientific theory. Not a tennant of faith.Last I checked, intelligent design was a tenet of faith, not a scientific theory.

Roering
12-27-2011, 12:43
Many in the church try to run from science in the realm of evolution, but accept science in so many other areas of life i.e. cell phones, tv, DNA evidence in trial, modern medicine etc... The thing that makes me sad is that many religious people are trying to oppress science that could alter lives, because it doesn't jive with some old book they have.

Nonsense. Some of the best scientists in history have been members of the Church.

Kingarthurhk
12-27-2011, 13:07
Last I checked, intelligent design was a tenet of faith, not a scientific theory.

Just like Atheism requires faith of the unprovable.

steveksux
12-27-2011, 13:33
Just like Atheism requires faith of the unprovable.It takes no faith whatsoever. Faith is not required to decline to worship and believe in leprechauns. Nor any other imaginary magical beings you might propose.

Randy

Syclone538
12-27-2011, 13:45
Just like Atheism requires faith of the unprovable.

What do you think atheism requires faith in?

eracer
12-27-2011, 14:02
Just like Atheism requires faith of the unprovable.Not at all. Atheism requires a belief in undiscovered truths, and in Man's ability to discover them.

lomfs24
12-27-2011, 14:44
I am going to change gears here a little bit. It would seem that we have two different mindsets going here. One is a faith based mind set and the other is, of course, a science based mindset.


Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. (NWT) (Because that's what I have immediately available to me. Others word it slightly differently.)

Using that definition, I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. I have seen it happen before, everyday of my life. I have faith that it will continue to come up.

People of faith, read the Bible and have faith, based on what they have read and have been told from the pulpit, what will happen in the future, and what has happened in the past. The problem with this, as I see it, is that there are so many super-hero type stories, mythical legends, and just unbelievable stories that it takes faith to believe it. Can't be any other way. Come on, how else could you believe that a snake talked to Eve, Noah put 8.7 million species of animals x2 (give or take 1.3 million) on a ark 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, plus food and storage space for what animals do after they eat? How else could you believe that a man was raised from the dead, raised people from the dead, fed hundreds with a few fishes and loaves and had more left over than what he started with. A million plus people wandering in the wilderness with only bread from heaven feeding them, without their clothes or shoes wearing out. Just to name a few. God is mysterious. And you have to believe that Noah put those many animals on the ark. Cause if you don't believe that and he only put a few on there, where did the rest come from? Did they evolve from the handful he put on there? Or did God begin creating again? Bible doesn't support the idea that he started creating again.

Evolution, on the other hand, requires no faith what-so-ever. The evidence is right before you.
Now, with that being said, one can either choose to accept the evidence and accept the evolution theory and follow science as it makes new discoveries and either accepts those new discoveries or discards them, or, you can choose to reject the evidence that is laid before you with regards to the theory of evolution.
It would be a fool who would reject the evidence of evolution yet accept the theory on faith.

Religion requires faith, period. Evolution does not require faith, period.

Japle
12-27-2011, 14:52
Posted by Kingarthurhk:
Just like Atheism requires faith of the unprovable.

No more than a lack of belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Vishnu and Thor requires faith.

English
12-27-2011, 15:23
Just like Atheism requires faith of the unprovable.

I don't knw how many times you expect to get away with such nonsense or how many times the nature of "proof" must be explained to you.

In a court of law a jury is asked to decide beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The word "reasonable" is very important here because it is never possible to decide beyond all doubt because someone very clever could have faked the evidence of the guilt of the accused for some motivation unknown to the jury.

So it is with scientific theories. They can never be shown to be true beyond all doubt because all possible evidence that might contradict them can never be found. On the other hand, when a theory is inherently falsifiable and many attempts to falsify it have failed and when many pieces of evidence confirm its predictions it comes to be accepted as true beyond all reasonable doubt by sensible scientists who understand the evidence. IhRedrider seems to find this concept difficult but that is its nature and is the nature of all knowledge including simple factual knowledge. If we toss a coin in the air a million times and it lands either heads or tails up we would feel very certain that another million throws would have the same result but we would not be justified in that belief. On one of those extra throws it might ballance on its edge. A bird might snatch it from the air and fly off with it. It might just disappear. We can never be certain.

In short, it is possible to prove some statement false but never possible to prove it to be true. The word "proof" means test. "Has it been proved?" means "Has it been tested?" and a little thought should convince you that no matter what testing you do without finding contrary evidence, you can never be sure that there is not some other test that will be contrary. "Proven" does not and cannot mean "True" and any intelligent and sensible Judge will know that the words, "You have been found guilty...." are bound to be wrong some of the time.

You come from a different psychological framework in which your "truths" are things that you are told you have to believe absolutely and without any doubt of any kind. The particular truths religious people have to believe vary from religion and branch of particular religions to another and I did laugh aloud at your disparagement of the Roman Catholic Pope and his funny hat. You are not just against atheists and in favour of religions, but exclusively in favour of your own little religion and against all the other parts of Chrisianity as well as all other religions. They all have their silly hats or silly ideas and yours is no different, whatever it is.

It is funny to think that atheists might form the world's largest group sharing the same general opinions of things like the origin of the universe and life. In contrast, you belong to one of very many small groups with your own absolute beliefs in your own particular truths about the creation of the universe and life which cannot be proved and to which the concept does not even apply.

English

Kingarthurhk
12-27-2011, 16:22
No more than a lack of belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Vishnu and Thor requires faith.

And there is no proof that there is no God, and there is no proof the the Universe self-originated without a Divine Being. Yet, you assert it without proof, meaning you are making a Metaphysical Pressuposition, that you demand the rest of us accept as fact, when clearly it is not.

Japle
12-27-2011, 17:13
Posted by Kingarthurhk:
And there is no proof that there is no God, and there is no proof the the Universe self-originated without a Divine Being. Yet, you assert it without proof, meaning you are making a Metaphysical Pressuposition, that you demand the rest of us accept as fact, when clearly it is not.

You certainly know better than that, not that I'd expect that to stop you from spouting nonsense.

Would you expect me to provide proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? Maybe you would. It wouldn't suprise me very much. At first glance, there's certainly more evidence for the Bunny and Santa than there is for your god.

I don't demand you accept anything. That's just another of your "straw man" arguments. I realize it's the best you can do, since you have nothing except legends and your feelings to rely on.

Paul7
12-27-2011, 17:31
You certainly know better than that, not that I'd expect that to stop you from spouting nonsense.

Would you expect me to provide proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? Maybe you would. It wouldn't suprise me very much. At first glance, there's certainly more evidence for the Bunny and Santa than there is for your god.



You do need to provide good evidence the universe is self-originating, that hasn't been done.

Is there anyone saying the Easter Bunny and Santa exist?

Kingarthurhk
12-27-2011, 19:05
You certainly know better than that, not that I'd expect that to stop you from spouting nonsense.

Would you expect me to provide proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? Maybe you would. It wouldn't suprise me very much. At first glance, there's certainly more evidence for the Bunny and Santa than there is for your god.

