Do you believe in evolution?

[r0beph]

threads like these annoy me. Stop arguing evolution. In my opinion Evolution is the BEST hypothesis thus far. i'm sure it's not completely dead on, maybe not even that close. But it's much closer than any ID crap I've heard thus far. If you wish to debate further please offer some credible hypothesis of your own. Also, god didn't stick fossils in the earth to test christians. (He did it to give christian paleontologists jobs, what a greta guy)

And for Camp There-Are-No-Transitional-Fossils. How many total number of creatures in all the past species, including current day, have existed in total. Now how many fossils have been found. The ratio is I'm sure nearing a billion to one, if not more. To say that the lack of anything disproves the theory of evolution is a chalkbag full of saw dust. ie. Useless and pointless.

 

[DrWho]

That is not what I am referring to.

What is your definition of "species"?



What is your definition of species?

A dog is a dog and a cat is a cat and a person is a person. All dogs are dogs and all cats are cats and all people are people. Any four year old can label cats as cats and knows that they are not dogs, etc.

We can look at the DNA of an individual and determine what species it is because with few exceptions the DNA of every member of a species is distinct from all other species.

Still there are those odd exceptions. For example a person with Downs syndrome does not have the same genetic makeup of other humans but clearly is human.

For this reason a human is anyone whose parents were human. An oak tree is any tree which is immediately descended from two oak trees, etc.

Speciation would be when one species changes into another. This has never been observed.

All the ancestors of horses would clearly be labeled as horses by any four year old. Scientists might label one an eohippus and another one a modern horse but really they are both just horses.

Neanderthals are humans too, just as we are.

 

[invest07]

Coyote

Let me see if I have this straight:
1. Ain’t no speciation less there’s genetic isolation.
2. Speciation takes millions of years.

Speciation still requires a fertile male and female. So how exactly does the change in the male get match precisely in the female so as to create fertility with each other? If the male is the first to get “one change too many”, there must still be a fertile female for speciation to occur. And if the female does finally (purely by chance) get her “one change too many” it may be thousands of years later and may no longer match the male as the male may have another change. As usual, evolution requires a precise sequence of events, even though the forces driving it are random, unfocused and unintelligent.

One of the many problems I can see with making genetic isolation a requirement is that certain species just refuse to isolate themselves. Such as migratory species.

Every year, for a couple of weeks, Canadian geese fly over my house, heading further south. These geese spend the summer months in lakes, ponds and swamps in Canada. They are physically isolated during the non-breeding season and are subject to unique local environmental influences. Then they head south for the winter and congregate with other flocks of geese for mating. This species is physically isolated part of the year and anything but genetically isolated during mating season. Other species which have comparable behavior include swallows, manatees, monarch butterflies and salmon. Probably thousands or hundreds of thousand of other species fall into this category. Some species just refuse to isolate themselves genetically. (What’s wrong with them. Don’t they know they are breaking the rules of evolution?)

One species which does isolate itself genetically is the American alligator. Gators spend their entire live in any body of water large enough to support themselves. There are thousands of gator holes in FL and more along the other Gulf Coast states and GA. Lakes, ponds, swamps, drainage ditches, golf course water hazards. Some large bodies of water have many gators and would have a high level of genetic diversity. Other smaller bodies of water may have only a handful of gators and a very limited gene pool.

Gators appear to meet your requirement for genetic isolation. They have been around for millions of years in their present form, so they also meet your requirement for millions of years. And if I understand punctuated equilibrium, each of the gator holes represents a small, isolated and stressed group as described by Gould and Eldredge. Evolution should be accelerated within each gator hole.

So why have these guys not changed radically in many several million years? Shouldn’t gators have speciated several times? Shouldn’t gators be drastically improved over the several million year old fossils? Shouldn’t we have gators 2.0 by now? With longer legs or bigger lungs or a larger brain. Why are gators an exception to speciation and evolutionary improvements? It seems to me that there should be several species traceable back to gators by now and that our contemporary gators should be drastically improved over the older guys.

I look at science (and life) a little differently from most people. I drill down to the very core of any theory or problem and see what is at the core. Forget the symptoms - what’s causing the illness? Regardless of how anyone interprets the data, if the core hypothesis does not represent reality, any interpretation of the data must be flawed.

