Can we talk Creationism?

[bigalpha]

I just watched Penn and Teller's take on Creationism. Pretty insightful. What do you think of Creationism vs. Evolution?

[bluejeepkid]

i personally beleive in evolution...im an atheist and i dont beleive in god and "higher" beings ... altho, i dont bash people for being religious.

[ECKSJAY]

DILLIGAF

[Jump This]

DILLIGAF

WTF?

[Coastie]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Charles_Darwin_1880.jpg

My Hero

[WB9YZU]

I did not see Pen and Teller.

However, I don't see the point in discussing Creationism.

I would like to see Darwin's theory of evolution taught in Public Schools reguardless of what religious views one holds.

Why? Because there is solid, hold in your hands, evidence that he was on the right track. We have thousands of years of religious theorys, and not one of them has explained what we have been digging up.

Creationism is based on belief in the writings in one book.

Darwin's theory is based on observation, and is constantly being cross checked by scientific methode of current observations.

[bluejeepkid]

I don't see the point.

I would like to see Darwin's theory of evolution taught in Public Schools reguardless of what religious views one holds.

Why? Because there is solid, hold in your hands, evidence that he was on the right track. We have thousands of years of religious theorys, and not one of them has explained what we have been digging up.

Creationism is based on belief in the writings in one book.

Darwin's theory is based on observation, and is constantly being cross checked by scientific methode of current observations.


x2

[urban yan]

To quote Albert Einstein,
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

[A7XJ]

x2

Lame as in what it means- disabled so that movement is difficult/impossible. not the lame the wonderful 80's brought. Basically science is useless without religion. But the thing about religion is you don't need science. some people need to be hit over the head to believe something. Others are able to believe.

[wolfpackjeeper]

the problem that most have with evolution is that it is always thrust into your face that man came from monkeys and therefore your god is not real.

Evolution happens for sure. You can see it in everyday species. It deserves to be taught in schools if for no other reason than that it is a supported scientific theory.

/does anybody remember that crazy lady who wanted Pi removed from the curriculum because apparently somewhere the bible says that it is actually the number 3 not 3.14whatever
//also, remember that gravity is a theory as well, provable only by thick math
///slashies

[SC Rednek]

Both creation and evolution are religions. Neither is conclusively proved, most scientific facts can be interpreted either way. Regardless which side you're on, it's a belief, and one religion should not be exclusively taught in schools as fact. Either teach all beliefs equally, or none.

[browncountyxj]

Do I Look Like I Give A F**k

[bigalpha]

Both creation and evolution are religions. Neither is conclusively proved, most scientific facts can be interpreted either way. Regardless which side you're on, it's a belief, and one religion should not be exclusively taught in schools as fact. Either teach all beliefs equally, or none.

Evolution isn't religious.

[bigalpha]

the problem that most have with evolution is that it is always thrust into your face that man came from monkeys and therefore your god is not real.

Evolution happens for sure. You can see it in everyday species. It deserves to be taught in schools if for no other reason than that it is a supported scientific theory.

/does anybody remember that crazy lady who wanted Pi removed from the curriculum because apparently somewhere the bible says that it is actually the number 3 not 3.14whatever
//also, remember that gravity is a theory as well, provable only by thick math
///slashies

I've never met an evolutionist who said God isn't real because evolution exists.

[Stihl029]

I believe in evolution following creation. Kinda funny how rhinos and horses are in the same family without some evolution. Geology had its part in it as well. Yes I did go to Sunday school growing up, I am not a bible thumper so I am not going to beat you with it. I myself grew tired mainly of the hypocrisy that I saw in so many around me that I just stopped going. I believe what I believe if you want to hear from my prospective then ask otherwise I am not gonna waste my time... unless you are trying to jam something down my throat. Cheers

[WB9YZU]

Both creation and evolution are religions. Neither is conclusively proved, most scientific facts can be interpreted either way. Regardless which side you're on, it's a belief, and one religion should not be exclusively taught in schools as fact. Either teach all beliefs equally, or none.

Theorys are not religions.

Theorys are propositions that are generated to create a model of how something works. Then the Theory is tested by further field observations by independed sources. Sometimes theorys are discarded for a better model, then that theory is continiously tested.
No one treats a theory as "Fact", the proper treatment is that "this is a model to explain how something happens". For example: Einstien's theory of relativity is constantly being re-examined for validity, and for the most part, the model has held, but it is not fact. The same statement holds true for Darwin's theory of evolution.

Religion by it's very nature is a set of beliefs which are treated as fact. Even if you wanted to, there is no hope of testing them because they depend on intangebles as their core "proofs".

[fscrig75]

Most schools now teach evolution. Creationism/Intelligent Design are almost taboo now.

Personally I do believe in evolution. I do think that both theories should be taught. Its pretty ignorant to only teach one theory.

I did watch a pretty interesting movie by Ben Stein about the war against Intelligent Design. He discussed how if people publish anything about Intelligent Design they are almost completely outcast by the scientific community.
He talks to a lot of scientists about how they can claim to be Christians and swear that Intelligent Design is just a fairy tale.

Here is an article(opinion) from MSNBC about how horrible this movie is:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/

The name of the movie is Expelled.

[bigalpha]

Would you teach alchemy or astrology in school too?

[urban yan]

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb146/urban-yan/humor/jesuslovesdinosaurs.jpg

/thread

[SC Rednek]

The difference is that evolution is a theory (and not a very complete or well proven one either) about the origin of life, with implications about what, if anything happens after death, as well as the place of God in it all.

Alchemy and relativity are not.

[karstic]

The difference is that evolution is a theory (and not a very complete or well proven one either) about the origin of life, with implications about what, if anything happens after death, as well as the place of God in it all.

Alchemy and relativity are not.

Educate youself, don't take the dogma of your pastor as gospel.

Natural selection (evolution) is a scientific theory trying to explain the change in organisms over time. Thats it. Nowhere does it try to explain the origins of life or the presence or absence of God.

[bigalpha]

You are misusing the term "theory" in it's scientific context. Evolution doesn't implicate anything about after death nor does it try to explain God's place in it all. It merely explains how species change through time.

Did you know that gravity is a theory too, but nobody disputes it.

[Stihl029]

sweet I wanna learn alchemy

[WB9YZU]

The difference is that evolution is a theory (and not a very complete or well proven one either) about the origin of life, with implications about what, if anything happens after death, as well as the place of God in it all.

Alchemy and relativity are not.

Darwin's theory of evolution does not touch on the subject of God at all.

Your statement shows a lack of understanding of your subject.

[Darky]

Before you can discuss creation vs evolution, what evolution are we talking about? I believe in Creation by God. I don't believe in macro-evolution, I do however believe in micro-evolution. Macro being the change from monkeys to cave-men to modern man, micro being the observable change within species, otherwise known as adaptation. I'd actually have to back the Rednek in that based on the evidence we have of either evolution (macro) or creation, your decision on what it all means depends on your belief. Scientific evidence does not prove evolution. It leaves rather large gaps in the theory. Those of you who have admitted it's not a fact are of course correct, but a lot of people will fight and argue over that very point.

[Deadman 94 xj]

Evolution is pretty obvious. Darwin’s theories are everywhere. Why is a black man’s skin brown? Why is a white man’s skin white or an Asian’s eyes narrow? All of this has to do with the evolution of man. Make up your own mind but Darwin’s theories are everywhere.

Creationism is everywhere as well. What came first, the chicken or the egg? If you have any biology in your background than you’ll probably figure the egg to come first. It may not have started out that way but it evolved into KFC.

The question is WHY. Where do we go from here? It’s funny because every one of us walks around with that question in the back of our minds whether we admit it or not. It surfaces at some point or another. The death/ birth of a loved one might be an example. The Nietzsche’s of the world would have us believe that we’re no different than the birds and the bees and that only human arrogance suggests that we are anything more. Born from the dirt to die to the dirt. Maybe they’re right. I don’t believe so.

There is far too much that we as people don’t understand or know about. Probably more than our minds are capable of comprehending. We to this day still don’t fully understand the human brain! Relativity? Our whole existence is relative to nothing! A hidden truth. We only perceive what our senses allow us to perceive. Sounds elementary but think about it. Everything each of us knows to be true is only because of what our limited capabilities have allowed. That chair is only Green because of the way our eyes reflect light! Color blind people don’t even see it as Green. So what’s the truth? Science? We as people probably know an inch of a mile of what’s left to learn. This is where religion comes in. Science doesn’t prove anything. We hold on to it because it’s all we have. Those that choose to look beyond what science says are the scholars of theology/ philosophy. Darwin is even just a philosopher in contrast.

IMO you have to be careful with science. Too much of it and you’ll start deducing down to the smallest particle. Where does it go from there? There’s a whole world out there, look up, get your head out of the sand! You have to be careful with religion as well. Metaphors are just that. Christians read in the bible that on the seventh day God created man. He created man from the dust. Maybe the first strands of DNA that began the evolution.


I don’t care what they teach in schools. It’s just more political BS where nobody is happy. Teach your kids at home!

[fscrig75]

Would you teach alchemy or astrology in school too?

And thats they type of attitude that is displayed throughout the movie from Darwinists.

Why can't people who believe in evolution accept that some believe in intelligent design? Each theory can be proven just as well as the other, but the Darwinists are unwilling to accept the other's side.

[GrimmJeeper]

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb146/urban-yan/humor/jesuslovesdinosaurs.jpg

/thread
http://www.poormojo.org/hate/RaptorJesus.jpg
sorry bud, raptor jesus is the patron saint of dinosaurs.

[IceNineKills]

Wow i'm content so far this thread has been pretty peaceful. Usually discussions like this turn into a big flame fest.

I think Adaption or adapting to surroundings or circumstances goes hand in hand with the way God created us. He built us to adapt, change, and grow. So it would be off to say that there isn't at least some evolutionary evidence in creationism. Now in regards to how we got here? no dice LOL
Just my two cents.

[wolfpackjeeper]

I've never met an evolutionist who said God isn't real because evolution exists.


I have. I am not arguing for it to be not taught. I am just saying why most people do not want it taught. It has been used as an example of why religion is "stupid" before and as an attack on religion.

BTW: This is one of my all time favorite south parks. With Richard Dawkins and the future space otters.

"You are the offspring of a retarded fish squirrel"

and SCredneck - everything evolves, it happens constantly. The creatures on this planet have changed subtly over the years. The strongest do survive and it is their genes that are passed on. It even happens in controlled settings. Have you ever wondered how they come up with specific breeds of roses? How about breeding animals for specific traits?

[wolfpackjeeper]

Did you know that gravity is a theory too, but nobody disputes it.

I mentioned it earlier. There is no way to Prove gravity exists, other than by inductive reasoning.

[kdailey4315]

Natural selection (evolution) Thats it. Nowhere does it try to explain the origins of life or the presence or absence of God.

Doesn't the evolution theory state that life started as one single cell which evolved to everything today through billions of years of evolution? That to me sounds like and explaination of lthe origins of life.

As for me I believe in both. I believe that God created all but that species do evolve. One thing I don't understand is that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

[fscrig75]

Doesn't the evolution theory state that life started as one single cell which evolved to everything today through billions of years of evolution? That to me sounds like and explaination of lthe origins of life.

Yes

[Deadman 94 xj]

One thing I don't understand is that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

LOL The whole monkey idea is retarded to me. It's like people couldn't come up with anything so they said "well, we doo look a lot like them" :looney:

Funny though, we do share something like 13 genes of the 18 in a type of strand of DNA bla bla bla. Something like that. I can't remember the exact number but it's close and only a certain type.

If we were monkeys than who were the neanderthals?

[5-90]

I hope this thread can remain civil - it's rare that you can have a discussion involving either religion or politics that doesn't descend into acrimony. I will be surprised if it does stay civil - we have enough "born-agains" around here that the rejection of reason is a virtual certainty sooner or later.


-----
Yes, I know this is a long post. Read all of it or don't bother - this is by no means a simple subject! If you didn't read it, don't comment on it, please...
-----

That being said, I will say that I think both sides are right. Yes, we are evolving, we are growing, we are changing. But Yes, we got started somewhere.

And as far as the Biblical account of Creation, where the Universe was created whole in "six days" - who is to say how long each "day" was? A "day" to us is twenty-four hours as a matter of observation and convenience - the "day" is the period of rotation of our planet.

Change planets, and the day changes. Hell, just go to Luna and see the shift - there, a day is a shade over twenty-eight Earth days long.

Days correspond to the rotation of the body of residence. Months are a Lunar phenomenon - which makes it variable. Suppose you have no moon? Or several? A year is the period of revolution of the inhabited body about its primary (in our case, not-quite three hundred sixty-five and one-quarter "days." The moon? Roughly twelve "days" - locally.)

From this, it can be seen that there are plenty of ways to measure time. Some of them even make sense - to us.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, either. The answer to the philosophical/religious question of "Where does God live?" can be found in higher-order astrophysics. A moment...

The Tensor field equations that are being set up to establish a mathematical model of the Universe and the behaviour of forces and matter were originally set up in the four dimensions with which we are familiar - height, width, depth, and time. Four systems of measurement mutually perpendicular to each other.

But, using four dimensions, the equations would not balance. Period. It just flat didn't happen.

As a result, they started to expand the "universe" (as the mathematical model" and see what they might be missing.

It was found that the equations would balance if they were restructured to account for either ten or twenty-six dimensions.

Hmm. So, perhaps the being we refer to as "God" as a convenience (it's just a word-symbol for something we don't understand, if we leave the religious context out of it. Various systems use various names for God - we can throw in YHWH/Yahweh, Jehova, Allah, the Great Architect of the Masons, et al. There is an Arab parable which states that the camel knows the thousandth name of Allah - which goes to show how far you can take this idea.)

But I'm starting to wander. Perhaps the being we call "God" is functionally immortal (within our limited observation,) and resides in higher dimensions - which gives Him access to what we perceive as greater power. Read Flatland by, I believe, Edward Abbey to get an idea of the relative differences between our dimensions and higher realities - Flatland is about a group of two-dimensional beings in a two-dimensional universe, and we can take the "position," if you will, of a God - simply because we have access to one more spatial dimension than the Flatlanders.

To understand what I'm talking about WRT our four-dimensional reality, I recommend reading Hyperspace by Michio Kaku - since he does a far better job of presenting this in layman's terms than I do.

What we call "Science" is an attempt to justify what we call "Philosophy" - with philosophy being our attempt to theorise the universe and its happenings around us, and science being the attempt to prove or disprove those theories.

"Religion" is a branch of "Philosophy" - it just uses a different rationale to attempt to put understanding to a complex universe. That doesn't make it any more "right" or "wrong" - it's just a different way. Even philosophy suffers from schismatic thinking - why do you think there are so many of them? Why do you think there are so many religous sects?

My problem with religion is the basic flaw of "we're right and you're all wrong!" in the absense of rigorous proof. With all of the modern religious sects in the world, it's a cinch that at least one of them is wrong - but no-one knows which. This has often lead to some pretty bloody fighting - look at the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, they've been fighting since recorded history, but they preach from essentially the same text! The Catholics and Protestants in Ireland are another good example, although they haven't been fighting anywhere near as long (only the last 60-70 years, I think. I could be wrong.) Philosophers are easier to bear - I don't hear about Existentialists and Moral Relativists going to war over anything. They may argue and negotiate strenuously, but no-one gets hurt.

That's the trouble I have with organised religion - I'm waiting for one of them to prove that they're right and that everyone else is wrong. To that end, I stay a mild-mannered agnostic. While there may be a "God" (for lack of a better word,) I'm going to leave Him alone until He shows His face here on Earth. And tells me directly what to do - most religious texts have been corrupted by Man through the ages, and I just can't trust them.

Discuss.

[Fred]

To quote Albert Einstein,
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

Yeah, yeah, he also reputedly said, "God does not play dice with the universe." He didn't like quantum theory.

He was wrong.

Fred

[5-90]

Yeah, yeah, he also reputedly said, "God does not play dice with the universe." He didn't like quantum theory.

He was wrong.

Fred

"God not only plays dice with the Universe, He sometimes casts them where they cannot be seen." -Stephen Hawking, on his "pinpoint black holes" theory.

"Quantum Mechanics - the dreams that stuff is made from."

"Those who are not scared by quantum mechanics do not truly understand it." -Richard Feynman, as I recall.

[98_XJ_Classic]

Doesn't the evolution theory state that life started as one single cell which evolved to everything today through billions of years of evolution? That to me sounds like and explaination of lthe origins of life.

As for me I believe in both. I believe that God created all but that species do evolve. One thing I don't understand is that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

people who think believe that they understand evolution say we evolved from monkeys, all evolution is saying is that we have a common ancestor. an chimp has 28 chromosomes while a human has 26, we are not the same and no one says that we are decended from them.

also I have a nuclear reactor available any one wanna try some alchemy?

[Darky]

I hope this thread can remain civil - it's rare that you can have a discussion involving either religion or politics that doesn't descend into acrimony. I will be surprised if it does stay civil - we have enough "atheists" around here that the rejection of reason is a virtual certainty sooner or later.

There ya go, that fits my bias better.

You can't pin arguments or a lack of civility on one side or the other. Atheists are just as guilty of starting crap as the Christians are here, usually as a result of the attitude you expressed in the quote portion of your post.

[98_XJ_Classic]

There ya go, that fits my bias better.

You can't pin arguments or a lack of civility on one side or the other. Atheists are just as guilty of starting crap as the Christians are here, usually as a result of the attitude you expressed in the quote portion of your post.

x2

[Deadman 94 xj]

My problem with religion is the basic flaw of "we're right and you're all wrong!" in the absense of rigorous proof. With all of the modern religious sects in the world, it's a cinch that at least one of them is wrong - but no-one knows which. This has often lead to some pretty bloody fighting - look at the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, they've been fighting since recorded history, but they preach from essentially the same text! The Catholics and Protestants in Ireland are another good example, although they haven't been fighting anywhere near as long (only the last 60-70 years, I think. I could be wrong.) Philosophers are easier to bear - I don't hear about Existentialists and Moral Relativists going to war over anything. They may argue and negotiate strenuously, but no-one gets hurt.

That's the trouble I have with organised religion - I'm waiting for one of them to prove that they're right and that everyone else is wrong.
Discuss.

"There is no such thing as evil, just stupid people"

I agree with what I could understand of what you wrote. I consider myself a non-dominational protestant. I’ve practiced a little of the more common religions among Judaic Christianity but I feel for me I have to find an answer from within my self. In a sense, I could be categorized as an agnostic with a preference for mysticism, so to speak.
I’ve studied the history of Christianity enough on my own to conclude that what you call your self means nothing in the bigger picture. Hindu’s wrote the about the blind men and the elephant. Each man touches a different part of the elephant and each believes that their section is the holy section. What they don’t know is that they’re all touching the same elephant. I can’t remember what the story is called.
Historically Catholics don’t like Protestant religions because of the different variations of “rules” that each group feels should be followed. Catholicism believes in the preservation of the “word of God” and Protestants spend more of their time searching for mystic relationships with God. It’s all the same to me.

