Evolution (Pls read post â??1â?� b4 posting)

[harris7]

This topic has been brought up several times and I feel that it needs to be looked at in a thread of its own.

I placed it in the spirituality section because this â??debateâ?� is fueled by many religious people.

The reason I created this thread is to facilitate discussion between people like myself, a strong atheist and educated to a high degree in science, and any number of others. Ie, non-scientific, Christians, fundamentalists, atheists and anyone else who is interested.

I have a very strong grasp of evolution from an ecological and genetic background and I have read for hours on the internet trying to find valid criticism of evolution from any background. I have found some but they aren't anything like what I hear on this website or on other websites I have participated in.

One thing that is very important is that Evolution does not conflict with Christianity. As we can see with its acceptance among Christians in Europe for example. To put it simplest for a Christian, evolution was just designed and put into action by God.

I will not and encourage others not to respond to what I refer to as fundamentalist criticisms, such as "evolution could not have occurred because it says in the bible that god created adam and eve".
There is just no point in discussing or even considering these "arguments" because that is just a debate about the bible and god.

The posting of links to another website as your argument, to me, is unacceptable. All this tells me is that you do not understand the argument and you're sending me to go research it for you. But, I wish to encourage the posting of links to verify what you have said and I will try to do this as much as possible.

And similarly making a unverified statement but justifying it by saying "and science has proven it so you cannot dispute it" Is also useless and unacceptable. Because, if you expect me to believe your statement based on that reasoning, you should believe scientists about evolution

Now please post anything about evolution: things that you have been told that discredit or negate it, things you don't understand, things you want to know, things you want others to know or if you disagree with anything I have said or will say.

[harris7]

A quick recap of evolution:

Genetics:

Humans have 23 different chromosomes and two of each, so in total 46. For any given trait, for example eye colour, we have a gene which is found on a particular chromosome and since we have two of each we actually have two different locations for this gene (and they are not necessarily the same.) One came from your mom and the other your dad or maybe the mail man.

The different types of this gene, which for eye colour would be brown, blue, green and so on, are called alleles. So gene is the trait we are talking about (ie eye colour) and alleles are the different possibilities (brown). BTW the source of new alleles is random mutation.

Given any population there is a particular frequency of alleles (ie. 30% blue alleles, 60% brown, 10% green). It has been shown that this frequency will not change unless the population is under some sort of pressure (the Hardy-Weinberg Principle 1908)). A pressure could be a lot of things like limited food, predation, space, having limited females and thus competition to mate. Evolutionary pressures are pressures that affect an organism b4 it is able to reproduce, after an organism has reproduced anything that happens to it has no effect on the evolution of its species. This is one school of thought behind all the shitty things that happen to humans now that we are living so long, like osteoporosis.

Now, the allele frequency in a population only changed due to 4 factors:

Natural selection- I’ll get to this
genetic drift- random allele frequency change
gene flow- individuals immigrate into of from a population
Mutation- produces a continuous source of new alleles by defects in transcription or translation of DNA
-All of these change the frequency but only natural selection increases the beneficial allele frequency

Although evolution was posed by many scientists (or natural philosophers as they were known as) Darwin’s contribution was the idea of Natural selection.

Natural Selection is the tendency, when a pressure is applied to a population, for the least adapted to this pressure to reproduce the least and the best adapted to reproduce the most.

Thus if the weakest allele carrying organisms have reproduced less and the strongest allele carrying organisms have reproduced more. Then the frequency of alleles in this population has changed in favor of this beneficial allele!

This is the fundamental step in evolution. (there is still a lot more that I may have to go into)

Now I’m goin to smoke my bong and hopefully someone will have responded

[ate]

Where will evolution take us in the future, and what are the patterns of evolution?

[harris7]

Well I don’t know. Many people think that humans are now “above” evolution because so few die before they reproduce. Also, usually people choose to or not to reproduce which is not natural selection it’s just personal choice. This would also make evolution very slow or stop. Sorry I cant answer your question but I think it’s better I just not answer than make something up

[afghooey]

I think most (though not all) educated religious people today have come to accept the existence of evolution to some degree. This is where the whole microevolution vs. macroevolution debate springs up.

Of course, microevolution can be observed around us every day through genetic mutations. I think macroevolution is what you'll find people debating about, though personally I've found that the 'line' that distinguishes microevolution from macroevolution to be blurry at best.