I don't demand you accept anything. That's just another of your "straw man" arguments. I realize it's the best you can do, since you have nothing except legends and your feelings to rely on.

My point is that you are making a Metaphysical Presuposition that is unprovable, yet you assert that that we should all accept this. You can't prove there is no God, further you can't even explain the origin of where all of life came from. Yet, we're supposed to come into the dialogue in the middle and ignore that the Genesis of the whole subject matter is supposed to be accepted without question. Clearly there are some logical problems with declaring matter can self-generate without origin-essecially a cause with no effect. This is where your whole philsophy falls apart like a house of cards. Yet, you assert that you are willing to risk your life and the lives of everyone else on such an assumption.

If you simply hate God at least be honest about it.

juggy4711
12-27-2011, 19:21
Man I need to do the physics primer. There are several misunderstandings that keep popping up on GTRI that drive me bonkers.

...Religion requires faith, period. Evolution does not require faith, period.

Well said.

IhRedrider
12-27-2011, 19:27
Ok. I think I got it now.

There is no theory of creation. Only faith in creation.

There is no faith in evolution. There is only the theory of evolution. Which cannot be disproved or proven. Facts in and of themselves are unimportant.


All that said, I guess I'm on roering's side of why is this thread in the "religious issues forum" based on this.

My answer is "no" with the caveat that by "theory" you mean a scientific theory given that this is a thread on science.

I guess it must be because there is no "science issues forum". If that is the reason, I guess post away and I'll leave it to that. Thanks for setting me straight on all this.

p.s. Sorry I offended you on the faith thing, I did not intend to insult you.

juggy4711
12-27-2011, 19:41
...Yet, you assert that you are willing to risk your life and the lives of everyone else on such an assumption..

If one wants to have faith in God as causation, believe in that great. However, to hold so dear to details of no importance of the greater messages, in the face of scientific evidence use to baffle me. But if I seriously believed in every last aspect and then the thought that if one was wrong and I might have to die one day and it would all be over, well I guess I get it now.

juggy4711
12-27-2011, 19:56
Ok. I think I got it now.

There is no theory of creation. Only faith in creation.

There is no faith in evolution. There is only the theory of evolution. Which cannot be disproved or proven. Facts in and of themselves are unimportant.

All that said, I guess I'm on roering's side of why is this thread in the "religious issues forum" based on this.

I guess it must be because there is no "science issues forum". If that is the reason, I guess post away and I'll leave it to that. Thanks for setting me straight on all this.

p.s. Sorry I offended you on the faith thing, I did not intend to insult you.

Well as long as that wasn't all sarcasm, and with the one exception of inaccuracy that evolution can not be disproved (it can, it just hasn't), I salute you for a mature response.

ETA There are a lot of debates here between, well everybody on one side or another. Very often all sides invoke science as part of their arguments. AG was simply trying to clarify what the ToE actually means scientifically in an attempt to educate those unaware and eliminate misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Considering how often the ToE comes up the thread was well placed.

Kingarthurhk
12-28-2011, 04:43
Well as long as that wasn't all sarcasm, and with the one exception of inaccuracy that evolution can not be disproved (it can, it just hasn't), I salute you for a mature response.

ETA There are a lot of debates here between, well everybody on one side or another. Very often all sides invoke science as part of their arguments. AG was simply trying to clarify what the ToE actually means scientifically in an attempt to educate those unaware and eliminate misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Considering how often the ToE comes up the thread was well placed.

Evolution hasn't been proven. Just because you want to say that it is a fact, doesn't make it so.

English
12-28-2011, 06:17
Evolution hasn't been proven. Just because you want to say that it is a fact, doesn't make it so.


Again, again and again, the theory of evolution cannot be "proven" and neither can any other scientific theory. Juggy did not say and has not said, I believe, that the theory of evolution is a fact. Facts are in a different category from theories. No theory is a fact and no fact is a theory. Is this really too difficult for you to understand?

Let me try to give you an example:
"I found the defendent standing over the body of the deceased with blood on his hands and a blood coverd knife on the ground. I know that the defendent hated the deceased and I believe he had just killed him."
The position of the defendant relative to the body, the knife on the ground, the blood on the defendant's hands and knife are all clear facts that remain to be corroborated, or not, by other testimony. The knowledge of the defendant's feelings towards the deceased is a less certain fact. The belief that the defendant has just killed the deceased is supposition which presents one of several possible explanations for the declared facts. It is not itself a fact and can never be a fact. The court might well accept that its probability is so high that it can be treated as though it were true, but it can never be considered to be true without any possible doubt.

English

ksg0245
12-28-2011, 07:34
Evolution hasn't been proven. Just because you want to say that it is a fact, doesn't make it so.

The Theory of Evolution hasn't and can't be proven; it could be disproven, but hasn't been yet. The fact that evolution occurs is demonstrated by the fact that it's been observed happening. The theory and the fact are two separate things; the theory is an explanation of the fact. Similar to how the theory of gravity is an explanation for what we observe about gravity.

ksg0245
12-28-2011, 07:54
My point is that you are making a Metaphysical Presuposition that is unprovable, yet you assert that that we should all accept this. You can't prove there is no God, further you can't even explain the origin of where all of life came from. Yet, we're supposed to come into the dialogue in the middle and ignore that the Genesis of the whole subject matter is supposed to be accepted without question. Clearly there are some logical problems with declaring matter can self-generate without origin-essecially a cause with no effect. This is where your whole philsophy falls apart like a house of cards. Yet, you assert that you are willing to risk your life and the lives of everyone else on such an assumption.

If you simply hate God at least be honest about it.

Most atheists aren't asserting no deities exist; they're stating there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of deities, and therefore reject the assertion they do.

Atheists aren't asking theists to believe or accept there are no deities. They do hope theists would be able to understand why atheists reject the assertion of deity, but that often seems a lost cause.

Atheists don't hate deities, any more than theists hate leprechauns or fairies.

Atheists don't believe they're risking their life rejecting your particular God any more than you believe you're risking your life rejecting Krishna or any other deity.

The argument "you can't explain the origin of life, therefore God" is a logical fallacy.

Evolution is not an attempt to explain the origin of life, it's an attempt to explain the variety of life that's observed.

The argument "everything requires a cause except God" is a logically fallacy.

There is evidence uncaused events can happen.

As far as we know, matter can't be created or destroyed. At this point, we don't know what the condition of the Universe was before the Big Bang; we don't know if the matter of the Universe has always existed, or came into existence at that moment.

That we don't know doesn't imply any deity, that it doesn't imply any deity doesn't mean deities don't exist. All it means is that there is no evidence leading incontrovertibly to deity. Which is why atheists reject the assertion.

"I don't know" is sometimes the best answer.

ksg0245
12-28-2011, 07:58
You do need to provide good evidence the universe is self-originating, that hasn't been done.

Is there anyone saying the Easter Bunny and Santa exist?

Why does anyone need to provide good evidence the Universe is self-originating?

ArtificialGrape
12-28-2011, 08:13
Evolution hasn't been proven. Just because you want to say that it is a fact, doesn't make it so.

As has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people theories cannot be proven true, they can only be proven false.