The core hypothesis of evolution is a choice between 2 hypotheses, neither of which can be scientifically proven: God or no God. People who call themselves scientists say that because the existence of God can’t be proven, belief in God is not scientific. Therefore, any explanation of origins that requires intelligence is not scientific. The problem is that this reasoning is not scientific. The existence of God can’t be disproven by science either. The answers to the core question, God or no God, are equally unproveable by science. So why is belief unscientific but rejection is scientific? Any answer that weights one hypothesis over the other is inconsistent. Both answers are equally defensible scientifically and both should be considered equally when interpreting data.

Coyote, this is your preconception. And this you share with every other person of science who buys this evolution crap.

 

[invest07]

continued
Evolution requires that a series of mistakes result in an improvement to a species without any intelligent input. Order must be the result of disorder. Simplicity must gradually change to complexity solely by accident. Highly complex and interrelated systems must arise due to chance. Unfocused energy must result in an structures that, in other endeavor, would require vast amounts of highly focused energy. Evolution requires that randomness is not really random when it happens over millions of years and that high levels of order must emerge from randomness.

Evolution, in its present form, requires an exception to be made with 2 well accepted scientific principles: The entropy law of thermodynamics and the first law of biogenesis. The laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis work for every other scientific discipline but must be suspended in the case of evolution.

Every thing humans have done since the origin event has requires intelligence, focused energy and planning. The first farmer had to plan his field. He had to have at least a rudimentary understanding of irrigation and light. He had to estimate how large a crop he could manage and weigh that against the needs for his product. He had to focus his energy on leveling, clearing, planting and pest control. He made mistakes, all of which cost him dearly. If the mistake was serious, his survival was at stake.

So evolution, which has no intelligence behind it, can result in levels of complexity that eclipse anything that primitive farmer could even imagine. Our farmer goes home with aching muscles from hours of back breaking focused work but evolution does far more with no focus at all. Our farmer struggles to learn the local climate and rainfall and how to keep animals from pilfering his crop. But evolution doesn’t require learning or knowledge. Just roll the dice. And if you roll it for millions of years, something good will come down the pike.

My neighborhood was torn up badly after Hurricane Charley. If I had been an evolutionist, I would have advised my neighbors not to worry. The next hurricane should fix everything. I mean, that’s the way evolution works. I spend months putting up a house. If I believed evolution, I wouldn’t have to work so hard. Just pile up the block and lumber and sit back and wait for random, unfocused and unintelligent forces to put it together for me. Actually, I probably wouldn’t even have to buy the materials. Eventually the unfocused, random and unintelligent forces should assemble materials for me, stack the block and lay the shingles and wire the outlets. Maybe even list and sell it too.

At the lowest level, the hypothesis that constitutes the central core of evolution does not represent reality. To me, you are wasting your time and mental energy using a flawed and unrealistic core hypothesis as a framework for interpretation of any data.

I’ve yet to make a mistake that improved my life. I’m still cleaning up behind some mistakes I made 20 years ago. I’ve yet to eat a single meal that reached my mouth solely through chance. I’ve never put a dollar in the bank that didn’t require thought and focused energy (work) on my part. I’ve never completed a project without a plan (intelligence). Good things just don’t get done in this world by chance, unfocused energy and a total lack of intelligence. That is, except for evolution which seems to require an exception for everything.

There are hundreds of people of science who reject evolution and more are signing on every day. You might want to check out dissentfromdarwin.com and doctorsdissentingdarwin.com. These are hardly a bunch of kooks.

Your mind is made up and so is mine. Arguing points is interesting as an academic pursuit but accomplishes diddly squat. Maybe our posts influenced another reader but not you or me.

Maybe we’ll volley in another topic. Sayonara to this one.

 

[r0beph]

Coyote

Let me see if I have this straight:
1. Ain’t no speciation less there’s genetic isolation.
2. Speciation takes millions of years.