[harris7]

I have never heard these terms b4 so i assume they were not coined in science. I can assume their meaning and it seems that they are different only by the time frame. it is the same process

[afghooey]

The terms are actually pretty confusing. Yes, 'macroevolution' was coined by creationists, as you might have guessed. Their argument is that small mutations happen over time, but that it only leads to variations among species and not new species altogether (at least this is how it was explained to me). I think this definition has changed since speciation has actually been observed in recent history (source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html), but again all the definitions I've heard on this are pretty fuzzy. It's amazing how people will cling so tenaciously to debunked ideas for the sake of preserving their beliefs.

[afghooey]

Ah... sorry to double post (too late to edit). But to correct myself, the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' weren't coined by creationists.

The scientific definition of macroevolution is: "...any evolutionary change at or above the level of species."

The scientific definition of microevolution is: "...any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic."

(source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html)


Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution.

[harris7]

Yea it is interesting that algae would evolve when it is very well adapted.

It isn’t that it needs or wants to change. This implies purpose. Even though algae is very well adapted as a population, within this population there will be variation and competition. For algae it mostly competes over nutrients and this is why we get a algae boom when there is fert runoff into streams.

So if one algae has a mutation that gives it the ability to get more nutes then it will out compete the others. And it’s genetics will become more prominent in the population.

This is somewhat speculation. I will type something up about how species are created which is probably more relevant that what I just posted.

I am always speculating when we talk about specific examples.
I am also do not have a good grasp of the start of evolution.

I do know that there was an experiment in which two scientists put a bunch of regents that were present in the earth millions of years ago and mimicked the conditions then. Hear low oxygen etc and after a few days they found proteins in the mixture.
So proteins will spontaneously be created, and this is a huge step towards life.

[harris7]

yes, and Darwin's theory doesn't exactly explain what happend/happends. No theory does. His is just pretty close

[Purple Banana]

Nor does any theory, for that matter. Gravity is a theory, but no one in their sane mind denies it exists.

What gets me is those people who choose not to believe in evolution, yet they use products developed by research of evolution everday- antibiotics, for example. New ones are developed each year to destroy bacteri's ever-adapting mutations.

[BlueBear]

This was a very well put together question. Well, evolution seems to be so tricky considering all of the facts that have already been brought up that it is hard to find a position to address first because it seems no matter which way you slice it the bottom line IMO, is going to be has it been kick started by a creator, an intelligent design, or is it all by chance.
For me as I consider the question, or statements set forth, I would like to know the motive behind the question, perhaps I over looked it, but my critical thinking skills are not up to par today. Is the question, set around the idea that evolution according to any particular argument is true, or is it according to bits and peaces of many arguments which may or may not coincide with one another?According to the theory of the thread starter, what is your position on the origin of man, did he evolve from a cosmic blob, apes or what?
Adieu

[BlueBear]

The reason I created this thread is to facilitate discussion between people like myself, a strong atheist and "educated to a high degree in science"
"I have a very strong grasp of evolution from an ecological and genetic background and I have read for hours on the internet trying to find valid criticism
of evolution from any background. I have found some but they aren't anything like what I hear on this website or on other websites I have participated
in."
I am not being sarcastic, or at least not trying to be, but over about the last decade, more and more scientist, Nobel Pries winners, chemist, zoologist from the most diversified fields and studies are showing less support for evolution than in the last 150 years of the evolutionary argument.
Science has advanced so far to be able to draw a much clearer picture of possibilities and improbabilities in the realm of evolution that evolution is now a bit of a religion in its self, demanding the need for faith in its theory's when it is all said and done, that is as strong as faith in any religious belief. Ok, for now I will leave these and they are just a few points that are widely known and discussed in the world of science and creation/evolution. Hopefully I will pick the thread up tomorrow and check back in with some other points.
1. Darwin, relied on evidence that was not yet available in his day to promote portions of his argument, and that is the medimorfasising of species over the history of the world. The problem is that now, with the substantial store house of fossils we have access to now show that there is no concluding evidence of transforming stages that changed a species beyond its DNA mapping layout. With the meariod of fossils we now have available to us, we should be able to put together the evolution of man like a puzzle, but now it is more inconclusive than ever.
2. I didn't want to ruin this by trying to put it in my own words, but I can attempt if this doesn't get the point across, "There is a gigantic gap between one celled microorganisms and the highly complex invertebrates such as trilobites, brachiopods, corals, and jellyfish. The
proposed 100 million year evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates which would have involved billions of transition forms is completely
missing. The supposed 30 million year advance from fishes to amphibians is totally nonexistent. The coelacanth was one sited as an intermediate, but instead
of being extinct for millions of years it was found very much alive in 1938. No transitional forms between amphibians and the altogether different reptiles
have been found. No transitional links between reptiles and mammals. No evolutionary links between reptiles and birds. Archaeopteryx was once acclaimed
as such but has since been acknowledged by paleontologists to have been a true bird. A strong flier in fact." "