However, while it cannot be proven false, it can be supported by a metric butt load of evidence which evolution is.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>
If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance "God".
-Jerry Coyne

steveksux
12-28-2011, 08:52
As has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people theories cannot be proven true, they can only be proven false.

However, while it cannot be proven false, it can be supported by a metric butt load of evidence which evolution is.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>
If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance "God".
-Jerry CoyneAnd quite odd that those evolution deniers who cite the lack of "proof" as a reason to not believe in evolution, believe in a mystical sky being, even though such belief suffers from orders of magnitude less evidence than exists for evolution. :rofl:

The difference is so stunning "double standard" hardly does it justice. Seems entirely dishonest to expect more evidence from others than you are willing to accept for your own beliefs.

It boils down to them arguing, oh yeah??? "Your evolution is as entirely unsubstantiated as my creationist superstitions!!!" Aside from being obviously false, its kind of sad.

Randy

lomfs24
12-28-2011, 09:07
“You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?”
― Mark Twain

Japle
12-28-2011, 09:17
Posted by Kingarthurhk:
My point is that you are making a Metaphysical Presuposition that is unprovable, yet you assert that that we should all accept this.

Iíve heard that one before. Itís not true. Iím not saying you should accept anything. Iím saying that your religious beliefs are based on myth and have no basis in fact.

You can't prove there is no God, further you can't even explain the origin of where all of life came from.

I never claimed I could. I do claim that your religion-based explanation not only canít be proved, it has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Yet, we're supposed to come into the dialogue in the middle and ignore that the Genesis of the whole subject matter is supposed to be accepted without question.

Wow. You donít get it at all. Questioning everything, being skeptical of everything is the basis of the scientific method. Itís the approach that leads many of us to Atheism.
Accepting without question is the basis of religion and superstition.

ArtificialGrape
12-28-2011, 09:51
Ok. I think I got it now.
Let's see...

There is no theory of creation. Only faith in creation.
Okay, good so far, unless you want to explain how "God did it" could be falsified.

There is no faith in evolution. There is only the theory of evolution.
Yep, 2 for 2.

Which cannot be disproved or proven.
So close, but of course evolution can be disproven in many ways. For example compelling evidence of Triassic kangaroos predating the split of placentals and marsupials might do it. This would be a good place to again point out that there has not been anachronistic fossils found outside of the era that evolution would predict for them.

Facts in and of themselves are unimportant.
Not exactly, my words were "interesting or useful in itself", and that is true for a standalone fact.
"There is a great diversity of life."
"When released from trees, apples fall towards the earth."
"There are billions of billions of stars."
They are merely observations, they don't really explain anything. Not until they are tied together in a theory do they really become interesting. So, have you watched that video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzEqs&feature=player_embedded) yet?

I guess it must be because there is no "science issues forum". If that is the reason, I guess post away and I'll leave it to that.
No, the reason is because religious belief seems to be the biggest hurdle for many people in order to accept evolution.
Thanks for setting me straight on all this.
I don't think that we have you there quite yet.
p.s. Sorry I offended you on the faith thing, I did not intend to insult you.
I believe you, and no offense taken. Anybody truly offended that easily has no business participating on a religious forum.

For any of the Creationists, how would a "theory" of Creation explain these?


The fossil record clearly shows the development of simpler organisms prior to more complex organisms. If all species were created at the same time why would that be?


Why would the recurrent laryngeal nerve that only needs to travel from the brain to the larynx travel down to the heart, wrap around it, and return to the larynx? Here's a giraffe dissection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0&feature=player_embedded#) demonstrating the 15ish foot path when about 15 inches would have done it.


5 weeks after fertilization you had a tail and pharyngeal pouches (predecessors of gills). Why would that be the case if you did not have ancestors with a tail and fish-like gills?


Within the eukaryotic cell, mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA. Why would God Design these organelles with their own DNA separate from the rest of the cell?

The Ichneumonidae family of wasps (3000+ species) reproduce by the female stinging her prey, laying her eggs inside the paralyzed prey, then after they hatch the larvae slowly eat their way out of the prey by eating the least essential parts first, then only at the end eating the essential parts and killing the host. Why would a benevolent God Design this into his Creation?

Southern continents (Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand) each have at least one species of flightless birds (ostrich, rhea, emu, etc.). How does that distribution make sense given a Great Flood?

More on biogeography, but first 2 terms for background:
Continentals islands were once part of mainland continents, but separated through continental drift (e.g. Japan and the British Isles)
Oceanic islands arose from the ocean floor (without any life) (e.g. the Hawaiian Islands and the Gallapagos)

The following are well documented:
Oceanic islands lack native mammals, amphibians and freshwater fish.
Continental islands contain native mammals, amphibians and freshwater fish.

Populations, such as birds, that are found on oceanic archipelagos islands today have many related species (e.g. the variety of finches on the Gallapagos).

Species, plant and animal, found on oceanic islands are most similar to those on the nearest mainland.

Very similar animals in similar habitats between Australia and the Americas have significant biological differences (marsupial and placental versions of moles, anteaters, flying squirrels).
Marsupial species are common in Australia and surrounding islands, but fairly rare outside of Australia.
How does Creation explain these observations?
These are all easily explained by evolution.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
-Theodosius Dobzhansky

ArtificialGrape
12-28-2011, 10:15
You certainly know better than that...

Again, again and again, the theory of evolution cannot be "proven" and neither can any other scientific theory.

The Theory of Evolution hasn't and can't be proven; it could be disproven, but hasn't been yet.

If one wants to have faith in God as causation, believe in that great. However, to hold so dear to details of no importance of the greater messages, in the face of scientific evidence use to baffle me.

Guys, you're trying to explain science to somebody who believes in a young earth. He lives in a world surrounded by the comfort and conveniences that science provides, yet manages to reject them nearly across the board. Here is a list of just some of the fields of science that must be rejected in order to hold to a young earth belief: physics/cosmology -- age of universe/earth
chemistry -- radiometric dating
biology -- evolution
botany -- evolution
geology -- plate tectonics, age of earth, refutation that a Great Flood ever occurred, and geologists were the earliest collectors of the fossil record
palentology -- fossil evidence
anthropology -- human evolution

You are no match for the highly evolved sense of denial.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>
Isnít it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
ĖDouglas Adams

Roering
12-28-2011, 18:48
Very similar animals in similar habitats between Australia and the Americas have significant biological differences (marsupial and placental versions of moles, anteaters, flying squirrels).


These are all easily explained by evolution.


I would think that this example would be an argument against evolution. That is if you are mixing it in with adaptation.

ArtificialGrape
12-28-2011, 20:17
I would think that this example would be an argument against evolution. That is if you are mixing it in with adaptation.
Not at all, the question becomes, if there is are moles living in similar habitats in the Americas and Australia, why would God Design one with placental anatomy, and the other with marsupial anatomy? Same for anteaters, flying squirrels, etc. Just to baffle future biologists?

As animals in the Americas and Australia evolved separately, placental and marsupial versions of similar animals developed.

Similar question as to why some mammals fly, and others live in the water? Why aren't all flying birdlike animals anatomically birds, and why aren't all sea living fishlike animals anatomically fish?