I’ve gone in every direction in my time. From believing to not to not sure back to believing.

I think I’d be more interested in reading about the dimensions if I could wrap my brain around it.

[Fred]

"God not only plays dice with the Universe, He sometimes casts them where they cannot be seen." -Stephen Hawking, on his "pinpoint black holes" theory.

"Quantum Mechanics - the dreams that stuff is made from."

"Those who are not scared by quantum mechanics do not truly understand it." -Richard Feynman, as I recall.

I find quantum mechanics strangely reassuring, but then I'm a chemist. YMMV. :)

Fred

[98_XJ_Classic]

I find quantum mechanics strangely reassuring, but then I'm a chemist. YMMV. :)

Fred

chemistry rules!

[5-90]

There ya go, that fits my bias better.

You can't pin arguments or a lack of civility on one side or the other. Atheists are just as guilty of starting crap as the Christians are here, usually as a result of the attitude you expressed in the quote portion of your post.

Fair enough - I'm just used to acrimony coming from born-agains - like my brother-in-law (he hit bottom with coke and smack,) and devout fundamentalists - like one of my neices.

Yes, the atheists are just as guilty - I've just dealt with more of the other side in my experience. No insult intended.

Fred - I find QM fascinating - just the randomness underpinning the predictable behaviour of matter at the macro level (what we can experience or measure directly) is somehow reassuring - but I've always thrived on chaos and been at home in disorder. Must just be me.

Deadman - read the second book I mentioned - you can probably find it in your local library. You don't need higher maths or higher phyzzies to understand what Dr. Kaku is trying to say - as I said, it's an excellent layman's treatise on higher-dimensional physics, and a good read in its own right (it certainly isn't anywhere near as dry as the typical phyzzies book!)

[kdailey4315]

Why are people so bent out of shape about religion. It's a faith. By definition faith is belief in something that can not be proven. Most people that believe or associate with an orginazed religion know that their religion or God can not be proven. Once again it's a faith. I don't get the zealousness about trying to disprove the existence of God. I understand there are a lot of religious people who are up in your face about it and try to convert everyone. I hate those people. But why can't people just agree to disagree and let people have their faith.

[98_XJ_Classic]

Why are people so bent out of shape about religion. It's a faith. By definition faith is belief in something that can not be proven. Most people that believe or associate with an orginazed religion know that their religion or God can not be proven. Once again it's a faith. I don't get the zealousness about trying to disprove the existence of God. I understand there are a lot of religious people who are up in your face about it and try to convert everyone. I hate those people. But why can't people just agree to disagree and let people have their faith.

X infinity

[8Mud]

The math of evolution just doesn't work out, also the math of the observable results of random recessive genes becoming a sub species by accident, doesn't compute.
It takes something like sixty generations for a recessive to become a dominant gene. Using minimum numbers (pregnant at thirteen and then again and again) thats nearly 720 years for a human to add one (genetic dominanat) tooth and that is with a whole lot of inbreeding. All recessives aren't beneficial and most are often fatal.
Line breeding is the only way to get it done in a reasonable time frame and all that in breeding actually has more of a chance of producing fatal recessives than it does producing anything beneficial, much less survivable.
Think for a minute, up until recently a woman could only have say 23 children in a lifetime, figure in disease, accidental death, predators, starvation and few other factors and that number could be easily halved. People have only began agriculture in any serious way, in the very recent past. Before that they were hunter gatherers. The world was also a much more dangerous place. Tribal man was likely holding on by his fingernails and infant mortality was high. Modern man is also a fairly recent additon. Neanderthals were around about five times as long as modern man. The chances of modern man being an accident seem far fetched at best.
I find it inconceivable that the human genome, doesn't contain some sort of design to skew changes as beneficial. Just basic math tells the story, if you have a genetic change, there is one chance in three that it will be an improvement (in a broad fuzzy bordered sort of way). It will be worse, the same or better. To pass on an improvement, it almost has to be in breed to survive. The chances are much better for a genetic dead end, especially in species whom take a relatively long time to mature.
Many mathematicians are deeply religious, though many may doubt the validity of traditional religion.
Evolution IMO may be a part of the puzzle, but in no way explains it completely or even partially.
To have a genetic success of any sort is long odds, to have a planet full by accident is inconceivable.
I find it hard to swallow that natural selection is the sole control mechanism for evolution, especially in low birth rate examples.

[5-90]

Why are people so bent out of shape about religion. It's a faith. By definition faith is belief in something that can not be proven. Most people that believe or associate with an orginazed religion know that their religion or God can not be proven. Once again it's a faith. I don't get the zealousness about trying to disprove the existence of God. I understand there are a lot of religious people who are up in your face about it and try to convert everyone. I hate those people. But why can't people just agree to disagree and let people have their faith.

Because many people these days can't handle the idea of an opposing viewpoint, irrespective of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of either side.

I enjoy a good debate/discussion on nearly any topic - I find it intellectually stimulating, and the brain needs exercise just like any other part of your body. Those who are not willing to entertain discussion are "intellectually weak" - and usually can't form a cogent opinion on anything anyhow (I say "cogent opinion" - by this I mean a point of view that is, while it may not be provable, at least defensible using logic and a basis in fact. "Just because" hasn't worked on me as an argument since I was four.)

I have no trouble getting along with devout Believers - provided they don't preach to, or try to convert, me. My older son married into an observant Christian Orthodox family (they're Ukrainian,) and my wife and I have dinner over there from time to time. We'll bow our heads when they say Grace, we get into some religious discussions (not arguments!) and talk about damned near anything. Dave (our son) has started going to church with Elisia (his wife, and damned decent people. Dave could certainly have done himself a lot worse...) - but that's his choice. Elisia has civilised him somewhat, and what man doesn't need that? My wife has civilised me, and I know I needed it! She saw a picture of me from a dozen years ago recently, and has noted that I'm not anywhere near as harsh as I used to be. Again, a good thing - the Beast slumbers, but don't wake him up! He's asleep, he's not dead.

Despite what my brother-in-law thinks, it's not necessary for one to be religious in order to lead a civil life, or to have a moral code. Yeah, my moral code may be a bit warped (due to experiences,) but it still governs my every action and forms a predictable set of rules for my daily behaviour. It takes a little more figuring to sort out, but it's otherwise easy enough, and knowing at least the basics makes it easier to deal with me.

I have no trouble with people having faith in something - just don't force it on me. If you force something down someone's throat - physically or psychologically - you'll make them vomit. It's really that simple. I do have faith in something - it's just a lot more local. I have faith in my ability to survive, my wife's ability to survive, the fact that the two of us together forms a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts (gestalt, if you will,) I have faith in family and that we will help one another when it's needed (although my definition of "family" and everyone else's has been known to differ...) and things like that.

Who is to say that is not how my mind tries to understand the Divine? Religion is really little more than a pattern of beliefs - my pattern of beliefs just happens to revolve around something I can touch and see and hear. That makes me no more or less ethical than someone who goes to Church on Sunday (or Saturday - the Jews - or five times a day - Islam.) I choose to worship by, instead of going to a special building, by using the skills, talents, and abilities that I have been given or have developed to help others. Is that so wrong? The fact that I am usually getting paid to do so isn't really "wrong" either - I don't charge anywhere near what someone else would, I probably do better work, and I'm fair about it. Yeah, I'm trying to pay bills, but not trying to get rich. I don't really want to be rich - I just want to have the bills paid and be able to have something in the bank for emergencies - I think that's fair.

Besides, I just know that if I started bringing in a million dollars a year or so, my wife would give it all away to try to help more of the world. That doesn't feel so wrong to me, either - as long as we're flush first (else I have to work too hard to make sure our bills are paid. She understands this - she's a very practical woman. I got so damned lucky...)

[8Mud]

Because many people these days can't handle the idea of an opposing viewpoint, irrespective of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of either side.

I enjoy a good debate/discussion on nearly any topic - I find it intellectually stimulating, and the brain needs exercise just like any other part of your body. Those who are not willing to entertain discussion are "intellectually weak" - and usually can't form a cogent opinion on anything anyhow (I say "cogent opinion" - by this I mean a point of view that is, while it may not be provable, at least defensible using logic and a basis in fact. "Just because" hasn't worked on me as an argument since I was four.)

I have no trouble getting along with devout Believers - provided they don't preach to, or try to convert, me. My older son married into an observant Christian Orthodox family (they're Ukrainian,) and my wife and I have dinner over there from time to time. We'll bow our heads when they say Grace, we get into some religious discussions (not arguments!) and talk about damned near anything. Dave (our son) has started going to church with Elisia (his wife, and damned decent people. Dave could certainly have done himself a lot worse...) - but that's his choice. Elisia has civilised him somewhat, and what man doesn't need that? My wife has civilised me, and I know I needed it! She saw a picture of me from a dozen years ago recently, and has noted that I'm not anywhere near as harsh as I used to be. Again, a good thing - the Beast slumbers, but don't wake him up! He's asleep, he's not dead.

Despite what my brother-in-law thinks, it's not necessary for one to be religious in order to lead a civil life, or to have a moral code. Yeah, my moral code may be a bit warped (due to experiences,) but it still governs my every action and forms a predictable set of rules for my daily behaviour. It takes a little more figuring to sort out, but it's otherwise easy enough, and knowing at least the basics makes it easier to deal with me.

I have no trouble with people having faith in something - just don't force it on me. If you force something down someone's throat - physically or psychologically - you'll make them vomit. It's really that simple. I do have faith in something - it's just a lot more local. I have faith in my ability to survive, my wife's ability to survive, the fact that the two of us together forms a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts (gestalt, if you will,) I have faith in family and that we will help one another when it's needed (although my definition of "family" and everyone else's has been known to differ...) and things like that.

Who is to say that is not how my mind tries to understand the Divine? Religion is really little more than a pattern of beliefs - my pattern of beliefs just happens to revolve around something I can touch and see and hear. That makes me no more or less ethical than someone who goes to Church on Sunday (or Saturday - the Jews - or five times a day - Islam.) I choose to worship by, instead of going to a special building, by using the skills, talents, and abilities that I have been given or have developed to help others. Is that so wrong? The fact that I am usually getting paid to do so isn't really "wrong" either - I don't charge anywhere near what someone else would, I probably do better work, and I'm fair about it. Yeah, I'm trying to pay bills, but not trying to get rich. I don't really want to be rich - I just want to have the bills paid and be able to have something in the bank for emergencies - I think that's fair.

Besides, I just know that if I started bringing in a million dollars a year or so, my wife would give it all away to try to help more of the world. That doesn't feel so wrong to me, either - as long as we're flush first (else I have to work too hard to make sure our bills are paid. She understands this - she's a very practical woman. I got so damned lucky...)

Monday morning around 4 AM ECT, I was walking through the woods, stopped, looked up and thought asteroid. Out of the blue, just this random thought. Two days later, a near miss is plastered all over TV, the Net and newspapers.
Sometimes there just is no explanation.:D

[Coastie]

And the polls show that NAXJA is smarter then I thought :)

[5-90]

Monday morning around 4 AM ECT, I was walking through the woods, stopped, looked up and thought asteroid. Out of the blue, just this random thought. Two days later, a near miss is plastered all over TV, the Net and newspapers.
Sometimes there just is no explanation.:D

I can't explain intuition - but I certainly don't doubt it. "Intuition" has kept holes from appearing in my favourite skin more often than I'd care to mention.

Granted, it doesn't always work - but it's worked more often than not, and it's invariably correct.

[wolfpackjeeper]

post check, carry on

[DaJudge]

Darwin's theory of evolution does not touch on the subject of God at all.

Your statement shows a lack of understanding of your subject.

The problem is many people (including MANY scientists) have used it to kill God. Evolution HAS become a religion to many and they will defend it as a replacemment for God with a fanaticism that is unequaled in most religions.

[bigalpha]

Why are people so bent out of shape about religion. It's a faith. By definition faith is belief in something that can not be proven. Most people that believe or associate with an orginazed religion know that their religion or God can not be proven. Once again it's a faith. I don't get the zealousness about trying to disprove the existence of God. I understand there are a lot of religious people who are up in your face about it and try to convert everyone. I hate those people. But why can't people just agree to disagree and let people have their faith.

Science isn't trying to take your religion. Science is only trying to say that Creationism isn't based on science, it's based on theology. That's part of the issue with teaching it in school. It doesn't hold to the same scientific principles that evolution does. Plus, it's solely religious in nature. Separation of religion and state and all that.


The problem is many people (including MANY scientists) have used it to kill God. Evolution HAS become a religion to many and they will defend it as a replacemment for God with a fanaticism that is unequaled in most religions.

Again, the reason why scientists may be 'up in arms' about it, is because Creationists are trying to present creationism as 'science' when it doesn't fit into the scientific field. You can't claim it as a theory, as it won't hold up to the scientific process. There's no way that people will use Evolution as a 'replacement for God'. I'd enjoy reading through some stories of that, if you have some.

[bigalpha]

I mentioned it earlier. There is no way to Prove gravity exists, other than by inductive reasoning.

Exactly .. that's what the Theory of Evolution is. It's been held to the same scientific principles as everything else. Creationism doesn't make the grade in this case.

[bigalpha]

And thats they type of attitude that is displayed throughout the movie from Darwinists.

Why can't people who believe in evolution accept that some believe in intelligent design? Each theory can be proven just as well as the other, but the Darwinists are unwilling to accept the other's side.

This is NOT true. Creationism will NOT fit through the scientific process. Evolution does.

[bigalpha]

Doesn't the evolution theory state that life started as one single cell which evolved to everything today through billions of years of evolution? That to me sounds like and explaination of lthe origins of life.

As for me I believe in both. I believe that God created all but that species do evolve. One thing I don't understand is that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

The theory of evolution doesn't try to explain where that first single-cell organism come from, though.

We didn't evolve FROM monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor as monkeys did.

[red_01_xj]

Days correspond to the rotation of the body of residence. Months are a Lunar phenomenon - which makes it variable. Suppose you have no moon? Or several? A year is the period of revolution of the inhabited body about its primary (in our case, not-quite three hundred sixty-five and one-quarter "days." The moon? Roughly twelve "days" - locally.)

From this, it can be seen that there are plenty of ways to measure time. Some of them even make sense - to us.


I agree with this...I believe both exist together...and just to quote the bible, to state that they can exist together

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day..." (2Peter 3:8,10).

and with that, God could have taken as long as he wanted to create the world, he could have done it through evolution, and the "7 days" that some believe could really have been thousands of years...Just some thing to think about...

[Rod Knee]

Populations of species evolve, a population being a relatively isolated group in terms of reproduction. That is why one group (population) of monkeys may split genetically from other groups to the extent that the two groups can no longer interbreed. Some groups may in fact remain genetically static if well adapted to their environment. But as others have pointed out, there is no direct line descendence from monkeys to humans, just common ancestry, according to theory anyway.

[Root Moose]

Dear dog, is it 1909 again?

Teach evolution in science/biology classes.

Teach creationism in religion classes.

BFD

FWIW, I grew up in the Catholic school system. I have zero (ZERO) recollection of the priests, nuns or Jesuit brothers teaching any kind of creationism other than mentioning some verse from the Bible as part of the preamble to teaching a Christian lesson.

Christianity would be so much better off if it could jettison all the bull sh!t in the Old Testament completely.

[DaJudge]

Science isn't trying to take your religion. Science is only trying to say that Creationism isn't based on science, it's based on theology. That's part of the issue with teaching it in school. It doesn't hold to the same scientific principles that evolution does. Plus, it's solely religious in nature. Separation of religion and state and all that.




Again, the reason why scientists may be 'up in arms' about it, is because Creationists are trying to present creationism as 'science' when it doesn't fit into the scientific field. You can't claim it as a theory, as it won't hold up to the scientific process. There's no way that people will use Evolution as a 'replacement for God'. I'd enjoy reading through some stories of that, if you have some.

This statement is based on personal experience (my wifes and mine). I used to repair research lab equipment and my wife did research for IFAS at the University of Florida. Not all, but a large number of the the researchers and scientists treat Evolution as a religion. They cling to it like an old man on his deathbed clings to the hope of an after-life.

What we have observed through science PERFECTLY fits the Bible's account. The Bible is NOT a science book, but when it does touch on science it is accurate. One of the problems with this debate is seperating what some religious groups teach from what the Bible really says.

[JNickel101]

My God is better than your God....

/retarded

[Rod Knee]

The math of evolution just doesn't work out, also the math of the observable results of random recessive genes becoming a sub species by accident, doesn't compute.
It takes something like sixty generations for a recessive to become a dominant gene. Using minimum numbers (pregnant at thirteen and then again and again) thats nearly 720 years for a human to add one (genetic dominanat) tooth and that is with a whole lot of inbreeding. All recessives aren't beneficial and most are often fatal.
Line breeding is the only way to get it done in a reasonable time frame and all that in breeding actually has more of a chance of producing fatal recessives than it does producing anything beneficial, much less survivable.
Think for a minute, up until recently a woman could only have say 23 children in a lifetime, figure in disease, accidental death, predators, starvation and few other factors and that number could be easily halved. People have only began agriculture in any serious way, in the very recent past. Before that they were hunter gatherers. The world was also a much more dangerous place. Tribal man was likely holding on by his fingernails and infant mortality was high. Modern man is also a fairly recent additon. Neanderthals were around about five times as long as modern man. The chances of modern man being an accident seem far fetched at best.
I find it inconceivable that the human genome, doesn't contain some sort of design to skew changes as beneficial. Just basic math tells the story, if you have a genetic change, there is one chance in three that it will be an improvement (in a broad fuzzy bordered sort of way). It will be worse, the same or better. To pass on an improvement, it almost has to be in breed to survive. The chances are much better for a genetic dead end, especially in species whom take a relatively long time to mature.
Many mathematicians are deeply religious, though many may doubt the validity of traditional religion.
Evolution IMO may be a part of the puzzle, but in no way explains it completely or even partially.
To have a genetic success of any sort is long odds, to have a planet full by accident is inconceivable.
I find it hard to swallow that natural selection is the sole control mechanism for evolution, especially in low birth rate examples.

You seem to be building up quite a strawman arguement there. No one thinks the human species or any other species came about randomly. Darwinian selection and random determination are, in fact, mutually antithetical, and why you think recessive genes should become a "sub species" or even dominant genes is a bit of a puzzler. You need not choke on the notion that natural selection is the sole mechanism for evolution as there are others, such as gene flow and founder effect.

[Coastie]

My God is better than your God....

/retarded

Yea well my monkey is better than your monkey... naner naner boo boo.