3. "No links between ape and man. The highly publicized fossil hominids cited to demonstrate human evolution are actually fossils of extinct apes or humans,
or in some cases neither. Ramapithecus was jaw fragments of an ape. Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee. Nebraska Man turned out to be
a pig's tooth. Java Man turned out to be the knee bone of an extinct elephant. Piltdown Man, viewed in stately museums and the subject of 500 doctoral
dissertations was a hoax. It was the jawbone of an ape that died only 50 years previously. The teeth were filed down and the bones were discolored to conceal
their true identity. Neanderthal Man is now classed as fully human. The individual initially evaluated had a vitamin D deficiency causing rickets."
Sources for both can be found at historical.benabraham.com/html/evolution_as_science.html
I reposted the quotes above simply because they are facts and not opinions, so I was not trying to regurgitate an already put forth argument, just some little facts that seem easy enough to understand.
As glib and quick the statements above may be, they are some of the facts that many evolutionary arguments, studies and beliefs have found there origin in, and unfortunately they are just simply scientifically false.
If someone would spend say 10 minutes on this sight historical.benabraham.com/html/evolution_as_science.html that it only took me about five minutes to find, I think that it can be a valuable resource. I have studied the argument before, and realize the current status of the evolutionary argument is so questionable that I new just by searching certain key words that I could find abundant information, and it is so widely available that this is one of those things that is kind of dead in the water before it has a chance to float IMO if you just study both sides of the argument by informed and educated people on both sides you may feel like you have been living in the dark ages in regards to the newer ideas and discoveries on evolution.

I herd this point made by a Nobel Pries winner several years ago and it may not mean that much to the average listener, but once you learn the level of intelligence that is possessed by some of these people you start to consider and ponder their statements. Well, this professor who is not a Christian, rather one of the most brilliant atheist to date, had made the point that with the over one million chemical changes taking place in one cell every single second, that the time it would take to evolve into the simplest life form we know, let alone the complex workings of something like the human eye, would take so long that it couldn't even be a probability, the years that it would take are in the trillions, and after a certain amount of years it becomes an impossibility to have these molecules and atoms miraculously come together in such a fashion and then evolve into the most intricate and complex life forms imaginable. Even now your basic run of the mill scientist will admit that there isn't even time in our estimated time of history for evolution as we define it to have taken place.
Well, I am a little tired and have ranted on enough, will check you guys in the morning. Hope I didn't boar to many or irritate to many with my shalow chatter.
Adieu

[OnionsOfLove]

reproduction happens through sex, where different cells are mingled together and miraculously create life. sex happens between organisms that have similar genetic makeups, and when a favorable change occurs in that makeup it is passed on and survives in a species. survival of the fittest also dictates what happens to asexual reproducers, though to a lesser degree because evolution only happens at the rate allowed by differences created by imperfect asexual reproductions.

if you define evolution on much broader terms you arrive upon a different definition: change over time. anything can evolve, it just depends how you look at it and how open of a mind youre willing to have. a rock will change shape over time as it is eroded by wind. thus evolution is applicable to all matter, living and nonliving. living matter, however, has the ability to withstand outside forces and to create its own sort of internal change by which it can gain an advantage over the environment - called adaptation. adaptation would not be possible without the existance of reproduction and the law of survival of the fittest. the thing most fit to survive is the thing that will survive, always. so it doesnt matter if you (as a small piece in the gigantic mosaic of life) end up dying, as long as you have the chance to reproduce.

think of life as independent of the rest of the earth, but still a part of it and living on earth. it is only independent because it is different and new, and it is still a part of it and living on it because thats where it came from somehow. think of life only in terms of whether or not it exists. life exists now, and because it exists now and apparently has a desire to continue existing it will always be willing to change and adapt as needed. one thing, however, that life will not give up is the ability to reproduce. because if life were to give up this trait, it would cease living when one generation of it was eliminated. but life already has this trait and it is this trait alone that is keeping it going. (of course one could say that it helps when an organism takes care of itself as well as its reproduction, but they are both concepts dealing with permanating life - feed yourself today so that you will create your child tomorrow)

someone fiddles around with some new idea they have that maybe will allow them to fly. this idea, once attempted, fails and causes permanent damage to the creative mind behind it. but that is ok for the human race because behold! you can create a child and tell them not to do it. you can explain to your child where you went wrong, and then let them have a go at life. the same thing happens to the other kingdoms of animals.

