What is the proposed mechanism for this adaptation?
Darwin wrote, “?Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” and If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
This is the reason that Evolution, as it is defined, doesn’t work. On a molecular (both chemical and biological) level it has been shown that the changes required in the evolutionary process could not have happened in small steps. The information that I found on line and used here came from Darwin's Theory Of Evolution . This site stated the information in the most clear cut fashion that I could find. It also discusses the differences between Macro and Micro Evolution.
I would be interested in hearing opinions on how the ?Natural Selection? argument is affected by the civilization of Man and the importance of learned attributes in the ?Survival of the Fittest?.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Darwin wrote, “?Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” and If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
This is the reason that Evolution, as it is defined, doesn’t work. On a molecular (both chemical and biological) level it has been shown that the changes required in the evolutionary process could not have happened in small steps. The information that I found on line and used here came from Darwin's Theory Of Evolution . This site stated the information in the most clear cut fashion that I could find. It also discusses the differences between Macro and Micro Evolution.
I would be interested in hearing opinions on how the ?Natural Selection? argument is affected by the civilization of Man and the importance of learned attributes in the ?Survival of the Fittest?.
Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]
Ahh, you have to read “The blind watchmaker” if you believe what that article said. A large part of the book primarily deals with that argument.
Basically, what the theory that website posted says that for a complex organ to work, you cant jsut have small parts of it, so it couldnt possibly have arisen from small increases in effectiveness. That makes sense, but, think about the eye, for instance. I have extremely shitty eyes. When I take my contacts out, my vision is probably reduced by like, lets say 50%. (My eyes are pretty damn bad). But, it’s better to have 50% vision opposed to 0%. Hell, 10% would be better than 0. You wouldnt see much but it would be good enough to see a predator or prey around you. Hell, somne animals dont have much more than a convex lens, which isnt highly advanced but it gets the job done of being able to see decently.
Same with wings. Some animals (As mentioned in the blind watchmaker, cant quite remember which) dont have much more than a little nub or “half wing”. It doesnt get them flying around, but it does enable them to glide, which is better than no kind of flight at all.
So, if you see what im saying (im probably not that good at explaining it) small little improvements and “half as effective” organs and systems work much better than none at all, which I think is good argument against someone saying that you need the whole organ to be effective or nothing at all.
[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Darwin wrote, “?Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” and If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [/quote]
Forget the fact that that this was 150+ years ago, and Darwin, while innovative and brilliant, was essentially winging it and vast improvements on his theory have been made since then. This is why creationists almost exclusivley attack Darwin; because they wouldn’t stand a chance against modern biology.
And by the way, no “complex organ” has ever been discovered in any organism “which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications”.
As it is defined by whom? Not any real scientist.
It has been shown by whom? You are reading too many creationist websites.
What may seem clear cut is not always factual. Creationist spin is designed to do just this; appeal to the lay person with easy-to-understand explainations for complex phenomena, because they would be laughed out of the room by a first year biology major.
A distinction made only by creationists, I’m afraid.
[quote]I would be interested in hearing opinions on how the ?Natural Selection? argument is affected by the civilization of Man and the importance of learned attributes in the ?Survival of the Fittest?.
Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]
As Ramses said earlier, “Survival of the Fittest” is a misquote. But anyway, the effects of civilization on man’s evolution is anyone’s guess. Since agriculture and living in permanent, group settlements is a relatively new thing for homo sapiens sapiens (biologically speaking), we can’t even look to modern humans for any noticeable changes in biological makeup.
If you think about it, we still have all of the hunter-gatherer hardware, we just live our modern lives around it. For example, it doesn’t make any sense for us to want to reproduce (i.e., get horny) in our early teens when our life expectancy is well into our 70s or 80s, yet the urge is undeniable, and an obvious biological throwback from when lifespans were much shorter.
I’m usually loathe to site-drop, but if you want a well-thought, rational explaination of evolutionary science, here you go:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
superscience wrote:
my dad is extremly religious but noone else believes in it in my family.
im Agnostic myself, theres so many religions out there like they all cant be right.
How old are you?
The reason I ask is I here alot of younger Irish people are turning away from religion in general because of all the problems it’s caused over the last millenium…[/quote]
19 20 in 2 months, i havn believed in any religion since around the age of 12 i cant understand how their can be a god , its beyond my and everyones intelligence. i have no idea how we got here or how the universe is so perfect
etc i think religion is stupid, apart from the fact they give people security making them think they are going somwere when the die, so its good that some people believe in relgion to a degree but not to a degree that it takes up their hole life.
i once read that it would be stupid to say that sky scrapers just apperad out of nowhere, someone had to build them (comparing to the earth) but would it not be stupid to think that just one person built these sky scrapers, know what i mean.
i always wondered if there were to be a god or gods or anything; were did the first god come from, who made god.