[8Mud]

You seem to be building up quite a strawman arguement there. No one thinks the human species or any other species came about randomly. Darwinian selection and random determination are, in fact, mutually antithetical, and why you think recessive genes should become a "sub species" or even dominant genes is a bit of a puzzler. You need not choke on the notion that natural selection is the sole mechanism for evolution as there are others, such as gene flow and founder effect.
First question is why something should change at all? Darwin says because of survival of the fittest (in a nut shell). And at the same time plant life and other animal life is also evolving, most at a much quicker rate than humans. You have to have a human gene pool deep enough to have any chance of positive change. For instance, a normal food plant develops a toxin, most of the tribe dies or becomes too sick to function. One or two members can deal with this toxin the others can't. People don't reproduce fast enough to adapt in many instances. There almost has to be other factors at work here than, action/reaction. There almost has to be a pro active mechanism for the species to survive at all?
Evolution is evident, survival of the fittest seems plausible.
I was born with Asiatic eyes and an extra length of large intestine. Somewhere down the line the recessive was available, or was it just an accident? If the recessive was available and helpful, how many generations did it require to manifest? What caused it to manifest at all, Darwin says a beneficial recessive popped up and eventually became a dominanat (or the change wouldn't breed true). Ok the argument is, the recessives are chosen over time by environmental and other factors, a gradual process.
If recessives are constantly popping up, some are bound to be beneficial, some irrelevant and some non beneficial. Show me how the math works out for this process to be possible or beneficial? The math says the process should be skewed to failure, not success. Especially if, as seems obvious, all recessives aren't shared uniformly or universally. The only real way for recessives to manifest in any reasonable amount of time is line breeding and this method is proved to often produce unfavorible results. like blue eyed dogs are prone to deafness.
I'm a straw man, you seem to lack the ability to extrapolate beyond the limited positions taught to you in school or where ever.
If Darwin would have said, environmental factors are cyclic and not linear, the math could work. As I understand it, natural selection is linear or am I wrong? If it is cyclic, show me the fossilized proof? If it is linear, how is radical adaptability pr positive change probable or even likely, without an already available set of possibilities, or other than by accident or randomness? What keeps many animals evovling into more complex life forms and not regressing back to the basics?
IMO the answers aren't in yet and the questions should be asked again and again until the answers manifest themselves.

[Deadman 94 xj]

FWIW Darwin was an Agnostic (A concept, not a full religion meaning not sure of God’s existence). He never denied the existence of a "supreme being". So in my opinion the religion vs.’ evolution/natural selection argument is null seeing as how the man him self wasn’t even sure. They’re two separate arguments having nothing to do with each other. Only tied together by the attempt to find a truth.

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic" (Darwin).

"I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect" (Darwin).

Nowhere did he ever claim to be an atheist, which is what your extreme Darwinists would have you believe.


Agnosticism- "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." 11
"... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him." 12
An agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists.
In my opinion, agnosticism is a product of time itself. There would be no such concept if an agnostic were to live in the times that the( non-faith based) Jesus lived, he would either be an atheist or a Christian provided the agnostic was there to decide for him self.

[bigalpha]

This statement is based on personal experience (my wifes and mine). I used to repair research lab equipment and my wife did research for IFAS at the University of Florida. Not all, but a large number of the the researchers and scientists treat Evolution as a religion. They cling to it like an old man on his deathbed clings to the hope of an after-life.

What we have observed through science PERFECTLY fits the Bible's account. The Bible is NOT a science book, but when it does touch on science it is accurate. One of the problems with this debate is seperating what some religious groups teach from what the Bible really says.

What do you mean they cling to it? That they are unwilling to disregard all the evidence that shows evolution is true? How do they treat it as a religion? Do they believe in it because it produces results and is something that can be duplicated?

I'm not sure that modern science can account for what's recorded in the bible. There's no wide-spread evidence of a great flood, no scientific reasoning that can explain Moses parting the sea, nor Jesus coming back from the dead, turning one fish into hundreds, Jesus healing people, etc.


First question is why something should change at all? Darwin says because of survival of the fittest (in a nut shell). And at the same time plant life and other animal life is also evolving, most at a much quicker rate than humans. You have to have a human gene pool deep enough to have any chance of positive change. For instance, a normal food plant develops a toxin, most of the tribe dies or becomes too sick to function. One or two members can deal with this toxin the others can't. People don't reproduce fast enough to adapt in many instances. There almost has to be other factors at work here than, action/reaction. There almost has to be a pro active mechanism for the species to survive at all?
Evolution is evident, survival of the fittest seems plausible.
I was born with Asiatic eyes and an extra length of large intestine. Somewhere down the line the recessive was available, or was it just an accident? If the recessive was available and helpful, how many generations did it require to manifest? What caused it to manifest at all, Darwin says a beneficial recessive popped up and eventually became a dominanat (or the change wouldn't breed true). Ok the argument is, the recessives are chosen over time by environmental and other factors, a gradual process.
If recessives are constantly popping up, some are bound to be beneficial, some irrelevant and some non beneficial. Show me how the math works out for this process to be possible or beneficial? The math says the process should be skewed to failure, not success. Especially if, as seems obvious, all recessives aren't shared uniformly or universally. The only real way for recessives to manifest in any reasonable amount of time is line breeding and this method is proved to often produce unfavorible results. like blue eyed dogs are prone to deafness.
I'm a straw man, you seem to lack the ability to extrapolate beyond the limited positions taught to you in school or where ever.
If Darwin would have said, environmental factors are cyclic and not linear, the math could work. As I understand it, natural selection is linear or am I wrong? If it is cyclic, show me the fossilized proof? If it is linear, how is radical adaptability pr positive change probable or even likely, without an already available set of possibilities, or other than by accident or randomness? What keeps many animals evovling into more complex life forms and not regressing back to the basics?
IMO the answers aren't in yet and the questions should be asked again and again until the answers manifest themselves.

1. How often do you see a species eat a "normal plant food" that just suddenly became poisonous and all die? You don't.

2. The proactive mechanism is that of gene pool drift and random mutations.

3. Not all gene mutations will cause death or significant issues. The vast majority of gene mutations/screw-ups are completely benign. I recall from somewhere that the majority of the genetic material inside of humans is all junk. No source for that ... I'd like to see the source you are using for your math, if you have one.

4. What do you mean by linear vs. cyclic?

5. Here's a great example: you have a population of white moths. environmental changes means the trees become darker. the white moths get eaten first because they stand out more. darker moths live longer. they pass on their genes. That's one major way species evolve.

Species aren't going to evolve 'backwards' because it would not be beneficial for them. They would soon die, and those genes are slowly eliminated out of the gene pool. That's not to say that a random mutation would cause it to happen again, though.

One great example is to look at bacteria/viruses. Think about the ones that become resistant to drugs. The ones who are not, die. The ones who are, pass on the genes. Soon, all types of the bacteria/viruses are drug resistant. They evolve incredibly fast, due to their freaking high rate of reproduction. That's probably the #1 example of evolution.

[bigalpha]

So in my opinion the religion vs.’ evolution/natural selection argument is null seeing as how the man him self wasn’t even sure.

It's not religion vs. evolution.

The argument is creationism (based on religion) vs. evolution (based on science)

[bigalpha]

Hey, kudos to everyone for keeping this a legit debate; not a flame-war.

[Boatwrench]

I was created in 1956, born in 1957, have evolve since then, believe in God...I guess I believe in both :dunno: but voted I don't care.

[bigalpha]

I was created in 1956, born in 1957 and have evolve since then...I don't care.


Neither have your writing skills. :firedevil

[Deadman 94 xj]

It's not religion vs. evolution.

The argument is creationism (based on religion) vs. evolution (based on science)

Same thing isn't it? Intelligent design, creationism is religious based. In contrast, evolution is not. IMO the argument is ignorant to the fact that they BOTH could have happened and they’re both one in the same, depending on your belief system.

The whole argument really should focus on the subject being taught in schools. At least we can determine an answer. None of us will determine the truth about creationism vs. evolution because it’s only theory and we’re left to decide for our selves, or argue our opinions. Which is all they are.

[bigalpha]

Yeah, but the thing is, we can REPRODUCE evolution. I guarantee you that you will never reproduce creationism.

And no, creationism shouldn't be taught in science class since it's solely a religious viewpoint. Not to mention, there's no science to back up creationism. There is plenty of science to back up evolution.

Don't forget the scientific definition of 'theory'. Many creationists bash it because they don't know/don't care what it means.

[Deadman 94 xj]

I'm not sure that modern science can account for what's recorded in the bible. There's no wide-spread evidence of a great flood, no scientific reasoning that can explain Moses parting the sea, nor Jesus coming back from the dead, turning one fish into hundreds, Jesus healing people, etc.






Keep in mind that what is written in the Bible is written in metaphor. This is the basis of the Catholic church- to maintain the gospels and to keep others from miscuing what it written. Again, everything is subjective.

[bigalpha]

Keep in mind that what is written in the Bible is written in metaphor. This is the basis of the Catholic church- to maintain the gospels and to keep others from miscuing what it written. Again, everything is subjective.


Is it? Isn't there at least one denomination that believes the bible is literal?

[hiimmred]

I too consider myself to be agnostic. I want to believe that there is a God but I need to have tangible/tactile evidence to believe in something like that. As a kid I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and as I grew up I questioned a lot of the things that the elders interpreted from reading the bible, I could interpret in an entirely different way and not get an informed reason why their interpretation was right and mine was wrong, needless to say I eventually drifted off. I begrudge no one their beliefs, to each their own. But I do have a problem with people trying to force their religious beliefs into our society. Our founding fathers (one of which I am a direct descendant John Adams) had the foresight to include the seperation of Church and State in our constitution, because there are many different religions who is to say which one is the one true religion. This is what precludes teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design in any PUBLIC school. Folks who wish to have that taught to their children must do so without the funding of the government plain and simple. I also think too much hatred and hypocrisy comes from organized religion IMHO. I approach life in this way: be as good a person as you can be, respect everyone no matter their station in life as circumstance and opportunity doesn't come to everyone equally, do no harm to anyone, help those who need help if you are able, and leave the world in better shape than when you arrived. And when I die, if there is a Higher Being hopefully I am judged accordingly.

Peace.

[Deadman 94 xj]

Yeah, but the thing is, we can REPRODUCE evolution. I guarantee you that you will never reproduce creationism.

.

Ahh, but how do you know you were not intelligently designed to reproduce evolution?

I can tell you're wanting to take this in another direction so I'll let you.

[Deadman 94 xj]

Is it? Isn't there at least one denomination that believes the bible is literal?


I'm sure there are. There are 900+ different Protestant denominations.

85% of America makes up 12.

[bigalpha]

Ahh, but how do you know you were not intelligently designed to reproduce evolution?

I can tell you're wanting to take this in another direction so I'll let you.

You answered my question with a question. You didn't address it.
Science can prove that a species changes (evolves) over time. Can you prove that a supernatural being created everything in the universe, then programmed it to run for billions of years?

Another direction?

I'm sure there are. There are 900+ different Protestant denominations.

85% of America makes up 12.

Scary that one text that is the center of Christianity can be interpreted over 900 different ways.

[Deadman 94 xj]

You answered my question with a question. You didn't address it.
Science can prove that a species changes (evolves) over time. Can you prove that a supernatural being created everything in the universe, then programmed it to run for billions of years?

Another direction?



Scary that one text that is the center of Christianity can be interpreted over 900 different ways.


I think you're missing the point. Yes evolution is tangable, yes it can be proven through science, yes you can teach it in schools based on "fact". In short- no shit!

Creationism is abstract. It's not a science nor is it provable through "science".

The point is, neither can be scientificaly denied. So it's subjective!

[Deadman 94 xj]

You answered my question with a question. You didn't address it.
Science can prove that a species changes (evolves) over time. Can you prove that a supernatural being created everything in the universe, then programmed it to run for billions of years?

Another direction?



Scary that one text that is the center of Christianity can be interpreted over 900 different ways.

Scary that most denominations are not formed around variations of the Bible. Many are formed based on social settings and political affiliations, you name it. There are no variations of the Bible. It's the interpretation that you get from it. Spreading the seas can be interpreted in many different ways. Whether it happened or not depends o what you believe. Yes there are denominations with different beliefs, that’s why you have the option to choose. Catholicism holds different characters in the Bible with higher regard than some Lutheran denominations. Stuff like that.

I'm not here to shove Christianity down your throat. Just offering some insight towards the religious theory of creationism.

[bigalpha]

I think you're missing the point. Yes evolution is tangable, yes it can be proven through science, yes you can teach it in schools based on "fact". In short- no shit!

Creationism is abstract. It's not a science nor is it provable through "science".

The point is, neither can be scientificaly denied. So it's subjective!

The fact science can prove evolution but not creationism means creationism is essentially disproved.

Evolution is not subjective. It's based on facts. Creationism is not.

[bigalpha]

Scary that most denominations are not formed around variations of the Bible. Many are formed based on social settings and political affiliations, you name it. There are no variations of the Bible. It's the interpretation that you get from it. Spreading the seas can be interpreted in many different ways. Whether it happened or not depends o what you believe. Yes there are denominations with different beliefs, that’s why you have the option to choose. Catholicism holds different characters in the Bible with higher regard than some Lutheran denominations. Stuff like that.

I'm not here to shove Christianity down your throat. Just offering some insight towards the religious theory of creationism.

Right, that's what I said. The bible is interpreted a bunch of different ways.

I understand you're not here bible thumping me, and I appreciate it :D

[8Mud]

What do you mean they cling to it? That they are unwilling to disregard all the evidence that shows evolution is true? How do they treat it as a religion? Do they believe in it because it produces results and is something that can be duplicated?

I'm not sure that modern science can account for what's recorded in the bible. There's no wide-spread evidence of a great flood, no scientific reasoning that can explain Moses parting the sea, nor Jesus coming back from the dead, turning one fish into hundreds, Jesus healing people, etc.




1. How often do you see a species eat a "normal plant food" that just suddenly became poisonous and all die? You don't.

2. The proactive mechanism is that of gene pool drift and random mutations.

3. Not all gene mutations will cause death or significant issues. The vast majority of gene mutations/screw-ups are completely benign. I recall from somewhere that the majority of the genetic material inside of humans is all junk. No source for that ... I'd like to see the source you are using for your math, if you have one.

4. What do you mean by linear vs. cyclic?

5. Here's a great example: you have a population of white moths. environmental changes means the trees become darker. the white moths get eaten first because they stand out more. darker moths live longer. they pass on their genes. That's one major way species evolve.

Species aren't going to evolve 'backwards' because it would not be beneficial for them. They would soon die, and those genes are slowly eliminated out of the gene pool. That's not to say that a random mutation would cause it to happen again, though.

One great example is to look at bacteria/viruses. Think about the ones that become resistant to drugs. The ones who are not, die. The ones who are, pass on the genes. Soon, all types of the bacteria/viruses are drug resistant. They evolve incredibly fast, due to their freaking high rate of reproduction. That's probably the #1 example of evolution.

1. Rye mold

2. Thousands, if not millions, of processes going on in your body, what are the chances of any change being beneficial or survivable? Random means random, it may be hair color or it may be a necessary protein.

3. My math source is old and buried someplace in a very old hard drive. Mostly from a few of Darwins distractors that aren't the flavor of the month, but as far as I've ever heard, have never been disproved either. My youngest son has juvenile diabetes. Google the math of evolution, surf Amazon.

4. Linear versus cyclic? If the gene pool is deep enough to contain a relative large choice of possibilities (most packaged and not individual), where did they come from? The past? If random mutations are the answer, what is the mechanism for them to be an improvement and not a liability? If the packages of recessives are present, where and why are they there in the first place?

5. White Mothes lay hundreds (if not thousands of offspring a year), humans have one and that one until recently had maybe a fifty percent chance of survival. Color isn't a good indicator anyway, really fairly benign. Light skinned people process vitamin K better than dark skinned people, so bone formation in low light is better. Where did the gene for pale skin come from? Random mutation? A recessive that is more survivable in low light (mankind originated by the equator) seems unlikely. A random mutation that became a regionally dominanat, if not exclusive gene. A random mutation would need to propagate itself rather widely and often to become a dominanat gene, even regionally dominant. And again where did the recessive that turned into a regionally dominant gene come from in the first place, the past? And yet again Homo Sapien is a relatively young species, with a relatively low/slow birth rate.

Why not evolve backwards, the more successful examples of life are single cell.

Bacteria evolve, they also have a very short and accelerated life cycle. The human life cycle is long and as far as I can tell, Homo Sapien just hasn't been around all that long.
I've got more questions than answers, Darwin sure doesn't answer them all and other than calling attention to relatively short sighted phenomena, he sure doesn't answer many of the relevant questions. He said it best "The Origin of Species is just a step on the path to knowledge" and was never intended to be a definitive work.

[JNickel101]

Is it? Isn't there at least one denomination that believes the bible is literal?

I seem to have met more Christians who use the bible word for word (literally) than as a simple guide (as I believe it was intended).

[Rod Knee]

First question is why something should change at all? Darwin says because of survival of the fittest (in a nut shell). And at the same time plant life and other animal life is also evolving, most at a much quicker rate than humans. You have to have a human gene pool deep enough to have any chance of positive change. For instance, a normal food plant develops a toxin, most of the tribe dies or becomes too sick to function. One or two members can deal with this toxin the others can't. People don't reproduce fast enough to adapt in many instances. There almost has to be other factors at work here than, action/reaction. There almost has to be a pro active mechanism for the species to survive at all?
Evolution is evident, survival of the fittest seems plausible.
I was born with Asiatic eyes and an extra length of large intestine. Somewhere down the line the recessive was available, or was it just an accident? If the recessive was available and helpful, how many generations did it require to manifest? What caused it to manifest at all, Darwin says a beneficial recessive popped up and eventually became a dominanat (or the change wouldn't breed true). Ok the argument is, the recessives are chosen over time by environmental and other factors, a gradual process.
If recessives are constantly popping up, some are bound to be beneficial, some irrelevant and some non beneficial. Show me how the math works out for this process to be possible or beneficial? The math says the process should be skewed to failure, not success. Especially if, as seems obvious, all recessives aren't shared uniformly or universally. The only real way for recessives to manifest in any reasonable amount of time is line breeding and this method is proved to often produce unfavorible results. like blue eyed dogs are prone to deafness.
I'm a straw man, you seem to lack the ability to extrapolate beyond the limited positions taught to you in school or where ever.
If Darwin would have said, environmental factors are cyclic and not linear, the math could work. As I understand it, natural selection is linear or am I wrong? If it is cyclic, show me the fossilized proof? If it is linear, how is radical adaptability pr positive change probable or even likely, without an already available set of possibilities, or other than by accident or randomness? What keeps many animals evovling into more complex life forms and not regressing back to the basics?
IMO the answers aren't in yet and the questions should be asked again and again until the answers manifest themselves.