one thing that most people dont know is that humans evolved to have brains that fold upon themselves, creating more surface area which in turn creates more chance for neuron activity. the human brain contains over 100 billion neurons and each one has the "chance" to "choose" a connection from over 10,000 connections surrounding it. humans have also evolved to be able to handle tools more readily - we are able to stand and balance with two limbs, freeing up use of our arms (complete with opposable thumbs) to handle things with. something happened to our throats that allowed us to differentiate emitted sounds on command, allowing communication to occur between us. the greatest technological achievements of 15,000 years ago among whatever humans lived on the earth are STILL the greatest achievements that any species on the planet has come to produce. one pool of thought actually believes that they have proven that homo sapiens (different from other species in the "homo" genus) originated in northern africa 200,000 - 250,000 years ago. this is long enough ago, they believe, that it would have been during a time when the sahara was much wetter and (though still a desert) livable.

there is a sort of ladder that life has climbed throughout the ages as it has evolved. it started with bacteria, went to worms and crustaceans and all sorts of other stuff that i dont have any idea about. eventually it went to insects, fish, lizards, birds, mammals, and humans. taking the brains of these animals and putting them in order yields an obvious progression. animals are getting smarter and smarter, and humans are the "cream of the crop".

hum
dont know what ive been talking about

cheers

[harris7]

I ndo not think that fossil records is the biggest supporter of evolution. It would be the discovery of genetics which fits immaculately with his theory. Within genetics one man, his name escapes me, has created a tree of much of the life on earth.

he used the ribosomal RNA (rRNA) which exists in every organism on the planet and tracked it's mutations. I believe this map, which I will cite later, is the best evidence. It shows how life split into kingdoms and several “trees” of evolution continued

I think the jump from single celled organism to multi-celled organisms isn’t that big. One small mutation which stops the cell form completely dividing would yield a two celled organism. This jump is much smaller, I think, to the jump from inorganic to organic molecules.

And yes bluebear that is the best criticism I have heard, that evolution couldn’t have occurred that fast. This criticism is only to darwin’s theory which I admit is not perfect (no theory is) I will look into that, do you have any links?

The thing is, his theory is very good. This means it explains an enormous body of data, of which, most was discovered after he died like genetics. There are something’s it doesn’t explain which does go to show it isn’t perfect and yes someone will devise a theory which properly explains more of the data. Maybe this has happened. If it did we can assume that It wouldn’t be as big of a deal as darwin’s.

[BlueBear]

I am just checking back in, and I will re post later on when I have more time.
If you read any of the link that I posted in my second post it will address some of Darwin's theories, but not in a formal criticism.
Adieu

[sm0k1t]

Alot of informed people here but I had a though on evolution vs the bible. I understand and firmly believe that life is always in the process of evolution. The thing is that in the bible they say god created man (adam and eve) so most people believe this statement is contradictory to the evolution theory. I'm no bible reader but I've come to a though that maybe this sentence as to be read in a spiritual way. Maybe all this sentence means is that god gave man the ability to think, use is reason.

In other terms, god did not create a human like magic and bang theres a guy and bang there a boy...the process of evolution is there but while that evolution was in process in a certain point we (humans) inherit the power to think! that is maybe gods creation...gods will

or im totally wrong

in either case this is a very good topic and very interesting people here

[harris7]

But did it -live-!? That's the question. I'm sure you can synthesize proteins, just like any other nutrient, element, or molecule. The question at hand is...what causes life to spring forth from chemical goop?


no it didn’t live. But this is not synthesizing proteins. The experiment showed that proteins would spontaneously be created in the environment of early earth. This is a huge leap towards life which has been proven.

I can see that you do not understand the importance this has. Unlike you, I am not sure if we can actually synthesize any proteins as organic molecules are very difficult to create. Until 1828 when urea was created it was thought that you couldn’t create any organic molecules outside an organism. If you are buying a “synthesized” organic compound they it was probably created by genetically modified bacteria.



Until that question is answered, there's no possible fucking way you can be an atheist without blindly putting your faith in...well...science.