-ArtificialGrape

Sarge1400
12-28-2011, 21:18
Not at all, the question becomes, if there is are moles living in similar habitats in the Americas and Australia, why would God Design one with placental anatomy, and the other with marsupial anatomy? Same for anteaters, flying squirrels, etc. Just to baffle future biologists?

As animals in the Americas and Australia evolved separately, placental and marsupial versions of similar animals developed.

Similar question as to why some mammals fly, and others live in the water? Why aren't all flying birdlike animals anatomically birds, and why aren't all sea living fishlike animals anatomically fish?

-ArtificialGrape

AG, if I may play Devil's advocate for a moment: this seems like an argument from incredulity. If it isn't, can you explain to me why? Thanks!

ArtificialGrape
12-28-2011, 22:46
AG, if I may play Devil's advocate for a moment: this seems like an argument from incredulity. If it isn't, can you explain to me why? Thanks!
Sure, I'm not arguing that the questions that I posed in message 98 cannot be answered in Creationist / Intelligent Design framework, I'm merely asking those more intimate with Creationism to help reconcile them within that framework.

I believe that they can pretty easily be explained with evolution (and in some cases also involving plate tectonics). Evolution can only build on existing features, so oddities such as the laryngeal nerve are to be expected. However, an Intelligent Designer presumably can build any/all species from scratch, so I would not expect some of the situations that I previously presented in an intelligently designed world, but maybe I'm missing something.

-ArtificialGrape

English
12-29-2011, 06:26
I would think that this example would be an argument against evolution. That is if you are mixing it in with adaptation.

I see why you might think so but think of it from the other direction. If there is an ecological niche available - that is an avilable soource of food and habitat - that is not occupied by some existing species then some species is likely to adapt to occupy it. Once it starts to occupy that niche in the environment, the same forces of selection apply regardless of the originating species. So something occupying a mole's ecological niche will evolve to be superficially like a mole - much the same size, powerful fore legs and claws for digging tunnels. Excellent sensors for smell and touch but poor or atrophied vision. No need for fast movement because its tunnels protect it from predators for most of the time. And so on.

The other way round, kangaroos and antelopes fill much the same ecological niche. Both cover large distances at a high but energy efficient speed to get to where they see distant rain storms and where there will be new plant growth. Their different starting positions allowed two different sufficiently effective adaptations to this niche. If kangaroos and antelopes lived in the same area one or the other would probably die out. The geographical separation of Australia has allowed this independent evolution without that competition.

English

Snapper2
12-29-2011, 20:18
Sure, I'm not arguing that the questions that I posed in message 98 cannot be answered in Creationist / Intelligent Design framework, I'm merely asking those more intimate with Creationism to help reconcile them within that framework.

I believe that they can pretty easily be explained with evolution (and in some cases also involving plate tectonics). Evolution can only build on existing features, so oddities such as the laryngeal nerve are to be expected. However, an Intelligent Designer presumably can build any/all species from scratch, so I would not expect some of the situations that I previously presented in an intelligently designed world, but maybe I'm missing something.

-ArtificialGrape
AG I cant even begin to answer the questions in post 98 but I will say that Genesis reports that God created each and every creature and commanded them to reproduce after their own kind. This was before the "fall". Earth was to mirror Heaven in the things of God. Once mankind decided to become god over his own domain, God allowed him to see just what he could do without God. The earth and the animals became cursed. After that the animals were still to be fruitfull and multiply but it seems like they were still on their own to manage and adapt to whatever the earth "threw" at them. Maybe this is where some of this variation came from. I know you are not a believer in God but you do know the bible.

ArtificialGrape
12-29-2011, 21:04
AG I cant even begin to answer the questions in post 98 but I will say that Genesis reports that God created each and every creature and commanded them to reproduce after their own kind. This was before the "fall". Earth was to mirror Heaven in the things of God. Once mankind decided to become god over his own domain, God allowed him to see just what he could do without God. The earth and the animals became cursed. After that the animals were still to be fruitfull and multiply but it seems like they were still on their own to manage and adapt to whatever the earth "threw" at them. Maybe this is where some of this variation came from. I know you are not a believer in God but you do know the bible.
While I obviously don't believe that there is a tenable answer from the Bible, I do appreciate the integrity of your response, and that you're not attempting to abuse or reject science in the process.

I've stated on a number of occasions that if somebody indicates that they believe in a literal Creation, or Great Flood because the Bible says so, then so be it. I don't have a problem until they attempt to abuse or reject science in the process.

-ArtificialGrape

English
12-31-2011, 08:40
Perhaps the thing we need is a primer on the scientific method and the nature of proof and evidence. That could then be applied to disputes about religion, politics and whether the problems with Gen 4s and some late Gen 3s are caused by limp wristing.

English

ArtificialGrape
12-31-2011, 09:49
Perhaps the thing we need is a primer on the scientific method and the nature of proof and evidence. That could then be applied to disputes about religion, politics and whether the problems with Gen 4s and some late Gen 3s are caused by limp wristing.

English

Excellent, you're on for the scientific method, and juggy for physics ;^)

juggy4711
12-31-2011, 14:57
Excellent, you're on for the scientific method, and juggy for physics ;^)

I'll have to take notes when ever I come across a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation, and once I have enough material make the post. Addressing those directly will be much easier than trying to do a beginners guide in general.

void *
01-01-2012, 14:39
It takes at least as much faith to believe in evolution as any other theory.

A model does not require faith when you are willing to throw it out the door should discovered evidence or experimentation require that it be so thrown.

English
01-01-2012, 16:45
A model does not require faith when you are willing to throw it out the door should discovered evidence or experimentation require that it be so thrown.

An extremely high content to length statement! Excellent!

English

creaky
01-01-2012, 18:53
problems with Gen 4s and some late Gen 3s are caused by limp wristing.

English

Lol. When combined with poor maintenance, probably. Add a tac light and you may have the problem no matter how brawny you feel your wrists are. There is a relatively easy fix though, unlike the Theist/Atheist conundrum.

Paul7
01-02-2012, 10:58
Sure, I'm not arguing that the questions that I posed in message 98 cannot be answered in Creationist / Intelligent Design framework, I'm merely asking those more intimate with Creationism to help reconcile them within that framework.

I believe that they can pretty easily be explained with evolution (and in some cases also involving plate tectonics). Evolution can only build on existing features, so oddities such as the laryngeal nerve are to be expected. However, an Intelligent Designer presumably can build any/all species from scratch, so I would not expect some of the situations that I previously presented in an intelligently designed world, but maybe I'm missing something.

-ArtificialGrape

Where do we see random chance building or creating anything today? I'm not referring to minor microevolutionary changes in a life form already existing.

Paul7
01-02-2012, 11:00
A model does not require faith when you are willing to throw it out the door should discovered evidence or experimentation require that it be so thrown.

Nice to know you are open to Christianity now.

void *
01-02-2012, 11:06
Where do we see random chance building or creating anything today? I'm not referring to minor microevolutionary changes in a life form already existing.

Where does the theory of evolution say that random chance is the process?