Speciation still requires a fertile male and female. So how exactly does the change in the male get match precisely in the female so as to create fertility with each other? If the male is the first to get “one change too many”, there must still be a fertile female for speciation to occur. And if the female does finally (purely by chance) get her “one change too many” it may be thousands of years later and may no longer match the male as the male may have another change. As usual, evolution requires a precise sequence of events, even though the forces driving it are random, unfocused and unintelligent.

One of the many problems I can see with making genetic isolation a requirement is that certain species just refuse to isolate themselves. Such as migratory species.

Every year, for a couple of weeks, Canadian geese fly over my house, heading further south. These geese spend the summer months in lakes, ponds and swamps in Canada. They are physically isolated during the non-breeding season and are subject to unique local environmental influences. Then they head south for the winter and congregate with other flocks of geese for mating. This species is physically isolated part of the year and anything but genetically isolated during mating season. Other species which have comparable behavior include swallows, manatees, monarch butterflies and salmon. Probably thousands or hundreds of thousand of other species fall into this category. Some species just refuse to isolate themselves genetically. (What’s wrong with them. Don’t they know they are breaking the rules of evolution?)

One species which does isolate itself genetically is the American alligator. Gators spend their entire live in any body of water large enough to support themselves. There are thousands of gator holes in FL and more along the other Gulf Coast states and GA. Lakes, ponds, swamps, drainage ditches, golf course water hazards. Some large bodies of water have many gators and would have a high level of genetic diversity. Other smaller bodies of water may have only a handful of gators and a very limited gene pool.

Gators appear to meet your requirement for genetic isolation. They have been around for millions of years in their present form, so they also meet your requirement for millions of years. And if I understand punctuated equilibrium, each of the gator holes represents a small, isolated and stressed group as described by Gould and Eldredge. Evolution should be accelerated within each gator hole.

So why have these guys not changed radically in many several million years? Shouldn’t gators have speciated several times? Shouldn’t gators be drastically improved over the several million year old fossils? Shouldn’t we have gators 2.0 by now? With longer legs or bigger lungs or a larger brain. Why are gators an exception to speciation and evolutionary improvements? It seems to me that there should be several species traceable back to gators by now and that our contemporary gators should be drastically improved over the older guys.

I look at science (and life) a little differently from most people. I drill down to the very core of any theory or problem and see what is at the core. Forget the symptoms - what’s causing the illness? Regardless of how anyone interprets the data, if the core hypothesis does not represent reality, any interpretation of the data must be flawed.

The core hypothesis of evolution is a choice between 2 hypotheses, neither of which can be scientifically proven: God or no God. People who call themselves scientists say that because the existence of God can’t be proven, belief in God is not scientific. Therefore, any explanation of origins that requires intelligence is not scientific. The problem is that this reasoning is not scientific. The existence of God can’t be disproven by science either. The answers to the core question, God or no God, are equally unproveable by science. So why is belief unscientific but rejection is scientific? Any answer that weights one hypothesis over the other is inconsistent. Both answers are equally defensible scientifically and both should be considered equally when interpreting data.

Coyote, this is your preconception. And this you share with every other person of science who buys this evolution crap.

Please do tell me how things were created then. In a flash, a bang ergo life?

I'm highly confused, this argument rages argumentum ad ignorantiam in a circular fashion, however the weights side with Evolution on the scale. Of a God's snapping fingers there is no evidence. Perhaps if a god does exist he created the laws by which a universe does function. But why would there be in place a single fossil record? Just to screw with us with a cockeyed grin? The Evolution theory is as stated A THEORY, however it is a theory with solid basis. Fairy Godfather and the story of his creation of the universe using the Clapper (Clap on..Clap on) is a bit on the farside. Would the only verifiable fact of an existant god be in the form of falsified fossils that only serves to further confuse? I think not. Christian or otherwise has no true bearing on whether evolution is to be believed or not. The fact remains that Insta-pop Design (ID) has ZERO absolute ZERO evidence. Evolution, while being an incomplete hypothesis, does carry VERY GOOD evidence. To lean (I'll avoid believe since one cannot base a firm belief without evidence) towards the former and not the latter requires NOT ONLY that you deny a more logical approach, but also to refute all evidence that points in the general direction of evolution. There is nothing that says there can be no god in evolution, that has nothing to do with it, it's an argument forus sententia. Without giving logic a chance. I'll never understand why people so hastily denounce evolution, it is plausible, snap-crackle-life crispies is not. With evidence / without evidence the choice is With. Furthermore I see no conflict with biblical teachings.