I disagree. This is not faith. Faith is irrational. Faith is defined as “belief that is not based on proof” For instance someone could have “faith” that science will cure their disease b4 they die.

Science gives the best possible answer and explanation available given the information. I believe that you are putting Faith in your religion. A believe in creationism is not supported by the information, it is not the most logical or believable explanation.

One is choosing between
1) basing your believe on as much information as one can get
2) basing your believe on what you’ve been told

now which one requires faith?




D=1/2GT^2...why is it that just RANDOMLY, the distance an object falls will ALWAYS be determined by half the acceleration of gravity times time spent falling squared?


well it doesn’t fall like that. I believe this is Newton’s law of gravity, correct? Anyhoo for 1 all of his laws are wrong. This is an approximation of the speed an object would have and it’s pretty close for elevations less than a few km.



Everything in nature seems to be able to be explained by some mathematical equation. It doesn't make sense that that would be the case, seeng as if it were random chance everywhere, there wouldn't really BE any sort of equation that could apply to nature


well any relationship can be described by an equation. Any. So why wouldn’t we be able to describe natural relationships.

You must understand that the “random chance” part of evolution really only applies to the creation of alleles and genes. A world created by evolution would not be random at ALL, there is no reason to think that it would be.

[harris7]

I don’t follow some of what you put but I think that’s because I wasn’t clear.

By spontaneous generation I mean the protein was created through a spontaneous reaction. I am not talking about that theory, I am not familiar with that theory.

The protein didn’t come out of nowhere. They mimicked early earth. So they put some CO2, N, C, probably some other shit. These molecules spontaneously reacted and created the protein. No matter appearing out of nowhere.
The reaction could have been this:

O2+C2+H5+N-->NH3CH2CHO2
(saying this is spontaneous means that it will proceed in the direction indicated by the arrow)

This reaction always exists. But if it is not spontaneous it will no occur. The environmental conditions of early earth make this spontaneous.

I don’t worry too much about after death. What happens will happen and I cant change that. But, I currently believe that the brain and mind die together. Lights out, like a computer when you shut it off.

[Pass That Shit]

I agree. Everyone puts their faith in something. I put mine in God. We are debating the unknown. I would prefer to die cause I know the change is coming, but it's more needful for me to remain in the flesh and live out my appointed days. Can't wait to live in a place where there's fullness of joy. If you truly believe that you will be improving your life you wouldn't mind going either.

[Pass That Shit]

I was agreeing with Jake's physics teacher :)

[harris7]

I sort of agree but i would define faith in science as faith in observation. This applies to everything, philosophy and religion. So I donâ??t really think science should be singled out.

And well it has proven a very effective and useful thing to have "faith" in. So i think it is incorrect to say that someone has faith in it.
Since faith is a â??belief that is not based on proofâ?�. Science effectively gets us information, you could say this is itâ??s purpose.
Yes science has basic flaws.
1) it is based on the Principle of the uniformity of nature. Which is probably the biggest theoretical flaw
2) observation may be false. This is more of a philosophical exercise than anything.
3)probably others too

Regardless of these flaws science works, this is obvious no one can deny the amazing pace science progresses at and what it creates. We know it works, so what is there to have faith inâ?¦? I guess we also have faith in our knowledge of these advances, faith in our memory. Non of these things are specific to science


Oh and:

â??â?�And these proteins...bond together...and create a life form...that's not made of protein.â?�â?�
Life is largely made of proteins

[Pass That Shit]

Since faith is a â??belief that is not based on proofâ?�.

According to the scriptures, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. So it's impossible to have faith without proof. I'm not sure where your definition comes from but faith is a scriptural word and any definition of this word is probably an interpretation of the meaning in the bible. Another words, faith is a person. So if you have faith, you have substance and proof. Obviously my views are always from the bible.

[harris7]

well i looked in the dictionary
this is the most blunt definition

Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

this is the Christian application. Oddly different than yours

this is what I believe faith means.

[Polymirize]

hey blue bear, I'd hate to say you're completely full of shit without justifiable cause, but is it possible that you'd know of another source, perhaps more in line with a scientific journal, that backs up these claims that neanderthals have been disproven. Just to start with. Do you think there might be a conflict of interest in finding these fun "facts" on a religiously based website?

Really? You found the website within ten minutes, hell why wouldn't I want to check that out? What a great qualifier.

[harris7]

Yes I agree with plymirize. If all of these things were disproven than whomever it was that challenged the US government on the topic of teaching creationism in school would have actually had something to say in their defense.