Big hint for you: It doesn't.

steveksux
01-02-2012, 11:38
Where do we see random chance building or creating anything today? I'm not referring to minor microevolutionary changes in a life form already existing.Same way you drive from Detroit to Chicago, without going through any intermediate points or using any roads that link the two cities.

I guess with your logic, I can prove you can't drive anywhere.

ETA: If you're gonna get hung up on random chance, fine, I'll give the map to the wife. :whistling:

Not that random chance is anything more than a strawman when discussing evolution, but I got to throw a wife joke in there, so I'll let that slide.

Randy

Paul7
01-02-2012, 12:24
Same way you drive from Detroit to Chicago, without going through any intermediate points or using any roads that link the two cities.

I guess with your logic, I can prove you can't drive anywhere.

ETA: If you're gonna get hung up on random chance, fine, I'll give the map to the wife. :whistling:

Not that random chance is anything more than a strawman when discussing evolution, but I got to throw a wife joke in there, so I'll let that slide.

Randy

Did random chance create those interstates, or the cars for that matter? Or only the drivers?

steveksux
01-02-2012, 12:35
Did random chance create those interstates, or the cars for that matter? Or only the drivers?you don't understand the concepts you're discussing, no surprise you don't understand the analogies.

Carry on.

Randy

Paul7
01-02-2012, 12:40
you don't understand the concepts you're discussing, no surprise you don't understand the analogies.

Carry on.

Randy

I would say the same of atheists here who try and discuss Christianity.

steveksux
01-02-2012, 12:41
I would say the same of atheists here who try and discuss Christianity.Except there are facts to discuss regarding evolution, and nothing of the sort when discussing superstitions. Christians can't even agree whether evolution is false or not, the earth is 6000 or billions of years old, the earth is flat or round.

Depends on how they interpret the scriptures.

Randy

Paul7
01-02-2012, 15:22
Except there are facts to discuss regarding evolution, and nothing of the sort when discussing superstitions.

There are plenty of facts supporting Christianity. Have you ever looked at Evidence That Demands A Verdict, to name one of many?

Christians can't even agree whether evolution is false or not, the earth is 6000 or billions of years old, the earth is flat or round.

So what? How God created is a secondary issue. I just don't think when He creates the new earth it will take Him billions of years to do it.

Depends on how they interpret the scriptures.

Do evolutionists agree on everything? They seem to have many different guesses.

ArtificialGrape
01-02-2012, 17:17
Where do we see random chance building or creating anything today? I'm not referring to minor microevolutionary changes in a life form already existing.

What specific claim of evolution do you have a question about?

ksg0245
01-02-2012, 21:43
Did random chance create those interstates, or the cars for that matter? Or only the drivers?

Actually, "random chance" did have a hand in creating interstates in that the lay of the land influences interstate routes, and in the cars through the uneven distribution of the raw materials used in their construction.

ksg0245
01-02-2012, 21:46
Where do we see random chance building or creating anything today? I'm not referring to minor microevolutionary changes in a life form already existing.

What mechanism allows "minor microevolutionary changes" but prevents those changes from accumulating into "macroevoutionary" changes?

juggy4711
01-02-2012, 21:58
Actually, "random chance" did have a hand in creating interstates in that the lay of the land influences interstate routes, and in the cars through the uneven distribution of the raw materials used in their construction.

There is nothing random about any of that.

English
01-03-2012, 09:23
Paul7,
Let us try to be clear about what is random and what is not in the evolutionary process and cut short this silly part of the debate.

At any given time the selective force is the environment which at that time can be considered to be static and so is not random. What the selective force has to work with are random mutations to the genetic material transmitted to the offspring of individuals of a species. These mutations happen all the time and information theory shows that they are inevitable. A beneficial random mutation is selected by the non random selective force of the environment and becomes established in a population. As long as the selective force remains the same successive mutations which improve the creature in the same direction will also be selected. Within the time frame of a generation this is a very slow process. Within the time frame of geology it is a very fast process.

Those successive changes act a little at a time to make, say, the necks of giraffes longer and other mutations act to adapt the giraffe to its slowly lengthening neck. None of these changes has foresight and that is how the giraffe ends up with its ridiculously long larygeal nerve.

Evolution is not random but controlled by the environment of the time within the random limits of what mutations occur.

By the way, evolution has been observed over a few decades in the industrial north of England. A light colloured moth which was adapted to roostin on light coloured tree bark became progressively darker as the soot deposits on trees increased untill it was virtually black. Then with the introduction of clean air acts and enforcement the tree bark became lighter and lighter and so did the moth. As this happened at the time when naturalists were busy collecting and naming different species of everything they could find, this evolution was recorded and illustrated with collected moths. Of far greater drama but not observed at the time is the evolution of cichlid fish in Lake Victoria from a single accidental introduction after the lake completely dried and refilled som 12000 years ago. That single species radiated into over 300 distinct species filling all the ecological niches within the lake until some damn fool introduced the Nile Perch.

Incidentally, I am not, as an atheist, discussing Christianity but the nature of knowledge, how it is accumulated and how it is tested. I believe the same thing applies to all atheists here except for those who have been Christians at a fairly deep level of knowledge before making their escape.

English

ksg0245
01-03-2012, 09:31
There is nothing random about any of that.

The various forces and actions that create hills and valleys are as random as the various forces that drive evolutionary change.

Roering
01-03-2012, 09:49
Not at all, the question becomes, if there is are moles living in similar habitats in the Americas and Australia, why would God Design one with placental anatomy, and the other with marsupial anatomy? Same for anteaters, flying squirrels, etc. Just to baffle future biologists?

-ArtificialGrape

Two sides of the same coin I guess. I would ask if there are moles living in similar habitats in the Americas and Australia, why would one have developed with placental anatomy, and the other with marsupial anatomy? Same for anteaters, flying squirrels, etc.

As the theory of evolution goes, life adjusts and adapts to it's environment. So why would such creatures be so different?

English
01-03-2012, 11:00
Two sides of the same coin I guess. I would ask if there are moles living in similar habitats in the Americas and Australia, why would one have developed with placental anatomy, and the other with marsupial anatomy? Same for anteaters, flying squirrels, etc.

As the theory of evolution goes, life adjusts and adapts to it's environment. So why would such creatures be so different?

I refer you to my post #126. volution does the best it can from the starting point it gets. In this particular both placental and marsupial anatomy work well enough and within the limits of those frameworks it was able to develop very creatures with very similar functionality.

It is a serious mistake to think that evolution produces perfect adaptation, which is the implication of what you say above. It produces sufficient adaptation for those creatures that remain to be observed. For enormous numbers of creatures the adaptation it can produce is insuficent and they become extinct.

English

Roering
01-03-2012, 12:49
I refer you to my post #126. volution does the best it can from the starting point it gets. In this particular both placental and marsupial anatomy work well enough and within the limits of those frameworks it was able to develop very creatures with very similar functionality.

It is a serious mistake to think that evolution produces perfect adaptation, which is the implication of what you say above. It produces sufficient adaptation for those creatures that remain to be observed. For enormous numbers of creatures the adaptation it can produce is insuficent and they become extinct.