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
Darwin wrote, “?Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” and If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Forget the fact that that this was 150+ years ago, and Darwin, while innovative and brilliant, was essentially winging it and vast improvements on his theory have been made since then. This is why creationists almost exclusivley attack Darwin; because they wouldn’t stand a chance against modern biology.
[quote] So what do you consider the new version of this theory and where can I get a copy? [quote]
And by the way, no “complex organ” has ever been discovered in any organism “which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications”.
[quote] I don’t believe that do you have any supporting data?
[quote]
This is the reason that Evolution, as it is defined, doesn’t work.
As it is defined by whom? Not any real scientist.
[quote]
Check out this site www.reasons.org. The ygive some examples that would be too long to post here.
I checked the site that you provided. What interesting to me is the last paragraph on the home page. I agree that “a weak education system and a gullible public” are part of the issue. Please remember that only explanation our education system has provided is Evolution.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Chainsaw, whatever you do in your posts on this thread, you need to refrain from scoffing that no “real scientists” believe in creation and that ONLY really smart people interpret data like YOU do. The “only-real-scientists-believe-in-
conventional-macroevolution-theory” claim is false and it vividly illustrates your dogmatic ardor for promoting your particular brand of evangelism.
In other words, you lose all claim of objectivity. Why? Because that claim is easily proved to be false. It is observable and testable. There are countless numbers of impeccably credentialed scientists who don’t share your views on the origins and developments of life. When you discount them as unreal you expose yourself as “just another brick in the wall”. [Enter melodious strains of Pink Floyd]
You would give yourself far more credibility if you’d acknowledge that indeed there are scientists who don’t share your views and here is why you disagree with them… and then lay out your argument. Again, if you don’t do this then you’re just another worshipper with his hands in the air under the macroevolution revival tent shouting “Amen, preacher! There is no other way!” [/quote]
sigh
If you reread my post, I never said anything about what scientists “believe”. Belief is irrelevant when it comes to science, and any “scientist” worthy of the title can make that distinction. You think I don’t know that there are scientists who are Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.? Unless they work for some right-wing religious group who is funding them to find the answers they want, they keep their faith seperate from their work.
Great! Show me one, just ONE of your “impeccably credentialed scientists” that has published said views in a peer-reviewed science journal.
LOL! The Intelligent Design battle cry! I love it! “It takes just as much faith to believe evolution…”
Face front, push: Science does not deal with “beliefs”, or “views”. It deals in facts, and the scientific evolution model best fits the observable facts. There are no scientists trying to convert anyone; the facts either hold up under peer-scrutiny or they don’t.
“There is no other way”? No, just no other way that makes sense using purely scientific methods of observation and deduction.
[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Please remember that only explanation our education system has provided is Evolution.
[/quote]
Yes, because anything else is faith-based religious teaching, which has no place in a science classroom.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t you see millions of years of speciation leading to a new genus?
This statement implies speculation. When you have to traipse off into the distant past where things aren’t observable and testable you have to start taking bigger leaps of faith. You have to start speculating. .[/quote]
ramses, quit while you’re ahead. Creationists will not be satisfied with anything less than a National Geographic documentary actually filming a species for millions of years until it evolves into something other than what they would call its “type”.
“Requires testing”? No shit? Man, a lot of astronomers are going to be awfully disappointed, what with all of their theories being based on observation and mathematics and all…
I see, this much is a “given”, but all classifications of life above the genus level sprung from what? God’s magic hat? It is completely logical to theorize that orders higher than genus evolved in exactly the same way as those below it, only over longer periods of time (doesn’t hurt that the fossil record supports this, either).
On the short term levels you speak of, no. For the larger classifications you insist can’t be theorized about, yes, you do.
LMAO! Please give me an example of an “exact science”.
[quote]ramses wrote:
Valar Morghulis wrote:
“Give me reasons/points that to you, prove evolution”. I dont know if that makes more sense but… yeah.
Sorry, but just like you should get rid of the word believe, you should also get rid of the word prove. Science is not in the business of proving truth. People that think that the work of science is to “prove something is real” have a misconception of science.
For example, the Theory of Gravity is not a proof that Gravity is real. It is an explanation of how gravity works, supported by evidence, experiments, and with tested predictive power. But, it could be that tomorrow we discover that the average number of black stripes in the Zebra population has an influence on gravity, and as a consequence we would have to make adjustments to the Theory of Gravity to fit the new Zebra-evidence.