I think that information is posted on some Christian website. So people will read it, it reinforces their believes. and they feel no need to verify the information.

It follows a nice little psychological "formula:

A person has a belief
A person is confronted with a piece of information

If this information is consistent with the belief then, information is accepted at truth. Little thought is given to it

If the information is inconsistent with the belief then the person must choose.
1) Modify the belief so it accommodates the new information.
2) Disregard the new information

(the second option, if it’s inconsistent, is a highly critical approach.)
People are very critical and place less faith in information that contradicts their belief. And they aren’t very critical at all about information that confirms there belief.
This is called confirmation Bias

Everyone is subject to this. I believe this is one main factor in why people can believe so strongly in something like creationism and not believe in evolution.

Someone makes a website writes a bunch of lies on it that disprove evolution. And oh, you stumble onto it and wow your beliefs are reinforced because of lies.

A few days later you forget what you read but the beliefs prevail, stronger now.

[harris7]

Well I finally found the website in that long post and I’ve only read the first paragraph and it’s already wrong

“”Just as Creationism is a philosophy (i.e. religion), so also is Evolutionism. Neither one is observable or repeatable, so both theories are outside the domain of what is strictly called science, and are in the domain of philosophy. To the questions, "Were you there when it happened?" or "Can you repeat (verify) it in a lab?" we must answer "no". Where we end up on the Creation/Evolution question will involve faith.”

They seem to think evolution cannot be looked at by science. False. They justify this because it wasn’t witnessed and cannot be reproduced in a lab.

They are clearly speaking to people who have only taken highschool science. And yes these people probably think this is what constitutes science.
And it’s wrong. I have gone over this several times

By this logic science couldn’t study what’s inside the earth. But they can. It’s call scientific inference.

I will not read any further as this website has already shown it’s inaccuracies and biases. And as I said b4 if this agreed with my beliefs I probably wouldn’t have been so critical and accepted it. So I don’t blame you

And just so you know. If a “scientific” claim doesn’t appear in a peer reviewed journal then it’s probably bullshit.

[BlueBear]

Hmm very interesting. So if it comes from a religious based sight, which I didn't even consider it must be full of BS? That is something considering many notable authors, scientist and mechanical engineers are believers in some kind of faith rather than none, and a large portion of intelligent scholars are Christians, but don't go to the bible to disprove evolution I guess the fact that they are Christian negates their findings? That is truly critical thinking at its finest. Well, I will be back, but more or less it seems that for most responding they already have the answers they want and every thing else falls into the line of throwing the babies out with the bath water.
With the quotes and such I did post it is find to say it is just not true because such and such, but I don't think that the point of proof lies on me any more, the statements were clear enough for anyone to confirm them or unconfirmed them with about 15 minutes of time using the web and looking up cross references on un religious sights, so a quick sentence or two about what you feel doesn't really do anything for the argument IMO.
Adieu

[BlueBear]

"A person has a belief
A person is confronted with a piece of information

If this information is consistent with the belief then, information is accepted at truth. Little thought is given to it

If the information is inconsistent with the belief then the person must choose.
1) Modify the belief so it accommodates the new information.
2) Disregard the new information

(the second option, if it’s inconsistent, is a highly critical approach.)
People are very critical and place less faith in information that contradicts their belief. And they aren’t very critical at all about information that
confirms there belief.
This is called confirmation Bias"
After What I posted and read the responses I think your more right than ever about what you said above, especially about it applying to everybody. . Example "These facts do not chime in with what I belief so I will not attempt to put any effort to analytically research them I will declare them false according to the superior belief I have already. " It is a little funny to me, since it is posted on a religious sight it is a bunch of lies by Nobel Pries winners and scientist trying to promote their dumb religion, or something to that thought process. I doubt that they even considered that their words were going to be posted there, I am sure that they have bigger and better things to do than contribute creative false statements to a little web sight. But since that is what the conspiracy theory sounds like I guess that all of the info is un true and disqualifies the facts. That is truly enlightened and extremely critical thinking. But a Darwin theory can be read and admired and built upon as a personal belief without much qualm from other listeners?
Adieu

[harris7]

I admit I did not read the entire article. I read the beginning. Which i commented on. it is false. I looked through and at the end and found no formal Citations. IF these are noble prize winners then they would understand the importance of citation. And I cannot properly verify there information without them.


Without citation there is no reason to think they didn't make all this shit up.

and yes of course i am under the influence of this bias. I go to the website thinking it will be wrong and look to confirm this. And IT wasn't very hard.