English

Not assuming perfect adaptation at all. But if evolution is to subscribe that life.....all life started from the same primordial soup, then one would conclude that from there the only difference to effect living creatures over millions of years is habitat then given such circumstances we would come to see similar creatures. But that is not the case in this given example.

As for extinct creatures one could make the argument that habitat changed faster than a creature could adapt. Or vice versa.

English
01-03-2012, 13:44
Not assuming perfect adaptation at all. But if evolution is to subscribe that life.....all life started from the same primordial soup, then one would conclude that from there the only difference to effect living creatures over millions of years is habitat then given such circumstances we would come to see similar creatures. But that is not the case in this given example.

As for extinct creatures one could make the argument that habitat changed faster than a creature could adapt. Or vice versa.

Since climate and terrain have a large variation there will be many different local optima for animal forms to adapt to the ecological niches available. With climate change these conditions will change and force evolution of species adapted to the previous conditions. Since some species wil die out in such a change ecological niches will become available for further evolution of surviving species to fill. In time, species will be geographically far removed from ancestral species and the overall picture will be of turbulent evolution.

In the last 10 million years of the dinosaurs they had settled down to only a few species amongst the large dinosaurs which dominated their niches. They had out competed their competitors and become quite like the system you suggest. A cataclysmic event changed all that and wiped out all animals over 60Kg. This is not the only such event but just the one best known.

English

Roering
01-03-2012, 15:20
Since climate and terrain have a large variation there will be many different local optima for animal forms to adapt to the ecological niches available. With climate change these conditions will change and force evolution of species adapted to the previous conditions. Since some species wil die out in such a change ecological niches will become available for further evolution of surviving species to fill. In time, species will be geographically far removed from ancestral species and the overall picture will be of turbulent evolution.

In the last 10 million years of the dinosaurs they had settled down to only a few species amongst the large dinosaurs which dominated their niches. They had out competed their competitors and become quite like the system you suggest. A cataclysmic event changed all that and wiped out all animals over 60Kg. This is not the only such event but just the one best known.

English

This however, aside from a cataclysmic event puts humans in a unique situation since we can control our environment in many ways. As such we could probably see changes in our own physiology over a long period of time. I would bet that at one time our pinky toes were once larger and in the future will continue to be miniscule nubs since we don't use them all that much due to footwear.

By the way, I'm all in for the theory of adaptation. I'm just not completely sold on species jumping.

Angry Fist
01-03-2012, 15:20
T'zagged.

juggy4711
01-03-2012, 23:44
The various forces and actions that create hills and valleys are as random as the various forces that drive evolutionary change.

Again nothing random about any of that. Either you don't understand what random means or you have no understanding of the forces that create hills and valleys, or drive evolutionary change.

ksg0245
01-04-2012, 06:20
Again nothing random about any of that. Either you don't understand what random means or you have no understanding of the forces that create hills and valleys, or drive evolutionary change.

I think you're missing my point. As far as I'm aware, it isn't possible to predict where or when a fault line will fail, for example. That's what I mean by "random."

Edited to add:
To clarify what I meant by "random:"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/random
Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

juggy4711
01-12-2012, 20:25
I think you're missing my point. As far as I'm aware, it isn't possible to predict where or when a fault line will fail, for example. That's what I mean by "random."

Edited to add:
To clarify what I meant by "random:"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/random
Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

Then what you mean by random is more accurately defined as stochastic. In order to accurately predict when a fault line will fail would require that we know where it is and how fast it is moving which is impossible due the Uncertainty Principle.

English
01-13-2012, 04:59
Then what you mean by random is more accurately defined as stochastic. In order to accurately predict when a fault line will fail would require that we know where it is and how fast it is moving which is impossible due the Uncertainty Principle.

Sorry, Juggy, but this is not an appropriate application of the Uncertainty Principle which only has significant effects down at electron level.

The probelm with predicting where and when fault lines will fail is one of getting enough measurements of the different rates of slip along the fault at surface level over a period of years and then making assumptions about what is happening further down and the strength of the grip between the two plates in the part that remains under greatest load. This then leads to predictions af the kind, "We can expect a quake centered somewhere between here and here with magnitude between x and y within the next 10 months with a 0.8 probability."

English

Glock,Nevada
01-19-2012, 01:21
In response to your first question to creationists about the fossil record stating simpler organisms preceding more complex ones and how can that be if everything was created at the same time...

Everything wasn't created at the same time...different animals were created on different days according to Genesis. Fish and birds on day 5...other land animals, man and woman on day 6. It also does not state anywhere that they were in the forms we know them as today. Perhaps they were in lesser or simpler forms as the fossil record indicates?

"*The great paradigm shift in physics came with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which was later to be expanded upon in his general theory of relativity. In addition to showing that there is no absolute frame of reference for physical measurements, the theory also demonstrated mathematically that what we ordinarily think of as space and time are actually intertwining realities &ndash; or two aspects of the same reality. How we move through space changes how we move through time, at least depending on the point of observation. If I travel from Earth for a period of time near the speed of light and then return, a much longer period of time will have elapsed from Earth's frame of reference than will have elapsed from my own frame of reference, in some sort of space vehicle for example. Time also changes depending on how close I am to a strong gravitational field. A clock in orbit high above the earth, for example, will run slightly slower than an identical clock on the surface of the earth. "

So why do we assume that when referring to "days" in the story of creation that it is in the same unit of time we measure days now? According to the above article...time is relative. Perhaps it was put into a 7 day context because it was told in a story format to people who were not scientists and it was easier for them to understand? The focus of the story is God's role in creating everything and the order it happened in.

I am a Christian and I also believe in the sciences. I have a hard time understanding why it has to be an either or choice? Its like talking about how great a musical piece is based soley on the structure of the notes and the relation of the melody to rhythm, but making no reference to the composer. When I look at scientific evidence I see God's fingerprint in all of it. I'll give you evolution and your statement that everything came from one thing. For me that one thing is God...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

English
01-19-2012, 09:03
Glock,Nevada,
A day is a day. It is the time that it takes the earth, or any other planet, to rotate once relative to the Sun. In principle a day might take hours or days or years but it has nothing remotely to do with Einstein's theories of relativity and general relativity because the speeds involved in planetary motion are exceedingly small fractions of the speed of light.

If you believe in the sciences you must believ in geology and the fossil record. On that basis you must know the the fishes came before the amphibians, which came before the reptiles which came before the dinosaurs which cam before the mammals and the birds, which came before man. So, even allowing for the use of days as an understandable time period for primitive people, who actually knew a lot about the movement of stars relative to the seasons and the year, it should have been fishes around day 2, mammals and birds around day 4 or 5 and man on day 6.

English

Glock,Nevada
01-19-2012, 11:12
Glock,Nevada,
A day is a day. It is the time that it takes the earth, or any other planet, to rotate once relative to the Sun. In principle a day might take hours or days or years but it has nothing remotely to do with Einstein's theories of relativity and general relativity because the speeds involved in planetary motion are exceedingly small fractions of the speed of light.