The reason populations of species change is that certain changes confer greater adaptation to a certain environment or niche. The “pro active mechanism” for survival is change in gene frequencies (evolution) brought about through mechanisms such as mutations culled by natural selection.
I don’t think Darwin ever said that recessive genes eventually become dominant. In fact, not much about genetics was understood until Mendel came along, who’s work came after Darwin. I know of no examples of recessive genes becoming dominant, and I am beginning to think you are confusing gene dominance with gene frequency. It is possible, through selection, for a recessive gene to have a high frequency of occurrence in a population and a dominant gene to occur infrequently.

No idea what you mean by linearity, but whether a new gene (mutation) is beneficial or not is not a matter of mathematics, it is a function of the environment and niche. A given mutation may confer an adaptive advantage in one environment but not in another. “Radical adaptability pr positive change” come about through selection. Beneficial genes, whether dominant or recessive, are retained because they increase the fitness of the organism and are preferentially passed along to successive generations. Remember now, Darwinian selection is by definition, non-random. Evolution by random-happenstance is the cartoon version.

[JNickel101]

I'm sure there are. There are 900+ different Protestant denominations.

85% of America makes up 12.


I really hope you're not saying 85% of America is Protestant....

[Deadman 94 xj]

The last thing I'll say in this thread is that miracles happen in science every day.


IMO :D

[Deadman 94 xj]

I really hope you're not saying 85% of America is Protestant....


NO, I'm not saing that. 85% of Protestants make up 12 denominations.

[JNickel101]

NO, I'm not saing that. 85% of Protestants make up 12 denominations.


Gotcha :D just wanted to make sure.

I was just reading something about 200+ new denominations being "created" every year. I guess that is "Creationism" huh? And that they estimate 8,100 denominations world-wide!!!

:eek:

[Rod Knee]

For 8mud:

Dominant gene-an allele (alternate version of a gene) that is physically expressed even in the presence of the recessive allele for the same gene

Recessive gene- an allele that is only expressed in the absence of the dominant allele

Gene frequency- the relative abundance of an allele in a population of a species

Diploid-genetic condition where two versions of a gene exist

[bigalpha]

1. Rye mold

2. Thousands, if not millions, of processes going on in your body, what are the chances of any change being beneficial or survivable? Random means random, it may be hair color or it may be a necessary protein.

3. My math source is old and buried someplace in a very old hard drive. Mostly from a few of Darwins distractors that aren't the flavor of the month, but as far as I've ever heard, have never been disproved either. My youngest son has juvenile diabetes. Google the math of evolution, surf Amazon.

4. Linear versus cyclic? If the gene pool is deep enough to contain a relative large choice of possibilities (most packaged and not individual), where did they come from? The past? If random mutations are the answer, what is the mechanism for them to be an improvement and not a liability? If the packages of recessives are present, where and why are they there in the first place?

5. White Mothes lay hundreds (if not thousands of offspring a year), humans have one and that one until recently had maybe a fifty percent chance of survival. Color isn't a good indicator anyway, really fairly benign. Light skinned people process vitamin K better than dark skinned people, so bone formation in low light is better. Where did the gene for pale skin come from? Random mutation? A recessive that is more survivable in low light (mankind originated by the equator) seems unlikely. A random mutation that became a regionally dominanat, if not exclusive gene. A random mutation would need to propagate itself rather widely and often to become a dominanat gene, even regionally dominant. And again where did the recessive that turned into a regionally dominant gene come from in the first place, the past? And yet again Homo Sapien is a relatively young species, with a relatively low/slow birth rate.

Why not evolve backwards, the more successful examples of life are single cell.

Bacteria evolve, they also have a very short and accelerated life cycle. The human life cycle is long and as far as I can tell, Homo Sapien just hasn't been around all that long.
I've got more questions than answers, Darwin sure doesn't answer them all and other than calling attention to relatively short sighted phenomena, he sure doesn't answer many of the relevant questions. He said it best "The Origin of Species is just a step on the path to knowledge" and was never intended to be a definitive work.

1. What about rye mold?

2. The chance is small that the mutation is beneficial; that's why evolution usually takes a long period of time.

3. Uh, ok.

4. There is nothing that 'makes' a beneficial mutation. Mutations just happen. They happen non-stop, all the time.

5. In the case of moths that rely on camouflage, color is a great indicator. In the case of humans, I doubt the cause for humans to evolve light vs. dark skin is not based on vitamin K. It's dependent on environment. If you are born of African decent, you're almost 100% likely to have dark skin, If you are born of Scandinavian decent, it'll be the opposite.

6. Just because single-cells are more simple does not make them more successful. Competition helps drive evolution. You gotta be smarter, bigger, stronger than your neighbor in order to survive.

[DaJudge]

What do you mean they cling to it? That they are unwilling to disregard all the evidence that shows evolution is true? How do they treat it as a religion? Do they believe in it because it produces results and is something that can be duplicated?

Let me be clear that I know that things evolve. The argument that I have is the that the discussions I have had with those who view evolution as their religion have come down to "There is no God BECAUSE of evolution"
Maybe you don't like me saying it is their religion but I can't think of a better we to describe it.

I don't see these as mutually exclusive since it has very well pointed out that the Theory of Evolution does not deal with origin, only observed differences. As Evolution is genrally dealt with (i.e. Humans and apes came from the same ancestor) there is ZERO evidence. I am not saying this from an ignorant uneducated view point. I have two degrees, I have dealt with completely irrational professors who are more interested in their own views then any actual scientific data, and I had a few that were willing to deal with the subject as what it is, I theory that explains observations made over time.

[bigalpha]

Let me be clear that I know that things evolve. The argument that I have is the that the discussions I have had with those who view evolution as their religion have come down to "There is no God BECAUSE of evolution"
Maybe you don't like me saying it is their religion but I can't think of a better we to describe it.

I don't see these as mutually exclusive since it has very well pointed out that the Theory of Evolution does not deal with origin, only observed differences. As Evolution is genrally dealt with (i.e. Humans and apes came from the same ancestor) there is ZERO evidence. I am not saying this from an ignorant uneducated view point. I have two degrees, I have dealt with completely irrational professors who are more interested in their own views then any actual scientific data, and I had a few that were willing to deal with the subject as what it is, I theory that explains observations made over time.

Gotcha, I just wasn't sure what you meant. I personally don't believe you can discount a Supreme Being just because evolution occurs. Does that mean I believe in any one? No.

[TRNDRVR]

God, I sure miss Dan. :anon:

[Darky]

Conversations about this stay quite a bit more civil since your disappearance...;)

Anyone care to answer what we're talking about? It is my opinion that the science supports the idea of a creator moreso than that of macro-evolution. Too many changes would need to happen at the same time for a lot of species. Take a woodpecker: extra thick skull and strong beak for pounding through wood, extra layer of fluid around the brain to give cushion, extra long tongue that wraps around inside the skull to be able to reach inside the hole he just made to get food. There's no logical way to explain how all of that came about on its own. If the bird developed the strong skull and beak first, it would scramble its brain. But it wouldn't develop the extra brain cushion unless it had a reason, correct? It wouldn't have reason except to survive pecking holes in trees. If somehow, all three of those came about together, it would do no good without the ability to get to the bugs inside the tree.
Or look at humans. Everything in us is so delicately balanced it would've been nigh impossible to survive the process. From how our lungs process the oxygen, to the levels of bacteria in our intestines, the stomach lining's ability to survive the highly corrosive acid we use for digestion, etc. Intelligent Design need not be religious in nature, whether you believe in the Christian God, the Muslim Allah, the Jewish YHWH, or just in some big guy in the sky, the evidence and logic points towards someone/something having a hand in the creation of it all. I mean, if you even want to say Neanderthal was created and Homo Sapien evolved from him, that would make more sense than we just evolved...:) Creation is present in almost every culture in history. The Indians, Sumerians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Aborigines, Pygmys, etc all have a story detailing the Creation of Earth and man.

I don't know why the flood is being mentioned or other events from the Bible when the discussion is creation or evolution...
Intelligent Design need not be religious in nature

[bigalpha]

The woodpecker evolved these traits simultaneously. :D

Same thing with humans .. we evolved gradually, over time.

Fossils on top of mountains? hehe. That happens when oceanic crust gets pushed up due to the collision of two oceanic plates. Same kind of reason we have the same fossils on two continents that are thousands of miles apart.

[Rod Knee]

Darky, perhaps the bugs didn't always reside way inside the tree. Most don't. It is entirely plausible that through successive generations they moved deeper in the wood as a response to predation by the ancestors of the woodpecker, which in turn prompted the woodpecker to adapt accordingly.

Just some hypothesizing on my part.

[dgrigorenko]

wow this is way to huge to be handled in a forum... but i am do beleive that more and more scientific evidence is pointing towards the case for intellegent design.... from biology, physics, cosmology, and astronomy... A really good, insightful, hard science book in this area is "The Edge of Evolution." (http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296222/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236203109&sr=8-1) written by a microbiologist who is one of the top in his field. its not just a "God exists" book either... it is however pretty intense scientifically, and makes my head hurt sometimes. :wierd:

g

[Rod Knee]

Intelligent design has widespread explanatory power. In fact, it can explain anything and everything, which is precisely why it is not science. That may seem ironic at first.

When I was in college in Utah one of my biology professors explained that many of the 200 or so mountain ranges between Salt Lake City and Reno host unique species of wildflower. This plant distribution can be explained by evolution in terms of reproductive isolation and with complementary understanding of the extensional tectonics that formed the Basin and Range country. If geographically isolated areas around the world did not host unique flora and fauna as they do evolution would not make much sense, and it certainly would not hold the robust explanatory power that it holds.

Intelligent design can also explain this plant distribution by declaring that a supernatural entity made it so. The problem for intelligent design is that it could use the exact same explanation were the fauna on all mountain ranges the same. Scientific concepts must have a basis for falsification. Anyone dismissive of the importance of falsifiability should ask himself/herself whether he/she would be willing to wager against the proposition that the Minnesota Twins will eventually make it back to the World Series.

[Darky]

See my previous post. Are we referring to macro or micro evolution (aka adaptation)? Micro evolution after creation explains this perfectly. The flowers may have started out the same, but over the years as they grew and reproduced in their isolated environments, certain genes began to come to the forefront. Because of slight differences in the environment of each, the genes that came to the front differed by area. Hence the reason why the flowers on mountain A are blue vs the flowers on Mountain B being pink. As stated, my belief in Creation precludes my belief in macro evolution. However, micro evolution is observable and verifiable, therefore making it believable.

[Root Moose]

So wouldn't a bunch of micros eventually become a macro when all added together over time?

Hmm...

[Rod Knee]

So wouldn't a bunch of micros eventually become a macro when all added together over time?

Hmm...


If not, it sure would be nice to know what the barrier is preventing micros from adding up.

[hubs97xj]

If only micro evolution exists, wouldn't we still be seeing the same basic plants and animals that existed on this planet hundreds of millions of years ago?

[Rod Knee]

Good point hubs. Evolution wouldn't make much sense if the succession you refer to wasn't observed. With ID, succession or no succession is just fine.

[Darky]

If only micro evolution exists, wouldn't we still be seeing the same basic plants and animals that existed on this planet hundreds of millions of years ago?
If you believe the Earth to be hundreds of millions of years old...
There've been more than a few scientists out there lately who're starting to call the Old Earth Theory into question.
Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html) one scientist and his page with a bunch of evidence. He goes into a bunch of stuff from the shrinking of the sun to salt levels in the ocean, carbon 14 dating, geologic dating, etc.

Macro would be the whole scheme of things, from simple, single celled organism to multi cellular, to fish, to mammals, to cavemen to man. There's no way to prove that, your proof lies in your interpretation of the data based on your outlook and belief system.

[Rod Knee]

There's no way to prove that cigarettes are harmful to your health or that the sun will rise in the morning either. Science deals with explanantions, not proof. And as far as unicellular organism to multicellular life to fish, amphibians, reptiles to mammals including humans...well that's actually the biostratigraphic sequence found in the earth's crust, compelling evidence for so called macro evolution. The interpretaion of organic change is based on this sort of evidence, not with my belief system (whatever the hell a belief system is). Do you think the uniqueness of the animals on the Galapogas Islands has anything to do with a belief system?

I have looked at the so called evidence for a young earth, most all of it was debunked decades ago. The young earth sea salt slant, for example, does not take into account the buffering action of clay minerals on the ocean floor and suspended in the water. Carbon 14 is not used to date the age of the earth due to its short half life. Most of these so called criteria rely on incomplete understanding of processes and shoddy assumptions.

[hubs97xj]

That website actually argues against a young earth.

[Rod Knee]

That website actually argues against a young earth.

Hmmm. I didn't even look before I responded. Talkorigins reason for existing is to debunk creationism!!!

[bajabit]

It takes no less a leap of faith to believe in evolution than in creationism. Evolution is still just a theory and does not have enough evidence to support it,(after over 100 years). Darwin's Finches are all still Finches, not one has gills or any other trait from another species.I don't care if their beaks are different, they are still Finches. There are no examples of cross species developement, living or fossil. Darwin himself stated that if the fossil record does not support his THEORY that it is in fact invalid.
Evolution should not be taught in schools as fact. It is a religion no different than Catholicism.

[8Mud]

The reason populations of species change is that certain changes confer greater adaptation to a certain environment or niche. The “pro active mechanism” for survival is change in gene frequencies (evolution) brought about through mechanisms such as mutations culled by natural selection.
I don’t think Darwin ever said that recessive genes eventually become dominant. In fact, not much about genetics was understood until Mendel came along, who’s work came after Darwin. I know of no examples of recessive genes becoming dominant, and I am beginning to think you are confusing gene dominance with gene frequency. It is possible, through selection, for a recessive gene to have a high frequency of occurrence in a population and a dominant gene to occur infrequently.

No idea what you mean by linearity, but whether a new gene (mutation) is beneficial or not is not a matter of mathematics, it is a function of the environment and niche. A given mutation may confer an adaptive advantage in one environment but not in another. “Radical adaptability pr positive change” come about through selection. Beneficial genes, whether dominant or recessive, are retained because they increase the fitness of the organism and are preferentially passed along to successive generations. Remember now, Darwinian selection is by definition, non-random. Evolution by random-happenstance is the cartoon version.

I really have no problem with much of what you say, we are talking more at a parallel than at tangents, terminology is some different.
Mendel made the next step (hypothesis) just like Darwin said he (or somebody) should.
You tend to lump species, you can't really compare, say insects or a swarm of Bees (or other high birthrate species), to a tribe of humans. Humans have a relatively low birth rate and for that simple reason, changes that are dominate (not swallowed back up by the gene pool) are slower. Bees are also effectively clones in the same hive. Humans almost have to breed outside of the tribe (somewhat) for there to be much, if any change (other than negative).
Recessive genes or even mutation (by definition, a recessive, unless there was the same mutation twice in the same tribe) have to be a pair. Remember it takes two to make one.
Gene dominance with gene frequency aren't exclusive, a dominant is more likely to find a match, a recessive less likely. A recessive is more likely to be swallowed back up by the gene pool. Recessives (other than mutation) are really the only vehicle for change that I can see.
Maybe my reasoning is flawed, but a tribe could eat unshelled grain for generations and each generation could grind it's teeth down to nothing. Darwin says by magic a person is born with increased ceramic thickness in the teeth that resists grinding them down (rather than the same person born lacking the necessary protein to deal with say copper and dieing young). Or even a gradula thickening of the enamel over generations (where did the ability to thicken enamel come from?). The same adaptation is dominant (without a matching pair) and this individual is such a prolific breeder (and has such a nice smile), thicker tooth enamel becomes the norm after (how many generations ?????) of breeding. Standard animal husbandry has taught me (if I was actually awake in that class) that it takes around 60 generations for a recessive to "set" in an animal population (and become the norm), maybe Darwins magic dominant can improve the species dental hygiene (without adding his extra nipple :)) in less time.
Off topic a bit, but the human body has been compared to a 727 Jumbo Jet. What is the probability of disassembling it and reassembling it without a plan? What is the likelihood of "any" random change being beneficial? What are the chances of "any" change being beneficial. I find it unlikely, random changes are going to be beneficial. Planned for changes or adaptations may be beneficial. Where did the planned for adaptations come from? Left over parts from a Cessna? Recessive or redundant parts in the plane itself?
I'm sure not saying I have the answers, but I'm also not buying into contemporary accepted knowledge either. The theory of evolution creates more questions than it answers.
A million years is only (best case scenario) 77,000 generations (linear). How many individual parts are in a 727? There are going to be some fairly minor differences from one 727 to the next (different factories), but random leaps of efficiency or functionality are extremely unlikely.

[hubs97xj]

It takes no less a leap of faith to believe in evolution than in creationism. Evolution is still just a theory and does not have enough evidence to support it,(after over 100 years). Darwin's Finches are all still Finches, not one has gills or any other trait from another species.I don't care if their beaks are different, they are still Finches. There are no examples of cross species developement, living or fossil. Darwin himself stated that if the fossil record does not support his THEORY that it is in fact invalid.
Evolution should not be taught in schools as fact. It is a religion no different than Catholicism.

You can't say evolution is a lie because finches don't turn into cows. That's not any sort of logic at all.

[spunebil]

I believe in evolution

however I also believe a supreme being, normally refered to as GOD started the ball rolling.

also think about this

the big bang theory works to sorta explain the beginning of the universe

but what I would like to know is

who or what made the matter (what actually exploded) for the big bang to happen in the first place?

again we come back to GOD.

if you have a better explanation,

share it with me :scottm:

[Deadman 94 xj]

Wow, I think I'm actually learning something here, this can't be good LOL.

Thanks 8mud

[ZacSquatch]

The flying spaghetti monster took a huge shit, and bam... earth was created.. then the molecules and single cell oragisms started doin meth and acid and evolved into flying hard ass teradacles... then we killed them with atom bombs and took over earth

[ZacSquatch]

I believe in evolution

however I also believe a supreme being, normally refered to as GOD started the ball rolling.

also think about this

the big bang theory works to sorta explain the beginning of the universe

but what I would like to know is

who or what made the matter (what actually exploded) for the big bang to happen in the first place?

again we come back to GOD.

if you have a better explanation,

share it with me :scottm:

Thats how it seems to me. He dropped the bomb, universe created.. everything else just fell into place on it owns accord.