It is an intelligently written essay. But not as an argument to battle atheists but to confirm believers.

The entire essay is based on a false premise that evolution is removed from science!!!!

it is very tactful, the writer looks to remove evolution from science. Show that it is based in faith, thus equating it to religious faith.
Very smart

Look to what i said before, it still stands.

I will reiterate
First line â??just as creationism is a philosophy, so is evolutionism.â?� Wrong
Second line â??Neither one is observable or repeatableâ?� The writer makes these two practices the definition of science. It is not

Do I need to go any further? I donâ??t need to read any further, as the first two lines are wrong and are intended to mislead, I can assume an article based on these two premises will also be wrong and misleading.

and no, i do not think that it is wrong because it is on a religious website. but obviously I will suspect it is biased.

do you understand the importance of the peer review process.
it means someone who is much better informed and educated than us on this specific topic. reads the article and if it has merit it will be published. No articles have been published for intelligent design. This is why it is not allowed in the curriculum of american schools.

As well testimonials are not proof and shouldnâ??t be regarded as evidence for anything. Even if this testimony comes from a well regarded source. If this person is not representing the views of the majority of people in the field they are misleading you. I am not saying this is what they are doing but I will not trust this article because it c
but wrong.

[BlueBear]

So long gang, this is a good topic, but after do consideration, I do not think I have the time to read enough formal studies and familiarize my self with all the nuances that would make me comfortable laying out a in-depth argument on either side of the case. I would be like some who post more personal opinions and small amounts of knowledge that are really to glib IMO to be able to facilitate an informed discussion that rises above the level of a table talk, in which there is nothing wrong with, but I do not have the apatite for that right now.
Perhaps I will still follow the topic from the side lines as a ignorant spectator seeking to grasp at the straws of knowledge that I can comprehend threw the maze of elaborate arguments, but that is it for now.
For those who do support a complete view of molecular evolution and would like to really delve into the intricacies of the science then here is a list of books that you could spend the next 20 years reading, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
I think that these are some fairly respectable studies and so on.
For others looking for a view other than that stated above here is a decent work on DNA characteristics and how the complexities of the make up may disqualify some evolution theories. It is OK, I liked most of the info, but I had disagreements with some things, but that is the case with most literature I read.
Adieu

[harris7]

well I will miss you

[harris7]

yea this thread has gotten much more complex than i intended. I created this to get an idea of why people doubt evolution, not to debate indepth concepts but to talk about simple misconceptions and such.

[harris7]

I defined my usage of the word above. I am using it to refer to something created through a spontaneous reaction. Which i defined above

You keep talking about the Theory of spontaneous generation. I am NOT talking about this. And didnâ??t Pasture prove that wrong. I know the one you are talking about now.

[Polymirize]

blue bear, I didn't mean to pick on you excessively. My problem with the information you provide is not where it was found (although I find that suspect) but rather that its not collaborated anywhere on any scientific source that I could find.
Leading me to believe that such scientific claims have in fact not been disproven at all.


And Jake, can we drop the spontaneous generation thing? I don't think evolution needs to be tied to the origin of life, but rather it models the development and proliferation of life.
If you really want to discuss spontaneous generation let's discuss this intelligent creator of yours.
Or we could just cut off this entire infinite regression with a single application of occum's razor.

[harris7]

All three schools of thought require observation of some sort...

Religion requires the observation of experiences with no scientific explanation (religion and science just don't mix)

Philosophy requires the observation of experiences and thoughts associated with them.

Science requires observations of what you can perceive through your senses.

i agree. everything requiers observation. so theoretical flaws in observation affect everything so i dont think it is correct to say science has faith in it, it's implicit.

[Lucifuge]

To be honest, when I took physics, I realised that there must be an intelligent creator. Why else would such an INTELLIGENT concept, such as math and numbers, apply to every thing in nature?

D=1/2GT^2...why is it that just RANDOMLY, the distance an object falls will ALWAYS be determined by half the acceleration of gravity times time spent falling squared?

Physics, math, and reality don't "exist" inside black holes... So by your reasoning, I've just proven that God doesn't exist right?;)

[harris7]

Physics, math, and reality don't "exist" inside black holes... So by your reasoning, I've just proven that God doesn't exist right?;)

interesting.

i've been thinking about this also, and this is what i've come up with.