If you believe in the sciences you must believ in geology and the fossil record. On that basis you must know the the fishes came before the amphibians, which came before the reptiles which came before the dinosaurs which cam before the mammals and the birds, which came before man. So, even allowing for the use of days as an understandable time period for primitive people, who actually knew a lot about the movement of stars relative to the seasons and the year, it should have been fishes around day 2, mammals and birds around day 4 or 5 and man on day 6.

English

That's only one way of describing time...quantum physics has another theory so if you want to start using science then lets throw it all in the pot :)
I'm just giving a possible answer to the op's question incorporating science with regards to creationism theory. Everyone is in agreement that in order for something to evolve it has to come from something prior...a starting point. I'm saying the starting point is what most religions call God. If God created everything then he wouldn't be constrained by time the way we understand it being linear. God can be all places at all times so time wouldn't pass the same. How long is a "day" to God?
Now if you add the fact that it doesn't give a specific description as to what these different species actually looked like...then why couldn't they be primordial versions of what we have today and yet have all the dna to be able to evolve? That would help answer the fossil record.
As to trying to say which "days" things needed to be created on...it says fish and things of the sea came first then birds "day" 5. Then the land produced living creatures then came man "day" 6. If you take "time" out of the equation then the "order" of creation seems to follow the same fossil record. Amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs could fall between fish and the "living creatures" the land produced.
There were some cultures of that time who did have an understanding of cycles and phases. Some went on to create calendars...but all the methods of "dating" something discovered like fossils didn't come along until much later.
Since the science community has some differing views on what time actually is then you should be open to considering the possibility. As I said...I consider both science and religion working in harmony to create a common goal...as should we :)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ArtificialGrape
01-19-2012, 12:36
In response to your first question to creationists about the fossil record stating simpler organisms preceding more complex ones and how can that be if everything was created at the same time...

Everything wasn't created at the same time...different animals were created on different days according to Genesis. Fish and birds on day 5...other land animals, man and woman on day 6. It also does not state anywhere that they were in the forms we know them as today. Perhaps they were in lesser or simpler forms as the fossil record indicates?

"*The great paradigm shift in physics came with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which was later to be expanded upon in his general theory of relativity. In addition to showing that there is no absolute frame of reference for physical measurements, the theory also demonstrated mathematically that what we ordinarily think of as space and time are actually intertwining realities &ndash; or two aspects of the same reality. How we move through space changes how we move through time, at least depending on the point of observation. If I travel from Earth for a period of time near the speed of light and then return, a much longer period of time will have elapsed from Earth's frame of reference than will have elapsed from my own frame of reference, in some sort of space vehicle for example. Time also changes depending on how close I am to a strong gravitational field. A clock in orbit high above the earth, for example, will run slightly slower than an identical clock on the surface of the earth. "

So why do we assume that when referring to "days" in the story of creation that it is in the same unit of time we measure days now? According to the above article...time is relative. Perhaps it was put into a 7 day context because it was told in a story format to people who were not scientists and it was easier for them to understand? The focus of the story is God's role in creating everything and the order it happened in.

I am a Christian and I also believe in the sciences. I have a hard time understanding why it has to be an either or choice? Its like talking about how great a musical piece is based soley on the structure of the notes and the relation of the melody to rhythm, but making no reference to the composer. When I look at scientific evidence I see God's fingerprint in all of it. I'll give you evolution and your statement that everything came from one thing. For me that one thing is God...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
First, I appreciate a reply to get the thread back on topic. Second, I'm glad that you've found a way to reconcile your faith with science rather than just ignoring science.

However, I don't think that you need to bend time and space in order to accept Creation as allegory. As I've said before, those holding a literal Creation young-earth view are appearing like those that hold a flat-earth view, and this will just become more and more true.

Granted, Answers in Genesis is not helping.
-ArtificialGrape

Glock,Nevada
01-19-2012, 16:20
First, I appreciate a reply to get the thread back on topic. Second, I'm glad that you've found a way to reconcile your faith with science rather than just ignoring science.

However, I don't think that you need to bend time and space in order to accept Creation as allegory. As I've said before, those holding a literal Creation young-earth view are appearing like those that hold a flat-earth view, and this will just become more and more true.

Granted, Answers in Genesis is not helping.
-ArtificialGrape

So then are you saying that you have a problem more so with the LITERAL interpretation, but you're open to a God being the one behind evolution? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position.

Its hard not to reference Genesis when discussing a young earth concept. I'm not trying to bend space and time either...just saying that maybe we don't fully understand time in relation to how earlier people viewed time. Even today scientists can't give you an exact time as to when things happened. Its usually stated "around" insert date. So if people are arguing that evolution goes against creationism then I'm offering a theory that may show that they actually have more in common than either side wants to admit. From reading your original post it seemed to me like you were discrediting Creationism and God in favor of science and evolution. Thank you again for giving us a better understanding of evolutions beliefs...
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ArtificialGrape
01-19-2012, 19:38
So then are you saying that you have a problem more so with the LITERAL interpretation, but you're open to a God being the one behind evolution? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position.

Its hard not to reference Genesis when discussing a young earth concept. I'm not trying to bend space and time either...just saying that maybe we don't fully understand time in relation to how earlier people viewed time. Even today scientists can't give you an exact time as to when things happened. Its usually stated "around" insert date. So if people are arguing that evolution goes against creationism then I'm offering a theory that may show that they actually have more in common than either side wants to admit. From reading your original post it seemed to me like you were discrediting Creationism and God in favor of science and evolution. Thank you again for giving us a better understanding of evolutions beliefs...
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
To be clear I consider the Genesis Creation to be manmade as all the other creation myths; however, if somebody is content to accept that the big bang was the mechanism for creating the universe, and evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the diversity of life, then that is pretty harmless, and science could never disprove it. The problem with those that insist on a literal interpretation is that they are the ones that insist on rejecting and abusing science and leaves us with 1 in 8 high school biology teachers admitting to illegally advancing Creationism in the classroom. That is not a risk from you and others that have found a way to reconcile your faith with science.

-ArtificialGrape

Glock,Nevada
01-19-2012, 20:09
To be clear I consider the Genesis Creation to be manmade as all the other creation myths; however, if somebody is content to accept that the big bang was the mechanism for creating the universe, and evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the diversity of life, then that is pretty harmless, and science could never disprove it. The problem with those that insist on a literal interpretation is that they are the ones that insist on rejecting and abusing science and leaves us with 1 in 8 high school biology teachers admitting to illegally advancing Creationism in the classroom. That is not a risk from you and others that have found a way to reconcile your faith with science.

-ArtificialGrape

Too bad more people weren't as open. It seems most of the problems come when people want to make things an either or and focus more about their differences instead of looking at what common ground they can agree upon. Thanks again for sharing your views and listening to mine. Have a great rest of your week ;)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ArtificialGrape
01-19-2012, 20:23
Too bad more people weren't as open.
Agreed.
It seems most of the problems come when people want to make things an either or and focus more about their differences instead of looking at what common ground they can agree upon. Thanks again for sharing your views and listening to mine. Have a great rest of your week ;)
Likewise.