So please would you invest08, humor me, give me your version of what happened.

Mind my earlier post, statistically I'd assume the ratio of fossilization is somewhere around 723E+10000:1 per life form lived:lifeform fossilized. (Arbitrary number out of the ass used in this, but just the same, it's probably higher)


You fight against evolution for it's lack of viability, instead of as someone who is really interested in what is "at core" , you fail to attempt to submit a better idea of what happened, instead turning to deus ex machina for your answers.

 

[DrWho]

Please do tell me how things were created then. In a flash, a bang ergo life?

I'm highly confused, this argument rages argumentum ad ignorantiam in a circular fashion, however the weights side with Evolution on the scale. Of a God's snapping fingers there is no evidence. Perhaps if a god does exist he created the laws by which a universe does function. But why would there be in place a single fossil record? Just to screw with us with a cockeyed grin? The Evolution theory is as stated A THEORY, however it is a theory with solid basis. Fairy Godfather and the story of his creation of the universe using the Clapper (Clap on..Clap on) is a bit on the farside. Would the only verifiable fact of an existant god be in the form of falsified fossils that only serves to further confuse? I think not. Christian or otherwise has no true bearing on whether evolution is to be believed or not. The fact remains that Insta-pop Design (ID) has ZERO absolute ZERO evidence. Evolution, while being an incomplete hypothesis, does carry VERY GOOD evidence. To lean (I'll avoid believe since one cannot base a firm belief without evidence) towards the former and not the latter requires NOT ONLY that you deny a more logical approach, but also to refute all evidence that points in the general direction of evolution. There is nothing that says there can be no god in evolution, that has nothing to do with it, it's an argument forus sententia. Without giving logic a chance. I'll never understand why people so hastily denounce evolution, it is plausible, snap-crackle-life crispies is not. With evidence / without evidence the choice is With. Furthermore I see no conflict with biblical teachings.


So please would you invest08, humor me, give me your version of what happened.

Mind my earlier post, statistically I'd assume the ratio of fossilization is somewhere around 723E+10000:1 per life form lived:lifeform fossilized. (Arbitrary number out of the ass used in this, but just the same, it's probably higher)


You fight against evolution for it's lack of viability, instead of as someone who is really interested in what is "at core" , you fail to attempt to submit a better idea of what happened, instead turning to deus ex machina for your answers.

Evolution and religionism are both empirically unproven. Also they both rely on the same data, the same world, the same fossil record. The only difference is the interpretation given to the data or fossil record.

The fossil record was not created by God to confuse us. It is what it is and we are confused because we do still have a limited understanding.

Some day we may have a more complete understanding of the data. I bet there will be a lot of surprised people from both camps.

 

[Coyote]

Evolution and religionism are both empirically unproven. Also they both rely on the same data, the same world, the same fossil record. The only difference is the interpretation given to the data or fossil record.

No, they are not and do not. There is a world of difference between what constitutes a scientific theory and what constitutes any other kind of theory. "Religionism" has not withstood any of the tests a scientific theory must stand in order to become accepted. I could claim that the fossil record is the result of Martians salting the earth with fossilized bones created in an orbiting lab and have the exact same credability as "religionism".

The fossil record was not created by God to confuse us. It is what it is and we are confused because we do still have a limited understanding.

This is not science.
Some day we may have a more complete understanding of the data. I bet there will be a lot of surprised people from both camps.[/QUOTE]

 

[DrWho]

No, they are not and do not. There is a world of difference between what constitutes a scientific theory and what constitutes any other kind of theory. "Religionism" has not withstood any of the tests a scientific theory must stand in order to become accepted. I could claim that the fossil record is the result of Martians salting the earth with fossilized bones created in an orbiting lab and have the exact same credability as "religionism".

Science is far less proven and far more reliant on it's own faith than you might think. There are assumptions that form the basis of everything including science.

Any school of thought that deliberately limits itself only to evidence that can be seen, touched, etc. must run into blind spots eventually.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Science is far less proven and far more reliant on it's own faith than you might think. There are assumptions that form the basis of everything including science.