[Rod Knee]

I really have no problem with much of what you say, we are talking more at a parallel than at tangents, terminology is some different.
Mendel made the next step (hypothesis) just like Darwin said he (or somebody) should.
You tend to lump species, you can't really compare, say insects or a swarm of Bees (or other high birthrate species), to a tribe of humans. Humans have a relatively low birth rate and for that simple reason, changes that are dominate (not swallowed back up by the gene pool) are slower. Bees are also effectively clones in the same hive. Humans almost have to breed outside of the tribe (somewhat) for there to be much, if any change (other than negative).
Recessive genes or even mutation (by definition, a recessive, unless there was the same mutation twice in the same tribe) have to be a pair. Remember it takes two to make one.
Gene dominance with gene frequency aren't exclusive, a dominant is more likely to find a match, a recessive less likely. A recessive is more likely to be swallowed back up by the gene pool. Recessives (other than mutation) are really the only vehicle for change that I can see.
Maybe my reasoning is flawed, but a tribe could eat unshelled grain for generations and each generation could grind it's teeth down to nothing. Darwin says by magic a person is born with increased ceramic thickness in the teeth that resists grinding them down (rather than the same person born lacking the necessary protein to deal with say copper and dieing young). Or even a gradula thickening of the enamel over generations (where did the ability to thicken enamel come from?). The same adaptation is dominant (without a matching pair) and this individual is such a prolific breeder (and has such a nice smile), thicker tooth enamel becomes the norm after (how many generations ?????) of breeding. Standard animal husbandry has taught me (if I was actually awake in that class) that it takes around 60 generations for a recessive to "set" in an animal population (and become the norm), maybe Darwins magic dominant can improve the species dental hygiene (without adding his extra nipple :)) in less time.
Off topic a bit, but the human body has been compared to a 727 Jumbo Jet. What is the probability of disassembling it and reassembling it without a plan? What is the likelihood of "any" random change being beneficial? What are the chances of "any" change being beneficial. I find it unlikely, random changes are going to be beneficial. Planned for changes or adaptations may be beneficial. Where did the planned for adaptations come from? Left over parts from a Cessna? Recessive or redundant parts in the plane itself?
I'm sure not saying I have the answers, but I'm also not buying into contemporary accepted knowledge either. The theory of evolution creates more questions than it answers.
A million years is only (best case scenario) 77,000 generations (linear). How many individual parts are in a 727? There are going to be some fairly minor differences from one 727 to the next (different factories), but random leaps of efficiency or functionality are extremely unlikely.

I really think much of your discourse is still confused and that its more than a matter of terminology. Darwin never said anything about magic increases in ceramic tooth thickness. Evolution theory does explain however that mutations can confer adaptive advantages like increased tooth durability. I have no idea what you are talking about in your references to genes being “swallowed up by the gene pool”. How does it take two recessive gene to make one? Dominant alleles are not likely to be paired with another of the same allele during meiosis if that particular allele does not occur in the gene pool at a high frequency.

You are correct in stating that random changes are unlikely to be beneficial, but you err in not including the role of selection in increasing the frequency of a beneficial mutation through successive generations in your jumbo jet analogy. The planner (albeit a blind, unconscious one)is evolution and it works through natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution. Your jumbo jet analogy falls flat because airplanes don’t have DNA and they don’t reproduce sexually.

[8Mud]

I really think much of your discourse is still confused and that its more than a matter of terminology. Darwin never said anything about magic increases in ceramic tooth thickness. Evolution theory does explain however that mutations can confer adaptive advantages like increased tooth durability. I have no idea what you are talking about in your references to genes being “swallowed up by the gene pool”. How does it take two recessive gene to make one? Dominant alleles are not likely to be paired with another of the same allele during meiosis if that particular allele does not occur in the gene pool at a high frequency.

You are correct in stating that random changes are unlikely to be beneficial, but you err in not including the role of selection in increasing the frequency of a beneficial mutation through successive generations in your jumbo jet analogy. The planner (albeit a blind, unconscious one)is evolution and it works through natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution. Your jumbo jet analogy falls flat because airplanes don’t have DNA and they don’t reproduce sexually.

My dominant gene discourse is simplified, but the basic is, Brown eyes dominant. Or put another way, my two Jack Russels had pups, female white with black spots, male white with brown spots, all of the pups were white with brown spots. Enough pups and it's likely there would be one white with black spots, because the two dogs come from a likely similar linage.
My analogy with the 727 (which isn't mine) is just to illustrate the likelihood of any mutation as being beneficial. Mutations are much more likely to be terminal.
My point being DNA "is the plan" and much if any deviation is more likely to be negative (or benign) than positive. I have an acquaintance with double thick skin and no sweat glands. She has six kids all with normal skin. What are the chances of her condition being a mutation, her father has the same thing, and being dominant (nobody on her mothers side has this condition) (brown spots) accidentally, her father was born a thousand miles from her mother? Just about the same odds as being born with no cell walls and looking like a jelly fish. Obviously a recessive or recent (where did it come from?) anomaly, that is less frequent in the population than average skin thickness and sweat glands. Unless her children or children's children interbreed, what are the odds of this condition showing up again, where did it come from in the first place?
Research animal husbandry a bit, the main reason they clone desirable animals, is because beneficial traits require many generations to breed true (repeat themselves with any regularity), even under controlled conditions.

[hubs97xj]

Ignore the dork with his Star Wars library in the background (OWNED? <insert groan here>) - the bit with Dawkins and the Germans from the 80s is the interesting part. Trial and error/random chance/The Blind Designer achieving results more efficiently than conventional engineering? The airliner analogy may not be completely off, although not necessarily inline with what mud posted. My head is starting to feel funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BQhW4txyQI

As an aside, what an interesting discussion for a Jeep club.

[8Mud]

Ignore the dork with his Star Wars library in the background (OWNED? <insert groan here>) - the bit with Dawkins and the Germans from the 80s is the interesting part. Trial and error/random chance/The Blind Designer achieving results more efficiently than conventional engineering? The airliner analogy may not be completely off, although not necessarily inline with what mud posted. My head is starting to feel funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BQhW4txyQI

As an aside, what an interesting discussion for a Jeep club.

If you don't use it you loose it, exercising the gray matter is always a good idea, especially at my age.

Jeeps or whatever I try not to get locked into group think, as over the years I've generally had better results with a systematic approach and using fewer preconceptions. Or in other words it is hard to argue with success no matter how you got there.

[hubs97xj]

Something I've not seen anyone mention yet, which falls into this same discussion, I think- which god or gods you believe in depends largely on where you're born, and to whom (and when, I suppose), while evolution is pretty much the same round the world. So even among creationists, there would seem to be some disagreement with regards to who that intelligent designer is. It seems most folks here are Judeo-Christian, but a Muslim, Hindu, etc might have a different perspective, even if he also considered himself a creationist. Some folks convert from one faith to another as one set of beliefs is favored more than a previous set, which only complicates things further- there's still nothing in the way of (empirical, perhaps is the correct word?) evidence, as it boils down to a faith that can be very fluid depending upon the individual. Evolution though, you do have physical evidence, and you either believe it, or you don't- there aren't really parallel theories, at least that I'm familiar with.

That point has been made in atheism/monotheism/polytheism discussions (simplified, which god(s) is(are) the one true god(s)?), but that just clicked watching another clip of Dawkins during a lecture, as I realized I'd read that not so long ago as well.

Similar discussions among other groups that I've participated in haven't been nearly this civilized after the first few minutes- I'm pleasantly surprised at this one.

[Rod Knee]

My dominant gene discourse is simplified, but the basic is, Brown eyes dominant. Or put another way, my two Jack Russels had pups, female white with black spots, male white with brown spots, all of the pups were white with brown spots. Enough pups and it's likely there would be one white with black spots, because the two dogs come from a likely similar linage.
My analogy with the 727 (which isn't mine) is just to illustrate the likelihood of any mutation as being beneficial. Mutations are much more likely to be terminal.
My point being DNA "is the plan" and much if any deviation is more likely to be negative (or benign) than positive. I have an acquaintance with double thick skin and no sweat glands. She has six kids all with normal skin. What are the chances of her condition being a mutation, her father has the same thing, and being dominant (nobody on her mothers side has this condition) (brown spots) accidentally, her father was born a thousand miles from her mother? Just about the same odds as being born with no cell walls and looking like a jelly fish. Obviously a recessive or recent (where did it come from?) anomaly, that is less frequent in the population than average skin thickness and sweat glands. Unless her children or children's children interbreed, what are the odds of this condition showing up again, where did it come from in the first place?
Research animal husbandry a bit, the main reason they clone desirable animals, is because beneficial traits require many generations to breed true (repeat themselves with any regularity), even under controlled conditions.

Nothing much there for me to dispute. I will point out though that deleterious recessive genes have a way of persisting in the gene pool because they can be carried by indivduals without phenotypical (physical) expresion, and are therefore not vigorously selected against. That relationship may apply to the description you've given there. Also, I think I'd refer to DNA as genetic raw material rather than a plan.

[relyt]

I'm extremely surprised at how civil this discussion has been. I've seen many similar topics on many different types of internet forums, and they all end with a couple people calling each other names that I'd not repeat in front of my parents. For that, I have to commend my fellow XJers.

[GoSlowGetStuck]

I'm extremely surprised at how civil this discussion has been. I've seen many similar topics on many different types of internet forums, and they all end with a couple people calling each other names that I'd not repeat in front of my parents. For that, I have to commend my fellow XJers.

I was just getting ready to write something similar. Most civil discussion ever. This is blazing a new path for discussion on Internet forums. Maybe we are evolving. :D

[kdailey4315]

Science isn't trying to take your religion. Science is only trying to say that Creationism isn't based on science, it's based on theology. That's part of the issue with teaching it in school. It doesn't hold to the same scientific principles that evolution does. Plus, it's solely religious in nature. Separation of religion and state and all that.


I never said that evolutionist are taking my religion. All I was pointing out is that I don't understand why there is such zealousness in disproving the existence of God. It is a faith and by definition faith is belief in something that can not be proven thus the very belief in faith is admitting that your God can not be proven. I'm ok with that and I understand that there are people who believe the exact opposite of me. I see it in church every Sunday and honestly I despise people that thrust my religion in other people's faces and proclaim it's the "only" way to live and the only thing to believe in. I never see evolutionist as taking my religion but as merely an opposing view point.

[8Mud]

Nothing much there for me to dispute. I will point out though that deleterious recessive genes have a way of persisting in the gene pool because they can be carried by indivduals without phenotypical (physical) expresion, and are therefore not vigorously selected against. That relationship may apply to the description you've given there. Also, I think I'd refer to DNA as genetic raw material rather than a plan.
I've never done the math, but it seems plausible deleterious genes and hybrid vigor would cancel each other out? If we are talking pure chance or even change due to external influences.
The results IMO almost have to be skewed towards success in general or the whole exercise is self eliminating or the sum is stagnant.
As a mental exercise, go back to my 727 analogy, not only would the change have to be survivable, for it to be even a marginal improvement, the improvement would almost have to be from a stock of parts available (predisposed) for improvement, parts from a previous model are unlikely to fit or be an improvement. Random might be a stick from an apple tree, built into the landing gear or on a more subtle level, hydraulic fluid with a lower flash point.
IMO there are just to many things to go wrong for random to be an improvement on a complex structure, especially one that takes more than a decade to mature and reproduce.
The mass extinction event of 65 million years ago, using rough math would equate to roughly one body process change every 65 years in a human evolutionary example. Package changes, requiring many body processes to be changed would likely require many more years to manifest. For this to be a random process seems unlikely to me.
The math says to me, there would have to be multiple process changes happening in parallel, lowering the chances of success or even survivability. Unless DNA is a package with a plan and is programmed for success or at the very minimum has the parts already available for the abilities to adapt and thrive.

[bigalpha]

I've never done the math, but it seems plausible deleterious genes and hybrid vigor would cancel each other out? If we are talking pure chance or even change due to external influences.
The results IMO almost have to be skewed towards success in general or the whole exercise is self eliminating or the sum is stagnant.
As a mental exercise, go back to my 727 analogy, not only would the change have to be survivable, for it to be even a marginal improvement, the improvement would almost have to be from a stock of parts available (predisposed) for improvement, parts from a previous model are unlikely to fit or be an improvement. Random might be a stick from an apple tree, built into the landing gear or on a more subtle level, hydraulic fluid with a lower flash point.
IMO there are just to many things to go wrong for random to be an improvement on a complex structure, especially one that takes more than a decade to mature and reproduce.
The mass extinction event of 65 million years ago, using rough math would equate to roughly one body process change every 65 years in a human evolutionary example. Package changes, requiring many body processes to be changed would likely require many more years to manifest. For this to be a random process seems unlikely to me.
The math says to me, there would have to be multiple process changes happening in parallel, lowering the chances of success or even survivability. Unless DNA is a package with a plan and is programmed for success or at the very minimum has the parts already available for the abilities to adapt and thrive.

Let's say, humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor. Let's say that common ancestor was a small mammal. Now, that mammal has already evolved to have a brain, body parts, to function, etc. The biggest change that had to happen would be the changing of the physical structure. Bipedalism as opposed to walking on four legs (quadalism?).

It's very possible that due to environmental factors (berries in a tree), that ancestor would have needed to gain some height, and they did that by rearing up on two legs. Eventually, that creature would evolve (by various mechanisms) to eventually walk upright to get those berries.

Eventually, our brains evolved to reason and think; I think this is the main factor in humans evolving fairly quickly. This allowed us to live longer, be safer, acquire food faster/easier, etc. This brain essentially allowed us to be #1 in the world's food chain.

Don't forget that there were more than one population of humans scattered throughout the world. This would allow many more types of evolutionary steps to take place.

I agree, it's an incredible task. It's incredible to think that life (I believe we did) has evolved from a simple organism. Of course, there's no definitive proof of where the first 'life' came from. Some experiments have shown that given the correct combination (like what earth supposedly had in the beginning), basic 'life' can form spontaneously.

Also, regarding your comments about animal husbandry. If you have one parent who has a beneficial gene (let's say it's to make the coat brown); and that parent has 10 puppies, 2 of which have that gene. Then, those two have puppies, who have that gene. Later on down the line, one of those puppies meets a real nice puppy-ette with that gene, all their puppies will have brown coats. More non-brown dogs will die than brown dogs (due to the beneficial brown coat) and there will be more brown and less non-brown. More and more dogs would continue to have brown coats. There are, of course, many factors that influence this.

[Rod Knee]

Yes 8mud, improvements to an airplane would have to come from a predesigned part. No argument there. Airplanes don't have DNA, so mutation and selection in the Darwinian sense do not apply to your 747. However, with organisms darwinian evolution does apply and once again, the selection of beneficial mutations for retention in the gene pool that occurs is by definition non-random. Selection and random determination are opposites.

You can use all the math you want to model evolution but all you have to really do to document its tempo is to look at the fossil record. Mammal evolution/radiation occurring since the extinction event of 65 mya you referenced is very well calibrated by numerous volcanic ash layers that can be radiometrically dated to provide absolute age constraints on the fossil bearing strata that lie between them. Do you have a mathematical formula to address the extensive radiation of the mammals as they filled niches vacated by the extinctions that occurred when the dinosaurs where wiped out? How about an integration accounting for the effect of deforestation on human evolution? No? Then just use the fossil record like paleontologists do. Math is for accountants.

[bajabit]

You can't say evolution is a lie because finches don't turn into cows. That's not any sort of logic at all.
Exactly! That is what evolution is telling us. We came from monkeys, dinosours became birds, and everything came from a fish that walked out of the ocean? No logic at all. One species can't evolve from another. A species can adapt to changing conditions or mutate but not become another species.

[Darky]

Hmmm. I didn't even look before I responded. Talkorigins reason for existing is to debunk creationism!!!
Wow, well talk about not reading your sources...

The likelihood of everything evolving and getting us to where we are is still too small for me to consider.
Also, for the Intelligent Design that should be taught in schools, it's not concerned with who the Creator is, just that there is one. There are indeed non-religious types who believe in a creator, but aren't tied to any particular religion. I'd have to search to find them, but I've read of some of them and they're arguments. I.D. doesn't even necessarily have to preclude your evolution, but it sure would provide a highly logical explanation for where the nothing came from that exploded for no reason to cause all of this.

I had something else to say, but forgot. I'll let you know if I remember...:)

[Rod Knee]

Talkorigins was not my source. It was someone elses....yours.

I can't remember what I walked into a room for half the time, let alone what I was going to say, so don't feel like the lone stranger.

[bigalpha]

Wow, well talk about not reading your sources...

The likelihood of everything evolving and getting us to where we are is still too small for me to consider.
Also, for the Intelligent Design that should be taught in schools, it's not concerned with who the Creator is, just that there is one. There are indeed non-religious types who believe in a creator, but aren't tied to any particular religion. I'd have to search to find them, but I've read of some of them and they're arguments. I.D. doesn't even necessarily have to preclude your evolution, but it sure would provide a highly logical explanation for where the nothing came from that exploded for no reason to cause all of this.

I had something else to say, but forgot. I'll let you know if I remember...:)

The problem with teaching ID is that there is no scientific basis for it. There's no testable hypothesis. With evolution, there is. ID is not science, so it doesn't belong in science class.

[Rod Knee]

One species can't evolve from another.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

[8Mud]

The problem with teaching ID is that there is no scientific basis for it. There's no testable hypothesis. With evolution, there is. ID is not science, so it doesn't belong in science class.
I still say ID can be proved with math and using a simple "what are the odds" structure.
I also say the ability to mutate, with natural selection as the mitigating force is a non starter. The odds start at one in three for any kind of improvement at the very beginning and decline from there. Way to many variables for evolution to be an accident.
People use skin color as an example, break it down into it's component parts, it is a process and not a single gene. One process to produce the pigment, another process to deal with the by products of producing the pigment, another process to guarantee it reaches the hair or even the epidermis (why not all the way through the body?) likely a hundred different steps (processes) just for hair color, maybe thousands. OK so it's a package deal, a hold over from previous models. How did the package of processes stay viable (stable, deleterious genes have been mentioned) until needed and what activated it? How is the package compatible with the current model?
Thousands of questions still remain in my mind, there are around a million active processes in a human. And people say natural selection is the answer. In my mind it will likely always remain very, very long odds, unless somebody actually does the math with enough information to make the results relevant, I find it almost impossible to wrap my mind around evolution as being the sole driving force.
Using math, I could likely make a case for the original model as being almost perfect, with a set of probably useful alternatives already programed in to deal with likely environmental changes (or other catastrophes) and everything has pretty much run downhill from there.
Or maybe more likely, a base model with enough alternatives programmed in, to improve over time and adapt.
The time line for negative influences or even positive influences to account for the changes in the human animal (from lower forms) just doesn't compute, unless a viable set of alternatives already existed. And even if a viable set of alternative genes already existed hidden away in the DNA, why not regression instead of more complexity? Neoteny is a proved survival mechanism, why mutate to the more complex and not the simpler?.
Random mutation (just one), no matter how beneficial, to be disseminated in a wide enough area and by enough individuals to incorporate it into the base model, seems unlikely, if not mathematically impossible.
Otzi the ice man frozen in a glacier 3300 BC (best case scenario 700 generations ago) is pretty much the same as you and I. Sixty five million years ago was the mass extinction event and mammals likely started out very far from a Chimpanzee or a human in complexity.

[Rod Knee]

What is the probability that you exist? Factor in all the atoms that had to come together in just the right arrangement.

See, I can have fun with math too!

[Rod Knee]

Complexity? By what measure are humans more complex than the mammals that existed just after the 65 mya extinction event, and more importantly why do you think increased complexity is a necessity of evolution? Evo theory says that species adapt, not that they must become more complex.