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

Paul7
01-19-2012, 21:25
First, I appreciate a reply to get the thread back on topic. Second, I'm glad that you've found a way to reconcile your faith with science rather than just ignoring science.



Yet you seem to ignore faith.....

ArtificialGrape
01-19-2012, 21:39
Yet you seem to ignore faith.....

I don't have a problem with people having faith until they begin imposing on others. If somebody wants to accept a literal Creation and literal Flood on faith because that's what the Bible tells them, then no harm. However, when they feel compelled to attack and abuse science attempting to twist it around their beliefs, or get it taught in schools, then that is when I have an issue.

-ArtificialGrape

Animal Mother
01-19-2012, 22:00
Yet you seem to ignore faith.....Would that we could.

creaky
01-19-2012, 22:24
Would that we could.

Same as we'd like to ignore all the jackjawing atheists do on a daily basis.

Animal Mother
01-19-2012, 23:08
Same as we'd like to ignore all the jackjawing atheists do on a daily basis.Feel free. Since you equate atheism and science though, don't be a hypocrite avoid using all the results of that "jackjawing" too.

Smacktard
01-20-2012, 07:31
Same as we'd like to ignore all the jackjawing atheists do on a daily basis.


Jackjawing Atheists? :rofl:


...

ArtificialGrape
09-11-2012, 23:26
Bumped since it was mentioned here (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19384310#post19384310).

John Rambo
09-12-2012, 07:24
First, I appreciate a reply to get the thread back on topic. Second, I'm glad that you've found a way to reconcile your faith with science rather than just ignoring science.

However, I don't think that you need to bend time and space in order to accept Creation as allegory. As I've said before, those holding a literal Creation young-earth view are appearing like those that hold a flat-earth view, and this will just become more and more true.

Granted, Answers in Genesis is not helping.
-ArtificialGrape

Since this thread was bumped, I want to note that the bible absolutely addressed and debunked the Young Earth Creationist stance in very clear, simple, and concise words. It did so by taking into account the fact that time, in fact, is relative. Yes, the bible addressed relativity. I don't know if young earth creationists just slept through that sermon or what, but even their book disagrees with them.

Geko45
09-12-2012, 09:15
Since this thread was bumped, I want to note that the bible absolutely addressed and debunked the Young Earth Creationist stance in very clear, simple, and concise words. It did so by taking into account the fact that time, in fact, is relative. Yes, the bible addressed relativity. I don't know if young earth creationists just slept through that sermon or what, but even their book disagrees with them.

If you are talking about "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" then that is debatable. Some people take that to mean that in the abstract sense god doesn't see time the way we do. Others take a more literal meaning and believe that a creation "day" represents a literal thousand years (thus young earth creationism).

If you had another passage(s) in mind supporting this then please share it(them).

John Rambo
09-12-2012, 09:29
If you are talking about "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" then that is debatable. Some people take that to mean that in the abstract sense god doesn't see time the way we do. Others take a more literal meaning and belive that a creaion "day" reprsents a literal thousand years (thus young earth creationism).

If you had another passage(s) in mind supporting this then please share them.

Thats the correct passage. Its pretty black and white to me. It illustrates that the Lord's work transcends time (which would make sense for an omnipotent being). A day to him could be all of eternity to us, or a day to him could be a second to us. Our concept of time has no bearing on an omnipotent being. Given that time isn't even the same in orbit of this rock, if there is any truth to the bible I'd say thats a perfectly reasonable and scientifically plausible claim.

You've really got to be looking for a fight to cling to a Young Earth Creationist stance when the bible flat out tells you that our concept of time doesn't apply. Its the height of arrogance, really.

Glock36shooter
09-12-2012, 09:42
Thats the correct passage. Its pretty black and white to me. It illustrates that the Lord's work transcends time (which would make sense for an omnipotent being). A day to him could be all of eternity to us, or a day to him could be a second to us. Our concept of time has no bearing on an omnipotent being. Given that time isn't even the same in orbit of this rock, if there is any truth to the bible I'd say thats a perfectly reasonable and scientifically plausible claim.

You've really got to be looking for a fight to cling to a Young Earth Creationist stance when the bible flat out tells you that our concept of time doesn't apply. Its the height of arrogance, really.

That passage has nothing to do with creation though.

But let's assume 1 Day of Creation is 1,000 years to God. Let's assume it's a Million or a Billion if you like. On day three we get plants and vegetation right? 4th day we get the sun. How long do you think those plants survived without the sun? 1,000 years? A Billion? Take it a step further... wasn't until day 5 and 6 that creatures were introduced. Plants need to be pollinated to continue on. How long you think those plants survived without pollination? 2,000 years? 3,000? 2 billion? 3 billion?

The only way to merge the God of Abraham with how old we know the Earth to actually be is just assume Genesis is full of it and toss it out. Even if you want to say that day 1 might have been 3 billion years but day 3 through 5 were like a week or something. It still makes it nonsense and not consistent at all.

Geko45
09-12-2012, 09:47
You've really got to be looking for a fight to cling to a Young Earth Creationist stance when the bible flat out tells you that our concept of time doesn't apply. Its the height of arrogance, really.

But a young earther will come along shortly to tell us that this is exactly what this passage means. They'll say that six days to create the world translates into exactly six thousand years and then claim that it is the height of arrogance to refute it.

That's the problem with the bible it is far to open to reinterpretation to suit one's position.

Geko45
09-12-2012, 09:49
That passage has nothing to do with creation though.

To be fair, John doesn't seem to be using it to support creation (but others do), but rather only as a support that the christian deity doesn't experience time in the same manner we do.

Glock36shooter
09-12-2012, 09:53
To be fair, John doesn't seem to be using it to support creation (but others do), but rather only as a support that the christian deity doesn't experience time in the same manner we do.

True but it's one of the many contradictions isn't it? You have to stuff magic in there to prop up one of the table's legs.

ArtificialGrape
09-12-2012, 09:55
Focus gentlemen... evolution

:)

Geko45
09-12-2012, 10:08
Focus gentlemen... evolution

:)

The thread is evolving.

:supergrin:

Roering
09-12-2012, 12:36
The thread is evolving.

:supergrin:

AND was created.....:wavey:

Glock36shooter
09-12-2012, 13:15
AND was created.....:wavey:

Who created the creator? Or has ArtificalGrape just always been?

Geko45
09-12-2012, 13:19
Who created the creator? Or has ArtificalGrape just always been?

Who was the primum postens?

:whistling:

Roering
09-12-2012, 13:33
Who created the creator? Or has ArtificalGrape just always been?

Only AG knows.

Woofie
09-12-2012, 18:28
The thread is evolving.

:supergrin:

It's adapting; EVILution isn't real.

High-Gear
09-12-2012, 18:44
Great OP Grape! Thanks for bumping it!

ArtificialGrape
10-24-2013, 14:04
Bumped given that it's been over a year.

steveksux
10-24-2013, 15:04
Bumped given that it's been over a year.

Evolution is a slow process, the changes are not always visible to the naked eye...

Randy

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Ohub Campfire mobile app

wingryder
10-25-2013, 10:11
Bumped given that it's been over a year.

Great read, Thanks for the bump AG.