Any school of thought that deliberately limits itself only to evidence that can be seen, touched, etc. must run into blind spots eventually.

I think "eventually" is the functional word in that sentence. While it is true that science cannot prove everything, it does have a track record of proving somethings: airplanes can fly, drugs can cure some diseases, computers do work, etc. There is actually quite a long list of things that science has demonstrated to be valid.

Religion on the other hand is 0 for 0, it has never proved any religious sect to be the correct one, never proved the existence of God, never proved that ANY of the holy books have anything to do with the purported "God", never proved anything except the monstrous lengths to which humans will go to force others to believe superstitious nonsense. Science has consistently been convergent, drawing together disparate subjects/ideas and linking them in useful ways (metalurgy producing different kinds of materials to make airplanes fly for instance) whereas religion is divergent, in the 2000 years since Jesus, the Christian religion has split into more than 2500 warring factions AND EACH ONE CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE RELIGION! And that's just Christianity.

 

[DrWho]

I think "eventually" is the functional word in that sentence. While it is true that science cannot prove everything, it does have a track record of proving somethings: airplanes can fly, drugs can cure some diseases, computers do work, etc. There is actually quite a long list of things that science has demonstrated to be valid.

Religion on the other hand is 0 for 0, it has never proved any religious sect to be the correct one, never proved the existence of God, never proved that ANY of the holy books have anything to do with the purported "God", never proved anything except the monstrous lengths to which humans will go to force others to believe superstitious nonsense. Science has consistently been convergent, drawing together disparate subjects/ideas and linking them in useful ways (metalurgy producing different kinds of materials to make airplanes fly for instance) whereas religion is divergent, in the 2000 years since Jesus, the Christian religion has split into more than 2500 warring factions AND EACH ONE CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE RELIGION! And that's just Christianity.

All scientists disagree with each other on some things and agree with each other on others. Consensus is not truth. All religions disagree with each other on some things and agree with each other on others. Religions too have been converging in their shared moral concepts. Consensus is still not truth.

Science has the advantage of having a system in place designed to reduce superstitious ideas. Nevertheless some persist.

Religion has a system in place too designed to reduce superstitious ideas but in the field of study that religion concerns itself it is much more difficult.

So they are not all different in ways you just pointed out.

However, the system science uses to eliminate superstition (empiricism) disqualifies it from discussing anything spiritual.

If the origins of life are spiritual then the best science can do is to say "we don't know" and the worst it can do is to develop wrong hypotheses. And since hypotheses will always be developed and it will always pick the best of the bunch, if the origins of life are spiritual then, in this instance, science must develop a wrong hypotheses.

However, if the origins of life are materialistic then religionists are free to recognize that what they have believed dogmatically was in fact superstition. Humans are stubborn and it is a difficult road, but it can be done if need be.

 

[Coyote]

Science is far less proven and far more reliant on it's own faith than you might think. There are assumptions that form the basis of everything including science.

Any school of thought that deliberately limits itself only to evidence that can be seen, touched, etc. must run into blind spots eventually.

I would disagree. There are far fewer unsupported assumptions in science then in religion.

Science must limit itself to what can be observed and quatified. What's wrong with that? The thing about science however is that if it can not answer a question it doesn't fall back on the God theory. When new evidence comes to light - theories change to accommodate that new evidence. Religion is incapable of that by it's nature.
.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

All scientists disagree with each other on some things and agree with each other on others. Consensus is not truth. All religions disagree with each other on some things and agree with each other on others. Religions too have been converging in their shared moral concepts. Consensus is still not truth.

The point that I think you are missing is that religion cannot prove ANYTHING. It's all conjecture.

While consensus may not be truth, a consensus among aeronautical engineers has allowed us to build airplanes that fly. A consensus among scientists is based on things that can be demonstrated. Religion has nothing except a very long history of continually changing beliefs based on what's popular at any point in time. Bashing gays is aerobic for religious folks in this country today, 50 years ago it was interracial marriage, before that it was women voting... on and on it goes. And NONE of it is based on anything that you can demonstrate in such a way as to come to consensus. The number of angels able to dance on the head is one of my favorite religious problems. It was never actually solved because there is nothing in religion to allow the actual solving of a problem.