The base plan of the vertebrate tetrapod was already established well before the Tertiary mammal radiation. So where is the great physiological obstacle to mammalian evolution?

[Darky]

Talkorigins was not my source. It was someone elses....yours.

I can't remember what I walked into a room for half the time, let alone what I was going to say, so don't feel like the lone stranger.
Actually, I was referring to myself. I didn't click the links on the page...and hence posted something completely contrary to my own position...:)

[hubs97xj]

By what measure? Man's ego.

[JNickel101]

Man's ego.

Hey, that's the same thing that drives the Theory of Climate Change!!!!

:D

[8Mud]

What is the probability that you exist? Factor in all the atoms that had to come together in just the right arrangement.

See, I can have fun with math too!

My point exactly.:D

[bajabit]

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Show us one transitional species.

[Rod Knee]

Show us one transitional species.

http://www.tolweb.org/Acanthostega

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html

[hubs97xj]

Show us one bit of evidence that an invisible man in the sky put you here. See, the "I don't have to prove anything, you do" logic works both ways.

[Deadman 94 xj]

Show us one transitional species.


The girl I dated before my wife.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t250/tnetz777/l_b569eabbe3a63f8a7bc61b17580416d1.jpg

[Deadman 94 xj]

I think somewhere along the lines I said that evolution could be proven as fact. After reading a bunch of what you guys wrote I no longer state that claim. I was wrong. I now realise that there were two different monsters that we were talking about. I have to agree that (although variations of a species can mutate as a result of natural selection) neither evolution nor creationism can be proven as fact.

[Rod Knee]

She's a beauty!!

[bigalpha]

I think somewhere along the lines I said that evolution could be proven as fact. After reading a bunch of what you guys wrote I no longer state that claim. I was wrong. I have to agree that (although variations of a species can mutate as a result of natural selection) neither evolution nor creationism can be proven as fact.

Noooooo! The Creationists are taking them one by one! :bawl:


I once heard a joke that the creationists opened a zoo ... they put a cage around an empty area and waited for a new species to appear.

At least we're getting constructive debate out of this whole thread.

[hubs97xj]

It's a scientific theory, but it is not yet, by definition, fact. The particular wording and exact meaning do matter.

[Deadman 94 xj]

Noooooo! The Creationists are taking them one by one! :bawl:


I once heard a joke that the creationists opened a zoo ... they put a cage around an empty area and waited for a new species to appear.

At least we're getting constructive debate out of this whole thread.


LOL :cheers:

[Rod Knee]

It's a scientific theory, but it is not yet, by definition, fact. The particular wording and exact meaning do matter.

I agree. That certain observed biogeographical patterns exist that are explained by evolution is a fact. But it is more precise to say that evolution explains this fact. Bird migration is not a fact either, it is a behavior. However, IMO, it is a fact that both bird migration and evolution occur. In fact, we have examples of speciation in extant organisms, contrary to an assertion made above. Just google for cichlid fish.

[DWK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=0&playnext=1

[XJ Eric]

Holy Cow I finally got caught up...
Evolution is a theory and so is Intelligent Design. So is the big bang.
I have no problem with adaption being taught because that is an observable event. Dogs are dogs and cats are cats. You don't see cats and dogs mating and actually creating a new species. It doesn't happen. No matter what part of the planet that cat/dog is from. They have widely varying attributes but they don't cross.

[bigalpha]

"Theory of evolution" is different than the "theory of I.D."

In this case, the word "theory" has two different definitions.

[Rod Knee]

Evolution theory does not address species converging (like dogs with cats). It addresses the causes of divergence and biodiversity.

[XJ Eric]

B A: no, theory is a theory no matter what that theory is pertaining to. Both have scientific background and have their own merits. Personally I think evolution is how God (or a higher power, for those of you who get squeamish over the "G" word) created eveything.

Rod: No they don't converge. but if they did that would be the easiest way to a new species and for evolution to move on.

Adaption happens. Tuna don't crawl out of the sea. Yes there are species of fish that can survive on land for a time, the African mud fish (i think thats what they call it.) for example. But no one has found the missing link. Sure plenty of hoaxes are out there, but show it to me. Maybe in a hundred thousand years we'll find it. We'll never discover and explain everything. A horse is still a horse. Tuna is still a tuna. Evolution creates new things when the old is no longer good enough.

Chaos theory anyone? everything in the universe is breaking down. it had a start and like a clock its winding down, eroding away, galaxies are moving farther apart, the apalachian mountains are getting shorter and the rockies are getting less sharp, more worn down. The entire universe and it's contents are winding down. So why not life? how is it that biological life forms keep adapting and getting better instead of breaking down with the rest of the universe? Some would argue because something is out there winding adaption's (evolution's, if you prefer) clock.

To answer the question originally stated in the first post, Evolution needs to be taken back to it's early state not the stretched thin version being taught now. Darwin's original theory is nothing like the current curriculum. He came up with the theory of basic adaption.

[bigalpha]

No, sorry.

In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND for I.D. If there is, please share it.

The current version of the Theory of Evolution is not "stretched thin". What gives you that idea?

[Rod Knee]

But no one has found the missing link.

I assume you mean transitional fossil by your term "missing link". A transitional organism is one that has (or had) characteristics of both descendents and ancestors. Australopithicus (see link), discovered in 1974, had an ape-like brain and the hips and pelvis of a human-like upright walker. If Australopithicus is not a "missing link", then how would you define a 'missing link" and more importantly, why should they exist according to your definition for evolution to have occurred?

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

[XJ Eric]

you'll have to forgive me and lend me a little time to respond. I'm at work and can't get you my supporting evidence right now.

[Rod Knee]

No problem buddy. Your job is more important than this thread. Way more important.

[DWK]

How does it go, it's easier to believe a simple lie rather than a complex truth?

Evolution is a theory and so is Intelligent Design. So is the big bang. I have no problem with adaption being taught because that is an observable event.

From Webster's:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.

In a technical sense Creation Theory is supposition:
1. The act of supposing, laying down, imagining, or considering as true or existing, what is known not to be true, or what is not proved.

2. That which is supposed; hypothesis; conjecture; surmise; opinion or belief without sufficient evidence.

Creation is, by definition beyond natural (scientific) explanation (To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.)

Dogs are dogs and cats are cats. You don't see cats and dogs mating and actually creating a new species. . .

Why don't you see that? The fact that you don't see "Dats" "Dots" "Cags" or "Cogs" actually falls right in line with Evolutionary Theory. The key word here is Species. A partial definition of speciation is an inability to interbreed. Learnin's fun! For more information you can go to: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/images/spacer.gifOne of the founders of the modern synthesis (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#modern_synthesis) of evolutionary theory, Theodosius Dobzhansky (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#dobzhansky_theodosius) provided laboratory evidence for natural selection (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#natural_selection) and variation as the major forces driving evolution. In the essay from American Biology Teacher, March 1973, Dobzhansky shows how evolution is the cornerstone which supports and unifies the many fields within biology. He writes of biology: "without that light [of evolution] it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157255.html)

"Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear."
Mohandas Gandhi (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga135180.html)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/charlesdar141357.html)


If you don't believe evolution, you don't understand evolution. IMO, the hardest part is, that like physics, evolution provides an explanation that does not necessitate a god for how or why. No god means this is all there is. And that scares a lot of people.

[Deadman 94 xj]

How does it go, it's easier to believe a simple lie rather than a complex truth?



From Webster's:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.

In a technical sense Creation Theory is supposition:
1. The act of supposing, laying down, imagining, or considering as true or existing, what is known not to be true, or what is not proved.

2. That which is supposed; hypothesis; conjecture; surmise; opinion or belief without sufficient evidence.

Creation is, by definition beyond natural (scientific) explanation (To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.)



Why don't you see that? The fact that you don't see "Dats" "Dots" "Cags" or "Cogs" actually falls right in line with Evolutionary Theory. The key word here is Species. A partial definition of speciation is an inability to interbreed. Learnin's fun! For more information you can go to: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/images/spacer.gifOne of the founders of the modern synthesis (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#modern_synthesis) of evolutionary theory, Theodosius Dobzhansky (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#dobzhansky_theodosius) provided laboratory evidence for natural selection (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#natural_selection) and variation as the major forces driving evolution. In the essay from American Biology Teacher, March 1973, Dobzhansky shows how evolution is the cornerstone which supports and unifies the many fields within biology. He writes of biology: "without that light [of evolution] it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157255.html)

"Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear."
Mohandas Gandhi (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga135180.html)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/charlesdar141357.html)


If you don't believe evolution, you don't understand evolution. IMO, the hardest part is, that like physics, evolution provides an explanation that does not necessitate a god for how or why. No god means this is all there is. And that scares a lot of people.


Nice post (a lot of effort) but it doesn't answer anything. More theories and bias assumptions.

Evolution "theory" can not be proven nor can I.D.

[bigalpha]

Nice post (a lot of effort) but it doesn't answer anything. More theories and bias assumptions.

Evolution "theory" can not be proven nor can I.D.

I think we're just going around in circles now.

Evolution is based on scientific fact.
ID is not.

Evolution can be disproven.
ID can not.

Evolution is a scientific theory.
ID is not.

Evolution is not based on religion.
ID is.

Evolution does not try to discount God or take away God.
ID is based only on the word God.

[8Mud]

How does it go, it's easier to believe a simple lie rather than a complex truth?

From Webster's:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.

In a technical sense Creation Theory is supposition:
1. The act of supposing, laying down, imagining, or considering as true or existing, what is known not to be true, or what is not proved.

2. That which is supposed; hypothesis; conjecture; surmise; opinion or belief without sufficient evidence.

Creation is, by definition beyond natural (scientific) explanation (To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.)



Why don't you see that? The fact that you don't see "Dats" "Dots" "Cags" or "Cogs" actually falls right in line with Evolutionary Theory. The key word here is Species. A partial definition of speciation is an inability to interbreed. Learnin's fun! For more information you can go to: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/images/spacer.gifOne of the founders of the modern synthesis (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#modern_synthesis) of evolutionary theory, Theodosius Dobzhansky (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#dobzhansky_theodosius) provided laboratory evidence for natural selection (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/glossary.html#natural_selection) and variation as the major forces driving evolution. In the essay from American Biology Teacher, March 1973, Dobzhansky shows how evolution is the cornerstone which supports and unifies the many fields within biology. He writes of biology: "without that light [of evolution] it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157255.html)

"Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear."
Mohandas Gandhi (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga135180.html)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/charlesdar141357.html)


If you don't believe evolution, you don't understand evolution. IMO, the hardest part is, that like physics, evolution provides an explanation that does not necessitate a god for how or why. No god means this is all there is. And that scares a lot of people.

Evolution is an observable process, as is the ability for most species to adapt over time, even parallel evolution. Though the more complex the species and the length of time needed to reach sexual maturity increases, the ability to adapt seems to diminish or at the very least become slowed.
Taking the last mass extinction event, extrapolate from there to most any higher life form. With a negative, the need to evolve, as the driving force.
Show me the math. Is it probable, likely or even possible?
Observation can lend you some hints. Middle Europe is much older (settled longer) than the US. Today I can travel to scattered villages in fairly close set river valleys and see maybe three or four human root stocks. You can actually see the clans, pick out the relatives. They tend to breed true and the recessives are a larger problem than evolution.
You are going to have to explain to me how any major improvement in the gene pool became widely enough disseminated to be a positive force.
Upheaval and migration IMO would tend to deplete the base stock and reduce offspring.

Evolution is a nice theory and has become almost a mantra. I say again, show me the math.

Even Darwin said in his book "The Origin of Species", his work was a step in the process of enlightenment and was never meant to be a definitive work.
Somewhere down the line people have grasped at evolution as being "The" process instead of "A" process. Because much like Creationism, people are able to wrap there mind around it after a fashion and the theoretical and hypothetical processes have stagnated.

Have you ever seen a black hole?

http://i39.tinypic.com/2e0vext.png

[Rod Knee]

Evolution is an observable process, as is the ability for most species to adapt over time, even parallel evolution. Though the more complex the species and the length of time needed to reach sexual maturity increases, the ability to adapt seems to diminish or at the very least become slowed.
Taking the last mass extinction event, extrapolate from there to most any higher life form. With a negative, the need to evolve, as the driving force.
Show me the math. Is it probable, likely or even possible?
Observation can lend you some hints. Middle Europe is much older (settled longer) than the US. Today I can travel to scattered villages in fairly close set river valleys and see maybe three or four human root stocks. You can actually see the clans, pick out the relatives. They tend to breed true and the recessives are a larger problem than evolution.
You are going to have to explain to me how any major improvement in the gene pool became widely enough disseminated to be a positive force.
Upheaval and migration IMO would tend to deplete the base stock and reduce offspring.

Evolution is a nice theory and has become almost a mantra. I say again, show me the math.

Even Darwin said in his book "The Origin of Species", his work was a step in the process of enlightenment and was never meant to be a definitive work.
Somewhere down the line people have grasped at evolution as being "The" process instead of "A" process. Because much like Creationism, people are able to wrap there mind around it after a fashion and the theoretical and hypothetical processes have stagnated.

Have you ever seen a black hole?

http://i39.tinypic.com/2e0vext.png




The root evidentiary bases for evolution are biogeography, biostratigraphic succession, homology, and genetics, not mathematical formulae. The “need to evolve” is neither a positive or a negative, it just is as there is no goal to evolution. Your use of the term “higher life form” is vague, at least certainly not rigorously defined to be conversationally precise. But I gather that you equate higher life forms as more complex life forms. Increases in complexity are not necessary for evolution to occur.


At any rate, your request for a mathematical accounting of the probability of higher forms evolving since the last extinction event is a red herring since from a standpoint of genetics, modern organisms (including humans) need not be more complex than the so-called simpler organisms from which they evolved. Remember the mechanisms for evolution are rooted in genetics not mathematical gymnastics. Linked is a reference showing that the number of chromosomes in a variety of organisms. There is no correlation to be found with chromosome number and highness and lowness of life form (see link). Gorillas have 48 and humans 46. The carp has 104. The probability of something having occurred after the fact (Pa) is 1, thus Pa=1. The probability of your existence, despite all odds against the atoms that comprise you coming together in just the right way, is 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms )

Your examples of the isolated human populations are certainly the exception rather than the rule. I think any seriously anthropologic account of human history show it to be one of migration and mixing. Just look at humans in the modern world. I don’t think you are justified in dismissing migration as a factor in gene dissemination, and you once again seem to ignore the role of selection in increasing the frequency of beneficial genes.


Evolution theory explains that the tempo of evolution is largely determined by the effect of environmental pressures on changes in gene frequencies in the gene pools of populations (evolution). You neglected to mention this overriding criterion in your accounting of the factors that account for the “improvement” in the gene pool.

[DWK]

Somewhere down the line people have grasped at evolution as being "The" process instead of "A" process.

I would point out to you what you have stated is the difference. Creation is stated as "the" proccess; there is no debate. In biology, if you have a competing theory (or one that modifies the current theory, such as punctuated equilibrium, for instance) you are more than welcome to offer it up for peer review and testing.

Because much like Creationism, people are able to wrap there mind around it after a fashion and the theoretical and hypothetical processes have stagnated.

Saying a magic man did it is indeed a simple explanation that even a child could understand. "Theoretical and hypothetical processes have stagnated", care to back that statement up with any facts, or is this just your opinion? Biology is a diverse field that employs many people, and while archeology is not as vast, everything that is "dug up" only adds to our body of knowledge. Hardly stagnant.

Have you ever seen a black hole?

Are you implying that they don't exist, because no one has seen one? Or should I say, seen them directly? Do you have any idea, whatsoever, how much of our world is beyond direct observation? Have you ever seen a transistor on a CPU, like the one you are using? It is not possible. You have to use very sophisticated technology to "see" it. Effects of black holes have been observed, and the "math" has been done to show they are there.

Evolution is a nice theory and has become almost a mantra. I say again, show me the math.

I don't know how many different ways it can be said here, Theory in a technical sense means a legitimate area of understanding and study, i.e. Relativity Theory, Physics Theory, Electrical Theory, etc. and subject to rigorous testing and proofs. Not "just a guess". If you want to see the "math" for yourself enrole in your local community college or university and take some courses. Or even just read about it on line, there are lots of resouces online, like the one I listed before.

:dunno:You don't see a lot of papers coming from the Oral Roberts University regarding "Creation" from their Biology Department (yes, they have one!), but then, they do state they are a "Christian university with a liberal arts focus".

[Rod Knee]

Just wondering, would anyone be so kind as to provide me a rigorous mathematical formula showing the impossibility of human evolution, or of any other species? I would be particularily impressed with if multiple integrations were involved, and I suspect the inclusion of a few derivatives would also be warranted. That zig-zaggy summation sign would also be cool.

[Darky]

I think we're just going around in circles now.

Evolution is based on scientific fact.
ID is not.

Evolution can be disproven.
ID can not.

Evolution is a scientific theory.
ID is not.

Evolution is not based on religion.
ID is.

Evolution does not try to discount God or take away God.
ID is based only on the word God.
Evolution is based on interpretation of scientific fact. Just as everyone tries to say to discount the Bible, man's view and "agenda" impacts the way the data is interpreted.

Biblical Creationism is based on religion and the Word of God.
Intelligent Design is based on the probability that there is no way for all of this to have magically happened without the intervention of some higher power. Even if you don't believe in God, logic would state that there must be a "prime mover" as Einstein put it. If evolution and the big bang are indeed correct, where did the material come from to start it all off? If there is no "prime mover", that would mean that the initial matter was always there, making it eternal. However, as science has been showing, we know that everything is decaying. That would point towards someone or something having been there to create, or build it all. It was built and is slowly decaying.

My bias is obvious, I believe in Biblical Creation, but I think Intelligent Design has a place in science every bit as much as evolution.

[Darky]

Just wondering, would anyone be so kind as to provide me a rigorous mathematical formula showing the impossibility of human evolution, or of any other species? I would be particularily impressed with if multiple integrations were involved, and I suspect the inclusion of a few derivatives would also be warranted. That zig-zaggy summation sign would also be cool.
You provide a mathematical formula showing the likelihood first...;)
The probability is extraordinarily low. I however do not like math, and am not about to put in the effort for something that would be meaningless anyways.

If someone were to put together a mathematically sound equation showing us exactly how unlikely that all of the changes required would've happened at the right time, in the right order, in the same line for us to emerge as we are, would it actually change your mind? Probably not, right? :)

[Rod Knee]

A valid scientific theory can be used to make predictions. One prediction of evo theory is that transitional fossils should be found, and they have been many times over. It can be argued that any fossil/organism is transitional but I digress. In one of my posts above I referenced the "missing link" Australopithecene. In another, I linked to references of the fish/tetrapod transition. The whale clade is another in which a number of species documenting that transitional sequence have been found.