Math is a language humans created to accurately describe certain things.
we use Math rather than English because how the hell are you going to accurately describe a parabola, etc.

so saying that "math" exists everywhere in nature is kinda funny.
what you mean is math can describe things everywhere in nature.

[Perp]

Recently, geneticists have determined that we share about 99.9% of our dna with Neanderthal Man. However, our mitochondrial dna has been found to differ dramatically from Neanderthal Man.

How can this be, if evolution occurred naturally? Could it be that homo sapiens were genetically engineered using Neanderthal dna and a different female source of dna? Could this have been the genesis (gene Isis) of the human race?

[harris7]

Recently, geneticists have determined that we share about 99.9% of our dna with Neanderthal Man. However, our mitochondrial dna has been found to differ dramatically from Neanderthal Man.

How can this be, if evolution occurred naturally? Could it be that homo sapiens were genetically engineered using Neanderthal dna and a different female source of dna? Could this have been the genesis (gene Isis) of the human race?

.1% difference is HUGE. we are less than 3% different that gorillas. And less than 30% different than a pumpkin, itâ??s really not that surprising though when you look at how similar our cells and organs are.

i would be interested to know were you read about the mitochondrial dna (i wana read about it) i dont know too much about it.
But that dna doesnâ??t interact at all with ours.

And another little known fact:
Chloroplasts also has DNA, WO, science rules

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are actually thought to be symbiotic bacteria living in our cells. they have lived their so long that they nor us could live without the other.

[Delta9 UK]

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are actually thought to be symbiotic bacteria living in our cells. they have lived their so long that they nor us could live without the other.

Yep, you are talking about Endosymbiotic theory, here is a Wiki about it :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

[Delta9 UK]

As Mitochondrial DNA passes down maternally there is a whole school of thought based around tracing the evolution of humans through this phenomena.

The so called Mitochondrial Eve - here is another Wiki :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

[Delta9 UK]

Now for an example (if you can call it that) of mutation in action - a real evolution driving force that you can see right now.

In Africa a certain genetic mutation - leading to a sickle cell trait in hemoglobin actually infers a degree of immunity to malaria.

You can see this as natural selection in action. Those living in the lowland areas (subjected to more mosquito and therefore malaria exposure) have a much higher occurance of the sickle cell trait. The Malaria parasite has effectively selected out those not genetically advantaged to defeat the disease.

This is admittedly not 'typical' darwinian evolution, more an example of balanced polymorphism - just a chance mutation that happens to be REALLY useful. A useful mutation that keep Malaria from wiping you out will get passed on and expressed - this is the essence of at least one arm of the theory of evolution. In a different environment this mutation may not have been so advantageous, key to the understanding that evolution is tied to environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria#Evolutionary_pressure_of_malaria_on_human_ genes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_falciparum

[harris7]

I am familiar with that example, I guess most people who take biology are.
I think iv’e mentioned it somewhere.

I was wondering what you though of my first few posts. Accurate to your level of knowledge?

[Delta9 UK]

I was wondering what you though of my first few posts. Accurate to your level of knowledge?

Totally :)

It has been a few years since gradutation and to be honest some of my knowledge is pretty patchy now, but this is always a fun debate.

I was more in the Microbiology area so I'm a biased that way - your ecology knowledge probably serves you better to be fair as the whole area of Macro evolution (imho) is closely tied.

But I need to cut down on the vaporizer before I get into these threads LOL :stoned:

[harris7]

Lets talk about the human knee,

It has a very poor structure, everyone must admit. It truly isn’t a very intelligent design (he he).

Human kinesiologists could easily design a knee which would serve the same function but get better “mileage”. This is true of many natural machines.
They truly are not the best possible design.

Under the light of Intelligent Design, this doesn’t make sense. (I know most believers will just brush off this, but it really is a problem with the theory)

Under the light of Evolution, it makes perfect sense.
Because:
Evolutionary forces don’t “design” organisms, they “tinker” with them.
So when an organism faces a new pressure, natural selection tinkers with the existing structure of that organism (through mutations) and accepts the best solution that Arises.

-if the best possible solution doesn’t arise through mutation, that natural selection cannot select it.
-Natural selection is also bared by it’s starting point. Evolution cannot stop, think things over and start from a different angle to better solve the problem. It must always continue down the same path. This is unlike humans who, when designing something are able to stop and start over again from a different approach, this is why we are able to design a better knee than evolution did.


I post this as just another example of some data which fits seamlessly with evolutionary theory but leaves supporters of intelligent design baffled.