 

[Castle]

The point that I think you are missing is that religion cannot prove ANYTHING. It's all conjecture.

While consensus may not be truth, a consensus among aeronautical engineers has allowed us to build airplanes that fly. A consensus among scientists is based on things that can be demonstrated. Religion has nothing except a very long history of continually changing beliefs based on what's popular at any point in time. Bashing gays is aerobic for religious folks in this country today, 50 years ago it was interracial marriage, before that it was women voting... on and on it goes. And NONE of it is based on anything that you can demonstrate in such a way as to come to consensus. The number of angels able to dance on the head is one of my favorite religious problems. It was never actually solved because there is nothing in religion to allow the actual solving of a problem.

OK.....fair enough.
What created all of the conditions necessary for science to explain what little it has concluded about our universe........or for that matter the existence of the universe itself. The scientific theories about this are as sketchy as those proposed by religion. Where did it all begin, How did it all begin, Why? Simple blind luck or something else. Science often creates more questions than it answers. Are we to apply the same blind faith theories to these unanswered questions that religion often does?

-Castle

 

[DrWho]

The point that I think you are missing is that religion cannot prove ANYTHING. It's all conjecture.

While consensus may not be truth, a consensus among aeronautical engineers has allowed us to build airplanes that fly. A consensus among scientists is based on things that can be demonstrated. Religion has nothing except a very long history of continually changing beliefs based on what's popular at any point in time. Bashing gays is aerobic for religious folks in this country today, 50 years ago it was interracial marriage, before that it was women voting... on and on it goes. And NONE of it is based on anything that you can demonstrate in such a way as to come to consensus. The number of angels able to dance on the head is one of my favorite religious problems. It was never actually solved because there is nothing in religion to allow the actual solving of a problem.

There certainly is a lot of conjecture in many religions. The only part of religion that is not conjecture is truth that has been revealed from God. Of course, it is pretty hard to differentiate revelation from hallucination. But just because something is hard does not mean that it is not worth pursuing. It does mean that one should be very careful about judging other people's belief systems based on one's own views. And certainly no one should use their religion as an excuse for bigotry and hatred.

Every single observation anyone ever makes about the world is a subjective experience that only he and he alone has. When enough people share a subjective experience then it is recognized as reality.

I see that the table in front of me is brown. when Joe, who is with me, agrees then we know that we are seeing reality and not an illusion.

This is how all truth is established. Both in science and in religion. The basis of all truth shared subjective experiences which are all consistent with the other things we know about reality. When enough people see the same thing then the confidence we have in it's reality increases. Certainly more than just Joe and I have seen brown tables and as a result I trust my senses not only when Joe is with me but also when I am alone.

When enough people see the same thing then the confidence we have in it's reality increases.

So how do you know if there is a God or not? First you have a subjective experience in which you experience god. Then you confirm it against other people's experiences and everything we know about reality. If you don't first have this experience and you choose to believe in God anyway then you are trusting the word of others who have told you about God. Make sure that they are trustworthy.

The Bible tells us that if a person claims to have a revelation from God that he must pass a test to be trusted. 1) he must never ever be wrong 2) he must never ever contradict what other prophets have told us about God. Often they must offer signs to testify about the reality of their subjective experience.

Many prophets have predicted future events. We have seen these events come to pass. This is a sign.

Many have tried to find falsehoods in the Bible. And while many claim that they are numerous there has not been one yet that holds enough water to sway intelligent Christians. If there were then we would see a mass exodus of people abandoning Christianity - which we do not see.

Many prophets have performed miracles strong enough to convince the people who have actually witnessed them. Skeptics today doubt the miracles because they themselves have never seen one. But we all know that not seeing something is not proof that it does not exist.

 

[PLC1]

Did you ever notice how much the big bang theory resembles the creation idea? The big bang happened, and the universe was born. God said, "let it be", and there it was.

Just an intersting little aside.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god. It can disprove some of the silly notions some hold and have held about god and his creation, like the Earth as the center of the universe notion, or the idea that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, as examples.