The geologic doctrine of uniformitarianism, which partially stands on the explanatory footing of evolution, is used without exception and with great success in predicting the location of natural resources. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty and money is on the line, no one bets on creationism or ID, not even the creationists/IDers. Just look at your portfolio and see where your investments are. I'll bet your an evolutionist too, even though you may not have realized it.

[Rod Knee]

Actually, 8mud should go first. He seems to be the only one to have much enthusiam for it and anyway, he's the one that keeps bringing it up.

I have enough trouble counting fingers and toes.

[Rod Knee]

Evolution is based on interpretation of scientific fact. Just as everyone tries to say to discount the Bible, man's view and "agenda" impacts the way the data is interpreted.

Biblical Creationism is based on religion and the Word of God.
Intelligent Design is based on the probability that there is no way for all of this to have magically happened without the intervention of some higher power. Even if you don't believe in God, logic would state that there must be a "prime mover" as Einstein put it. If evolution and the big bang are indeed correct, where did the material come from to start it all off? If there is no "prime mover", that would mean that the initial matter was always there, making it eternal. However, as science has been showing, we know that everything is decaying. That would point towards someone or something having been there to create, or build it all. It was built and is slowly decaying.

My bias is obvious, I believe in Biblical Creation, but I think Intelligent Design has a place in science every bit as much as evolution.


I agree with much of what you say there, certainly the jist of it. Somewhere something happened that is beyond our cognitive ability. To get philosophical, I don't know that science will ever get close to explaining why anything at all exists, or where consciousness comes from. I just think science has a heck of a good naturalistic explanation for biodiversity and fossil succession.

[8Mud]

The root evidentiary bases for evolution are biogeography, biostratigraphic succession, homology, and genetics, not mathematical formulae. The “need to evolve” is neither a positive or a negative, it just is as there is no goal to evolution. Your use of the term “higher life form” is vague, at least certainly not rigorously defined to be conversationally precise. But I gather that you equate higher life forms as more complex life forms. Increases in complexity are not necessary for evolution to occur.


At any rate, your request for a mathematical accounting of the probability of higher forms evolving since the last extinction event is a red herring since from a standpoint of genetics, modern organisms (including humans) need not be more complex than the so-called simpler organisms from which they evolved. Remember the mechanisms for evolution are rooted in genetics not mathematical gymnastics. Linked is a reference showing that the number of chromosomes in a variety of organisms. There is no correlation to be found with chromosome number and highness and lowness of life form (see link). Gorillas have 48 and humans 46. The carp has 104. The probability of something having occurred after the fact (Pa) is 1, thus Pa=1. The probability of your existence, despite all odds against the atoms that comprise you coming together in just the right way, is 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms )

Your examples of the isolated human populations are certainly the exception rather than the rule. I think any seriously anthropologic account of human history show it to be one of migration and mixing. Just look at humans in the modern world. I don’t think you are justified in dismissing migration as a factor in gene dissemination, and you once again seem to ignore the role of selection in increasing the frequency of beneficial genes.


Evolution theory explains that the tempo of evolution is largely determined by the effect of environmental pressures on changes in gene frequencies in the gene pools of populations (evolution). You neglected to mention this overriding criterion in your accounting of the factors that account for the “improvement” in the gene pool.

Last first, gene frequencies, think this through. Remember there has to be two sets, they have to be compatible, not just match in number, mutation is unlikely. Why would evolution work in one direction at all, wouldn't many changes, cancel themselves out over time? The frequency of genes for the present model vastly outnumber the availability of the evolved gene. The tendency seems to be against more than minor regional evolution. Some speak of creation as being the magic that created humanity, some speak of evolution in the same way. Why not evolve to the simple, instead of the complex? How would the changes (assuming they are beneficial) be disseminated over most of the globe or even a few hundred miles away in numbers large enough to set (be repeated with any regularity) in the native population (I see the similarities in humans vastly outnumbering the differences). The tendencies seem to be towards the stable rather than the evolutionary. Why not an arm growing out of a forehead? Even the smallest changes are a process and not an event. Not only a process to the results, but an internal process that allows the change to take place without catastrophic results in the host.
The leap from chemical soup to life, is immense. From a single cell organism to a two cell organism, that doesn't eat it's other part, immense. Take a break here and wonder why if it happened once it would ever happen again, immense.
The change from a simple organism to one that could move, immense.
OK, factor in a succession of minor and major extinction events. Take any life form that doesn't reproduce at a prodigious pace as an example, repeating the process, almost repeating it from scratch.
A Hottentot can likely mate with a Laplander and produce viable offspring. I really don't see any "major" sort of evolution apparent in mankind since it wandered out of Africa.
Extrapolate backwards, from what you are, to a single cell organism.
Or using my favorite analogy, throwing all the component parts of a 727 Jumbo jet into the air and having it fall to earth a complete working example over and over again. What are the chances of it happening once? And if it changes, why would it change to the more complex or more efficient and not back into a Cessna? What are the chances of it happening over and over again in a series of evolutionary events (or processes), without the possibility of success (compatible parts) being available at all. People may argue the component parts are already available in the genes. Take a small primate, bipedal and extrapolate to a large hairless ape, how many of it's genes are compatible with mine, how many internal functions, chemical or structural are viable alternatives?. Evolution with external events driving the changes, many of these events near catastrophe (plague etc.) as the driving force for evolution. Mutation? What are the odds of any mutation as being viable? Those that are viable being a benefit?
From what I have read, we can follow the evolution of many dinosaurs better than we can catalog the evolution of man. Great gapping huge holes in the theorized lineage. Most of which can be explained by paralleled evolution and not lineage per say.
The father of evolution, Darwin himself, states his theory was a step (component) to understanding.
A simple probability table could tell you if a person is feasible, whether the building block theory from past to present is the sole likely process or not.
Then you could repeat the table for most every living creature, including the amoeba, separately. The magic repeating itself again and again and surviving.
I keep coming back to the same question, what are the odds?

[8Mud]

Repost, edit gremlins.

[DWK]

The father of evolution, Darwin himself, states his theory was a step (component) to understanding.
A simple probability table could tell you if a person is feasible, whether the building block theory from past to present is the sole likely process or not.
Then you could repeat the table for most every living creature, including the amoeba, separately. The magic repeating itself again and again and surviving.
I keep coming back to the same question, what are the odds?

The more I read your posts with all the "probabilities" and "feasabilities" and "odds", the more it sounds like you expect evolution theory to be some sort of recipe to create life. It is not. The "probability" of us exisiting is exactly 1, we are here. Evolution explains the diversity of life, how we got to "here", based on observation and empirical data. Just as theoretical physicist may never know how or if a big bang happened, evolutionary biologists may never know how the first self replicating chain of molecules happened, but the proccesses of biology and evolution are pretty well understood even if a significant portion of the population chooses to be ignorant and believe in magic.

[Rod Knee]

Last first, gene frequencies, think this through. Remember there has to be two sets, they have to be compatible, not just match in number, mutation is unlikely. Why would evolution work in one direction at all, wouldn't many changes, cancel themselves out over time? The frequency of genes for the present model vastly outnumber the availability of the evolved gene. The tendency seems to be against more than minor regional evolution. Some speak of creation as being the magic that created humanity, some speak of evolution in the same way. Why not evolve to the simple, instead of the complex? How would the changes (assuming they are beneficial) be disseminated over most of the globe or even a few hundred miles away in numbers large enough to set (be repeated with any regularity) in the native population (I see the similarities in humans vastly outnumbering the differences). The tendencies seem to be towards the stable rather than the evolutionary. Why not an arm growing out of a forehead? Even the smallest changes are a process and not an event. Not only a process to the results, but an internal process that allows the change to take place without catastrophic results in the host.
The leap from chemical soup to life, is immense. From a single cell organism to a two cell organism, that doesn't eat it's other part, immense. Take a break here and wonder why if it happened once it would ever happen again, immense.
The change from a simple organism to one that could move, immense.
OK, factor in a succession of minor and major extinction events. Take any life form that doesn't reproduce at a prodigious pace as an example, repeating the process, almost repeating it from scratch.
A Hottentot can likely mate with a Laplander and produce viable offspring. I really don't see any "major" sort of evolution apparent in mankind since it wandered out of Africa.
Extrapolate backwards, from what you are, to a single cell organism.
Or using my favorite analogy, throwing all the component parts of a 727 Jumbo jet into the air and having it fall to earth a complete working example over and over again. What are the chances of it happening once? And if it changes, why would it change to the more complex or more efficient and not back into a Cessna? What are the chances of it happening over and over again in a series of evolutionary events (or processes), without the possibility of success (compatible parts) being available at all. People may argue the component parts are already available in the genes. Take a small primate, bipedal and extrapolate to a large hairless ape, how many of it's genes are compatible with mine, how many internal functions, chemical or structural are viable alternatives?. Evolution with external events driving the changes, many of these events near catastrophe (plague etc.) as the driving force for evolution. withoution that airplanes don't have DNA nor do they sexually reproduce? From what I have read, we can follow the evolution of many dinosaurs better than we can catalog the evolution of man. Great gapping huge holes in the theorized lineage. Most of which can be explained by paralleled evolution and not lineage per say.
The father of evolution, Darwin himself, states his theory was a step (component) to understanding.
A simple probability table could tell you if a person is feasible, whether the building block theory from past to present is the sole likely process or not.
Then you could repeat the table for most every living creature, including the amoeba, separately. The magic repeating itself again and again and surviving.
I keep coming back to the same question, what are the odds?

"Why would evolution work in one direction at all, wouldn't many changes, cancel themselves out over time?"

Only the changes that confer an adative advatage and increased fitness are preserved by natural selection. Why do I have to point that out after every one of your posts?

"How would the changes (assuming they are beneficial) be disseminated over most of the globe or even a few hundred miles away in numbers large enough to set (be repeated with any regularity) in the native population (I see the similarities in humans vastly outnumbering the differences). "

Migration, sexual reproduction, gene flow, and natural selection.


The tendencies seem to be towards the stable rather than the evolutionary. Why not an arm growing out of a forehead?

In the modern world, yes, I agree we are genetically static. We have learned to carry our environment with us, like when we put on a parka in the winter. We have learned a behavior that largely precudes the necessity for adapting to enviromental change. That's a recent development though. You don't have an arm growing out your head because you didn't inherit that trait from your parents nor do you carry a mutation for that feature.


"What are the chances of it [airplane assembley] happening over and over again in a series of evolutionary events (or processes), the possibility of success (compatible parts) being available at all. "

Did I mention that airplanes don't have DNA nor do they sexually reproduce?


"Mutation? What are the odds of any mutation as being viable? Those that are viable being a benefit?"

The odds of any single mutation being beneficial are small. But did I mention that natural selection retains the beneficial ones and increases their frequencies in successive generations?

"I keep coming back to the same question, what are the odds?"

1

[8Mud]

The more I read your posts with all the "probabilities" and "feasabilities" and "odds", the more it sounds like you expect evolution theory to be some sort of recipe to create life. It is not. The "probability" of us exisiting is exactly 1, we are here. Evolution explains the diversity of life, how we got to "here", based on observation and empirical data. Just as theoretical physicist may never know how or if a big bang happened, evolutionary biologists may never know how the first self replicating chain of molecules happened, but the proccesses of biology and evolution are pretty well understood even if a significant portion of the population chooses to be ignorant and believe in magic.

I'd call evolution magic (guess I'm ignorant), whether it is the sole force behind, single cell to you or just a very small part of a larger plan.
IMO ignorance is not opening yourself up to other possibilities. Ignorance is a closed mind.
If theoretical math can be used to explain the origin of the universe, it can be used to explain us. Or at least used as a yard stick to determine the probability of a theory being valid or even as a proof for direct observation.
The probability of you existing is 1, the probability of the other 6 odd billion of us, plus all the life forms on earth is a substantially larger number.

[WB9YZU]

I'd call evolution magic (guess I'm ignorant), whether it is the sole force behind, single cell to you or just a very small part of a larger plan.
IMO ignorance is not opening yourself up to other possibilities. Ignorance is a closed mind.
If theoretical math can be used to explain the origin of the universe, it can be used to explain us. Or at least used as a yard stick to determine the probability of a theory being valid or even as a proof for direct observation.
The probability of you existing is 1, the probability of the other 6 odd billion of us, plus all the life forms on earth is a substantially larger number.

What a load of pig poo.

[8Mud]

"Why would evolution work in one direction at all, wouldn't many changes, cancel themselves out over time?"

Only the changes that confer an adative advatage and increased fitness are preserved by natural selection. Why do I have to point that out after every one of your posts?

"How would the changes (assuming they are beneficial) be disseminated over most of the globe or even a few hundred miles away in numbers large enough to set (be repeated with any regularity) in the native population (I see the similarities in humans vastly outnumbering the differences). "

Migration, sexual reproduction, gene flow, and natural selection.


The tendencies seem to be towards the stable rather than the evolutionary. Why not an arm growing out of a forehead?

In the modern world, yes, I agree we are genetically static. We have learned to carry our environment with us, like when we put on a parka in the winter. We have learned a behavior that largely precudes the necessity for adapting to enviromental change. That's a recent development though. You don't have an arm growing out your head because you didn't inherit that trait from your parents nor do you carry a mutation for that feature.


"What are the chances of it [airplane assembley] happening over and over again in a series of evolutionary events (or processes), the possibility of success (compatible parts) being available at all. "

Did I mention that airplanes don't have DNA nor do they sexually reproduce?


"Mutation? What are the odds of any mutation as being viable? Those that are viable being a benefit?"

The odds of any single mutation being beneficial are small. But did I mention that natural selection retains the beneficial ones and increases their frequencies in successive generations?

"I keep coming back to the same question, what are the odds?"

1

You have to figure in basic gentics, an adaptive advantage has to be spread over a wide enough area and with a sufficient number of mates to ever repeat itself with any regulatory. It happens, but the process for just one is complex and subject to being culled on numerous levels for whatever reason. Using old DNA for present situations is regression, not evolution.
The tendency is towards stability and not change. The birth rate in humans low, the best guess I've been able to find is around 7 offspring, many more that that is unsustainable. Depending on the circumstances many of these die young.
In other animals a change can take 60 generations to set, become repeatable with any regularity.
Back to Otzi the ice man, frozen in a glacier 5,500 years ago. Very little difference between him and me.

I use the Airplane analogy because the sum of the parts and processes involved are about the same for it and a human. And for both plane and human to evolve to it's present complexity, would require roughly the same number of events to take place. Your theory as I understand it, is that it happened by accident over time and was influenced by external events. If it crashed it was a failure, used less fuel or flew higher a success. It started out a single rivet and grew from there without any real plan or design.
My question is why would it not stay a rivet? Again with the external influences, rivet number two magically appeared and everybody knows two rivets are better than one, right.

Sorry I have to crash, we'll discuss again some other time.

[Rod Knee]

Using old DNA for present situations is regression, not evolution.

Your theory as I understand it, is that it happened by accident over time and was influenced by external events.


" Using old DNA for present situations is regression, not evolution"

Having a baby is regression?????



"Your theory as I understand it, is that it happened by accident over time"

No, did I not mention the role of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution?

[DWK]

I'd call evolution magic (guess I'm ignorant), whether it is the sole force behind, single cell to you or just a very small part of a larger plan.

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."
Carl Sagan (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/carlsagan124576.html)

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."
Carl Sagan (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/carlsagan130525.html)

Ignorance is just simple a lack of information, not a refusal to look.
Richard Dawkins was once asked, if he could teach evolution to every child, would he? His response was that he would much rather teach them critical thinking skills, it's much more important to understand the information that is presented. I don't understand relativistic physics, but I believe there are people who do. I don't think it's "magic" just because I don't understand it; because I know there are properties and laws that establish it, and likewise, in evolution you can't cross a dog and cat. That would be magic. Furthermore, thanks to evolution and biology, we know WHY you can't cross a dog and cat.

IMO ignorance is not opening yourself up to other possibilities. Ignorance is a closed mind.

Minds are like a parachutes - just because because yours doesn't work doesn't mean you can borrow mine! (Just a joke)

I consider myself open to other possibilities, but I try to follow some rules. For me, it's kind of like commercials, I love watching Vince and his Sham-Wow, but if all you got is a smile, pitch and testimonials I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed.

If theoretical math can be used to explain the origin of the universe, it can be used to explain us. Or at least used as a yard stick to determine the probability of a theory being valid or even as a proof for direct observation.

"Explain the origin of the universe"? I don't think theoretical math has done that, but then, maybe you know something I don't. As far as "probability of a theory being valid . . ." I don't understand what you are saying; the way I read that is like saying "use theoretical math to prove an apple is indeed an apple".

The probability of you existing is 1, the probability of the other 6 odd billion of us, plus all the life forms on earth is a substantially larger number.

No, it's still ONE. Just as flipping a two headed coin will come up as "heads" is 1/1, we six billion plus exist, there is no probability that tomorrow we will wake as something else.

Since you like these probability questions so much, would you indulge me a question? Of the some 2500+ gods and deities that man has worshiped over the years, what is the probability that yours is "the real one"?

[bigalpha]

I keep seeing this reference to 747's. Don't forget that the entire human race didn't evolve in one step. It didn't just appear. It evolved from simpler life forms.

It started with single celled organisms. They then got just a tiny bit more complicated. Then just a tiny bit more complicated. Over a period of time, those tiny bits add up.

[8Mud]

" Using old DNA for present situations is regression, not evolution"

Having a baby is regression?????



"Your theory as I understand it, is that it happened by accident over time"

No, did I not mention the role of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution?

I'm talking about old as the large part of our DNA that is either unused, common to many other animals or the uses for it are poorly understood. Old DNA as what you are this moment, your gene set, evolved in a greater or lesser degree (dependent on your theory).
What drives evolution? Some may be preference/choice, some is likely climactic (though you'll have to explain why people living in the far north tend to have less hair than around the Mediterranean), disease maybe, changing food sources. If there is no reason to evolve, why change at all? Fine tuning maybe?
Lets suppose some lucky person is born with exceptionally long and strong thumb and forefinger. Could be advantageous, maybe for picking food from plant life, The long forefinger might prick the interest of a likely mate, might come in handy if there is no mate around.
First question, where did the gene set come from for the handy finger and thumb? Accident, luck or design? Even if the finger and thumb were an incremental thing and not all at once? Why would the thumb and forefinger persist into the next generation, especially if the lucky guy was a wanderer and not living in a fixed local. If he was a wanderer wouldn't this lower the chances of the gene ever finding a match and repeating itself. If the gene was focused in a particular geographic area, it would actually be evolution, maybe micro evolution, but unlikely to be widely disseminated in an open environment (not an island or geographically isolated area) and not swallowed back up by the existing gene pool.
Fine tuning or incremental changes of a largely static gene pool is a really, really slow process. Is 65,000,000 years long enough? Just 77,000 human generations (best case), likely far fewer.
My opinion leans towards us as being engineered, not the literal in my image thing, but applied in a broader interpretation.
A basic model with the ability to evolve and adapt over time. With an included party pack of genetic information to deal with circumstance and attack by other living organisms (bacteria, viruses whatever). Each individual unique, but also carryng a likely eclectic set of possibly valuable alternative genes for future happenstances.

[bigalpha]

Evolution is driven by and caused by a variety of factors, all of which have been covered earlier in the thread.

Changes don't have to be global for it to be considered evolution. A species can also evolve based around a negative difference too; it doesn't have to be positive. Of course, it's kind of unlikely, and probably wouldn't last long.

[8Mud]

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."
Carl Sagan (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/carlsagan124576.html)

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."
Carl Sagan (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/carlsagan130525.html)

Ignorance is just simple a lack of information, not a refusal to look.
Richard Dawkins was once asked, if he could teach evolution to every child, would he? His response was that he would much rather teach them critical thinking skills, it's much more important to understand the information that is presented. I don't understand relativistic physics, but I believe there are people who do. I don't think it's "magic" just because I don't understand it; because I know there are properties and laws that establish it, and likewise, in evolution you can't cross a dog and cat. That would be magic. Furthermore, thanks to evolution and biology, we know WHY you can't cross a dog and cat.



Minds are like a parachutes - just because because yours doesn't work doesn't mean you can borrow mine! (Just a joke)

I consider myself open to other possibilities, but I try to follow some rules. For me, it's kind of like commercials, I love watching Vince and his Sham-Wow, but if all you got is a smile, pitch and testimonials I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed.



"Explain the origin of the universe"? I don't think theoretical math has done that, but then, maybe you know something I don't. As far as "probability of a theory being valid . . ." I don't understand what you are saying; the way I read that is like saying "use theoretical math to prove an apple is indeed an apple".



No, it's still ONE. Just as flipping a two headed coin will come up as "heads" is 1/1, we six billion plus exist, there is no probability that tomorrow we will wake as something else.

Since you like these probability questions so much, would you indulge me a question? Of the some 2500+ gods and deities that man has worshiped over the years, what is the probability that yours is "the real one"?

I've been around for awhile, you really have no idea how much of the stuff I was taught in school or even college was crap. How much of science is actually politics and how little actually scientific method. Especially in my branch which was to dabble in anthropology and sociology and later into horticulture and wildlife management.
I once did a thesis on why the vast majority of plant life within a reasonable walking distance from an Anasazi cliff dwelling, is still edible after 3000 some odd years of the Anasazi having vanished. The climate in the area then was obviously, less arid than it is now. If the plants have evolved much at all, most still retained sufficient food value for humans. No small feat actually, you could starve to death eating the same plants, as say a common herbivore normally eats.
The language has changed some over the years, the theories and methodology are largely the same (with some exceptions, many of which are never disseminated).
We haven't even touched on genetic memory or where random recessives come from and there uses in evolution.
One test of a scientific process is to reverse the process and see if the results hold true. You can do this with math on many occasions and use this to validate cause and effect.

The question I'd ask is if they aren't all the same Deity and somebodies feeble attempts at explaining the unexplainable with insufficient language. Like being a witness at a car wreck, the witnesses standing in a 360 degree circle around the accident, explaining what they saw, all with varying degrees of language skill and expecting them to all come up with vaguely similar stories. Better yet witnesses to a UFO and Zeppelin accident.

[8Mud]

I keep seeing this reference to 747's. Don't forget that the entire human race didn't evolve in one step. It didn't just appear. It evolved from simpler life forms.

It started with single celled organisms. They then got just a tiny bit more complicated. Then just a tiny bit more complicated. Over a period of time, those tiny bits add up.

Evolution is one word, easy to wrap your mind around, a 727 is something like a million parts and processes that I use to convey the complexity of the whole process of evolution. I use it to convey the likelyhood of random being the vehicle for change. Roughly the same number of parts and processes going on in your body (which we understand a whole lot less than we do a 727). And like I mentioned before it's not my analogy but borrowed.

[DWK]

First a disclaimer: I have already begun to partake in my weekend inibreation, my spellling may very well be off, as well as my train of thought :laugh3:

I've been around for awhile, you really have no idea how much of the stuff I was taught in school or even colledge was crap. How much of science is actually politics and how little actually scientific method. Especially in my branch which was to dabble in anthropology and sociology and later into horticulture and wildlife management.

As well, you are not aware of my educational experiences. I am not so concerned of your education, but your reasoning. I understand that politics and bias come into play, but my belief is that scientific method eventually prevails.

We haven't even touched on genetic memory or where random recessives come from and there uses in evolution.

True enough. I've read some interesting articles recently on "genetic memory", but nothing that I would raise to the level of "magic". "Recessives"? Just because some are not currently used is not a reason to discard it, which may be why we have so many "recessive" genes.

One test of a scientific process is to reverse the process and see if the results hold true. You can do this with math on many occasions and use this to validate cause and effect.

You can do this and many physics math problems can be reversed regardless of time, but in real life time is a factor. We have yet to unexplode a bomb, but mathmatically this is possible.

The question I'd ask is if they aren't all the same Deity and somebodies feeble attempts at explaining the unexplainable with insufficient language.

1) Why would a lesser deity be confused with a greater deity, i.e. I am the god of Rain, or I am the god of Crops, etc. and I am the god of EVERYTHING?
2) The bible (and it's explanation of Creation) is the inspired word of god, how could this be a "feeble" attempt to explain anything be insufficient, is the god of everything also feeble?
3) (this is one that really gets me . . .) "Thou shalt not put any Gods before me." The god of Everything is aware that we worship lessor gods? Why would we ever worship a lessor god, esp. when have been told (by the god of everything) that there is only one?

Like being a witness at a car wreck, the witnesses standing in a 360 degree circle around the accident, explaining what they saw, all with varying degrees of language skill and expecting them to all come up with vaguely similar stories. Better yet witnesses to a UFO and Zeppelin accident.

At the moment, I am drunk and I understand this PERFECTLY, what more can I say than, "I concure!"

Unfortunatly, in my enlightened state I also know that tomorrow I will not understand this increadible insight and in an effort to minimize confusion and save time, just let me ask: what the F*** does this mean?!

[Deadman 94 xj]

DKW,
God called, he said you suck. For no other reason than the fact that your posts are nothing but dribble that don't amount to squat.

I'm looking for a little enlightenment here and so far it's just a bunch of mumbojumbo. Step it up man! Stop blindly replying to quotes and come up with something on your own.

[Boatwrench]

[QUOTE=DWK;244295859]First a disclaimer: I have already begun to partake in my weekend inibreation, my spellling may very well be off, as well as my train of thought :laugh3:

Me too!






So I have been thinking of crocodiles and sharks.

Lots of animals have gone extinct between then and now. Giant armadillos, giant sloths, wolly mammoths, sabre cats, etc. Wasted to natural selection? The ice age? Prior to those there were the dinosaurs all gone, were they really killed off in on clasmatic event, evolved into birds or again wasted to natural selection?

So the crocs and sharks, left over from a zillion years ago. Why did they survive through those periods and not the others? Top of the food chain? How has the present day crocs and sharks evolved from their real old predecessors? If at all? If all the other species have evolved, changed, morphed why haven't these two? Their world has certainly changed.

I don't know.

[8Mud]

Unfortunatly, in my enlightened state I also know that tomorrow I will not understand this increadible insight and in an effort to minimize confusion and save time, just let me ask: what the F*** does this mean?!

What it means IMO is the Bible is largely compiled by men, translated and edited, likely with an agenda. The original authors, largely in seldom used languages (some dead languages) , tried to convey thoughts with the language of that time, in ways that lesser people find hard if not impossible to grasp on many levels.
The word of God is bound to loose some impact and meaning after a series of re-writes and translations. It's doubtful a Thesaurus type methodology didn't exist during the re-writes and translations. There are a finite number of words in any language.

Somebody mentioned Oral Roberts in an earlier post. I meant him once on a road in Kansas, I stopped to help a motor home that was having obvious trouble on a largely deserted highway. I was on my way from California to Kentucky, almost out of gas and money. He gave me a handful of cash as a thank you, that lasted almost to the penny for gas to get me from Kansas to Kentucky, unsolicited by me.
Now translate that into Aremaic and see what it sounds like.

Thank you for sharing.

[DWK]

DKW,
God called, he said you suck. For no other reason than the fact that your posts are nothing but dribble that don't amount to squat.

I'm looking for a little enlightenment here and so far it's just a bunch of mumbojumbo. Step it up man! Stop blindly replying to quotes and come up with something on your own.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5JXbyw1C0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Seq2rwKucE&feature=related

[bigalpha]

Evolution is one word, easy to wrap your mind around, a 727 is something like a million parts and processes that I use to convey the complexity of the whole process of evolution. I use it to convey the likelyhood of random being the vehicle for change. Roughly the same number of parts and processes going on in your body (which we understand a whole lot less than we do a 727). And like I mentioned before it's not my analogy but borrowed.

Sure, I understand your analogy. The flaw in it comes from the fact that evolution does not work that way. Evolution isn't going from a frog to an alligator. It's going from a frog with a 10" tongue to one with an 11" tongue. It's about small baby-steps in between.


As you see, the odds are pretty small, but they are not impossible.

[bigalpha]

What it means IMO is the Bible is largely compiled by men, translated and edited, likely with an agenda. The original authors, largely in seldom used languages (some dead languages) , tried to convey thoughts with the language of that time, in ways that lesser people find hard if not impossible to grasp on many levels.
The word of God is bound to loose some impact and meaning after a series of re-writes and translations. It's doubtful a Thesaurus type methodology didn't exist during the re-writes and translations. There are a finite number of words in any language.




This is the issue with believing the bible word for word. Maybe "day" wasn't actually "day".

[Boatwrench]

Maybe "day" wasn't actually "day".

I dunno. I see the results of three days worth of light rain around here, creeks rising, intersections flooded, solo cars spinning out, the local news with big banners & leads "Storm Watch 7" I can just image how really screwed up we would be with 40 days of it. ;) It would be like 13x as bad!!!!!

[Rod Knee]

I'm talking about old as the large part of our DNA that is either unused, common to many other animals or the uses for it are poorly understood. Old DNA as what you are this moment, your gene set, evolved in a greater or lesser degree (dependent on your theory).
What drives evolution? Some may be preference/choice, some is likely climactic (though you'll have to explain why people living in the far north tend to have less hair than around the Mediterranean), disease maybe, changing food sources. If there is no reason to evolve, why change at all? Fine tuning maybe?
Lets suppose some lucky person is born with exceptionally long and strong thumb and forefinger. Could be advantageous, maybe for picking food from plant life, The long forefinger might prick the interest of a likely mate, might come in handy if there is no mate around.
First question, where did the gene set come from for the handy finger and thumb? Accident, luck or design? Even if the finger and thumb were an incremental thing and not all at once? Why would the thumb and forefinger persist into the next generation, especially if the lucky guy was a wanderer and not living in a fixed local. If he was a wanderer wouldn't this lower the chances of the gene ever finding a match and repeating itself. If the gene was focused in a particular geographic area, it would actually be evolution, maybe micro evolution, but unlikely to be widely disseminated in an open environment (not an island or geographically isolated area) and not swallowed back up by the existing gene pool.
Fine tuning or incremental changes of a largely static gene pool is a really, really slow process. Is 65,000,000 years long enough? Just 77,000 human generations (best case), likely far fewer.
My opinion leans towards us as being engineered, not the literal in my image thing, but applied in a broader interpretation.
A basic model with the ability to evolve and adapt over time. With an included party pack of genetic information to deal with circumstance and attack by other living organisms (bacteria, viruses whatever). Each individual unique, but also carryng a likely eclectic set of possibly valuable alternative genes for future happenstances.

"I'm talking about old as the large part of our DNA that is either unused, common to many other animals or the uses for it are poorly understood. Old DNA as what you are this moment, your gene set, evolved in a greater or lesser degree (dependent on your theory)."

Reply: Well, the thing is, when you reproduce you pass along one allele of each gene pair of all your genes, not just the ones that are uniquely human. It takes all them along with those inputed from your partner during meoisis to make another human. So when you say "using old DNA for present situations is regression", you are indeed saying that having a baby is regression. I don't think you really believe that, I think you were just "winging it".


"What drives evolution?"

Reply: Have I mentioned the role of natural selection in determining the course of evolution lately?


"Why would the thumb and forefinger persist into the next generation, especially if the lucky guy was a wanderer and not living in a fixed local. "

Reply: If it confered an adaptive advantage, they would be selected for and persist into successive generations. Have I mentioned the role of natural selection in evolution lately?


Look, you are certainly welcome to your belief in supernatural engineering and maybe life started out through some conscious intervention, I don't know. Remember, evo theory addresses adaption after life started, not life's origin. ID is not science because science can only investigate and verify natural causation. As I mentioned in different threads, evolution has a basis in falsifiability and predictive success.

If geographically isolated areas around the world did not host unique life, evolution would make no sense. Thus evolution has a basis in falsifiability. ID works with the observed biogeography of the world, but it would also work if the world was biologically homogenous, so its not grounded in falsifiability. The same hold true for biostratigraphic succession and homology.

I mentioned the predictive success of evolution theory in regard to the identification of transitional fossils. So far, no one on the creationist/ID side of the issue has stepped up to the plate and given examples of predictions successfully made by creationism/ID.

[8Mud]

Reply: Well, the thing is, when you reproduce you pass along one allele of each gene pair of all your genes, not just the ones that are uniquely human. It takes all them along with those inputed from your partner during meoisis to make another human. So when you say "using old DNA for present situations is regression", you are indeed saying that having a baby is regression. I don't think you really believe that, I think you were just "winging it".

No what I am saying is having a baby is largely a static process, one allele tossed out into a gene pool has little chance of repeating itself, finding a match, finding enough matches with enough frequency to become even a trait, much less evolution.
Somebody mentioned the great flood, funny I was researching that not to long ago. The Black Sea event is slowly gaining acceptance. Something like 135,000 cubic MILES of water displacing itself from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea basin, something like 2000 feet below sea level, had to have made one heck of a splash.

[Rod Knee]

Thats fine for you to say having a baby is static, just like its ok to say having one is regression, but neither statements are sufficiently precise to convey much meaning, not to mention the two statement contradicting one another. But that's what happens when you wing it.

A single allele actually has a good advantage of reoccurring if it confers an adaptive advantage. Have I mentioned the role of natural selection in retaining genes that confer an adaptive advantage lately?

[8Mud]

Thats fine for you to say having a baby is static, just like its ok to say having one is regression, but neither statements are sufficiently precise to convey much meaning, not to mention the two statement contradicting one another. But that's what happens when you wing it.

A single allele actually has a good advantage of reoccurring if it confers an adaptive advantage. Have I mentioned the role of natural selection in retaining genes that confer an adaptive advantage lately?

You keep repeating a single allele (nice word sounds professional) has a good chance of repeating like it's a fact, it's not. Why would it persist, maybe as a trait but as evolution. Speaking about winging it.
You have a herd of German Shepard's, you throw a Poodle out there, come back and check in say 20 generations, show me the Poodle. You'd likely see some minor differences in the Shepards maybe just normal common changes, maybe Poodle influence.
Do some genetic research, real world. Just a change of hair color, from an event, can take many generations to repeat with any regularity in a controlled breeding program. If the change in hair color is an incremental process you can multiply (by a factor) the generations needed for it to become common. Not even figuring in dominanat genes from recessives.

Every one of your ancestors standing crotch to butt in a line would be 8-10 miles long all the way back to Homo whatever (figuring the tendency is for bigger feet in later generations). They would fit in a Football stadium.

[Rod Knee]

It would persist through selection if it conferred an adaptive advantage. Have I mentioned natural selection lately? No I haven't heard of a herd of dogs. Packs yes, herds no. Without some sort of selection for poodle characteristics you are right, the poodle features would be obscurred. Have I mentioned the importance of selection of features that are of adaptive advantage lately?

[8Mud]

It would persist through selection if it conferred an adaptive advantage. Have I mentioned natural selection lately? No I haven't heard of a herd of dogs. Packs yes, herds no. Without some sort of selection for poodle characteristics you are right, the poodle features would be obscurred. Have I mentioned the importance of selection of features that are of adaptive advantage lately?

OK an adaptive advantage would be four nipples and multiple offspring, right?
The whole reproductive setup for Homo whatever, seems to favor the established gene pool, not encourage evolution.

[Rod Knee]

Four nipples on a baby? No, I wouldn't think they would confer an adaptive advantage. Multiple offspring would in of itself not be advantagious but those members of a population of a soecies with more offspring do tend to pass along more of their genes than those that have fewer. The fittest members of a population of a species tend to have the most offspring preferentially passing along the benficial genes that confer the greater fitness.

As I have indicated previously, I don't think that modern humans are evolving to any sidnificant degree, so indeed, the gene pool of humanity is not changing much. Some cultures/nationalities however, place a higher priority on having a lot of kids, so gene frequencies associated with some very superficial traits may be changing, but that's it. But this overall genetic stasis stems from modern humans no longer being genetically effected by environmental influences. We have learned to carry our environment with us like I've mentioned before. We live in heated houses with air conditioning for the summer heat. We wear parkas outside in the winter. We use SCUBA gear underwater. Many of us use sunscreen to compensate for insufficient melonin in our skin. I see no evidence for a unique reproductive system in modern humans that favors genetic stasis.

[Jeep XJ_YJ]

Annunaki

[DWK]

The funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs)

The slightly more serious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

[Deadman 94 xj]

The slightly more serious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div


Are you trying to convince us that science exists? :scared:

The creationism vs. Science argument is pretty lame. I'd agree that any "creationists" that claim science does not, is ignorant.

I won't comment on the first video. It's funny. Still doesn't add merit to this discussion.

Try again...

[DWK]

I'd agree that any "creationists" that claim science does not, is ignorant.

:huh:

I won't comment on the first video. It's funny.

:doh: That would be a comment.

Still doesn't add merit to this discussion.

Just what do you bring to the table, the inability to form a coherent sentance?

[Deadman 94 xj]

Just what do you bring to the table, the inability to form a coherent sentance?

It's sentence...

[DWK]

It's sentence...

Damn, you nailed me, bro! A typo. Really.

So, you bring: Incoherent sentences & spell check.

[bigalpha]

Enough of the unrelated arguing.

[Darky]

Damn, you nailed me, bro! A typo. Really.

So, you bring: Incoherent sentences & spell check.
Incoherent would be non capitalized following the colon...


:D

[Deadman 94 xj]

...:D and really would have a ? after it.

(back on topic)

[FarmerMatt]

Incoherent would be non capitalized following the colon...


:D
Followed by who's colon? This could get messy...

[Darky]

Followed by who's colon? This could get messy...
Get too close to someone's colon and your likely to become incoherent.

[Deadman 94 xj]

Get too close to someone's colon and your likely to become incoherent.


Hey, I resent that remark.

:D

The evolution of this thread has been ruined.