[/quote]
To quote “Trust us, we’re experts”, in the Hard Science, Liquid Truth section:
The difference between science and pseudoscience, he (Karl Popper) concluded, is that genuinely scientific theories are “falsifiable” - that is, they are formulated in such a way that if they are wrong, they can be proven false through experiments. By contrast, pseudosciences are formulated so vaguely that they can never be proven or disproven.
(…)
“By this criterion, you will find that a surprising number of seemingly scientific assertions - perhaps even many in which you devoutly believe - are complete nonsense. Rather surprisingly, this is not to assert that all pseudoscientific claims are untrue. Some of them may be true, but you can never know this, so they are not entitled to claim the cast-iron assurance and reliance you can have, and place, in scientific facts. (Robert Youngson).”
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
[/quote]
Word.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
cap’nsalty wrote:
This is either a not clever joke, or you sound like you just want to be an ass. A “hardcore” evolutionist? What does that even mean?
Secondly, if you don’t already know good arguments for it, why do you believe it?
Because he’s “HARDCORE”.
If you ask me, the best response in ANY argument is “Is too(is not)”. There’s just no debating such a point.
DB[/quote]
And even if you try, you’ll find that the premises backing the knee-jerk reactions are rather shaky and cannot sustained, rigorous analysis and questioning … reversion to personal truths (is too / is not) or social proof kills the process rather quickly.
[quote]rg73 wrote:
Ryu wrote:
My concept of it is that organisms get better by adapting
Uh yeah, they adapt, that’s evolution.
[/quote]
LOL. Like they had the CHOICE. I can imagine two bacteria talking (with the exception of plasmid exchange mechanisms). “Yup, this morning I’m switching to photosynthesis.” or “Oh! Antibiotics! I’ll just adapt to it.”.
IMO, evolution is a very long sequence of chain of survival of the luckiest mutants.
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Another thing to remember is that taxonomy is an inexact science.
LMAO! Please give me an example of an “exact science”.[/quote]
Come on man, as a true man of science, you can tolerate SOME uncertainty, can’t you ? 
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
I see, this much is a “given”, but all classifications of life above the genus level sprung from what? God’s magic hat? It is completely logical to theorize that orders higher than genus evolved in exactly the same way as those below it, only over longer periods of time (doesn’t hurt that the fossil record supports this, either).
[/quote]
Molecular Biology is an independent source of evidence supporting it.
Using DNA we can build evolutionary trees that go beyond the genus level. And those trees agree with other independent sources of evidence, like morphology, embryos, and vestigial characteristics.
Anyway, too bad the thread went completely offtopic in just one page. I’ll see you guys in fantasy-land.
[quote]Valar Morghulis wrote:
So I was thinking today, i’m a pretty “hardcore” evolutionist, and ive read a few books on the subject lately, but what would I say if I had to debate with someone my own reasons for believing in evolution? Im not trying to start a war here between religious people and evolutionist… so i’d apprecuate if no one posted here trying to convince me that evolution isnt real and stayed on the topic.
Now, to the topic: If you, as someone who believes in evolution, was asked why you believe in evolution, what would you say? I guess I would say something about how you can really watch things evolve, like bacteria, for example, by exposing them to antibacterial chemicals until some mutate, become immune, and all of a suddon its somewhat a form of evolution (not nearly as on a large scale as people coming from bacteria, but you get the point).
I’d also talk about how close our behavior and genetic makeup is to gorillas, chimpanzee’s, etc. I also have some good “comebacks” to certain points someone could bring up, but I wont list all of it here.
So, im done rambling. Tell me why YOU believe in evolution, if in fact you do so, and again, please no one try and start an evlution/creationism thing =P.[/quote]
I would talk about how we have supressed genes in our human genomes that are identical to those that make a) scales in reptiles; b) fins in fish etc. If these genes were turned on, we could make all of those structures, yet they don’t have “turned off” genes for hair.
Also, the human brain has a complete amphibian brain, reptile brain and primitive mammal brain each one on top of the other with our human brain covering that.
Also, how humans have gills and other structures in the developmental stages.
Also, there’s the issue of mitochondria in our cells which have bacterial DNA in them, and can actually be placed in relationship to other bacteria.
And also micro-ecology. We could remove all of the eukaryotes from the earth and the microbes would do just fine, but we could not survive without them.
Also, the fact that you can find distinct geological boundaries with multicellular invertebrates everywhere on one side of the boundary, but virtually non-existant below the boundary. Even if rocks got tipped over, you still have clear boundaries.
Also, the fact that the universe is 15 billion years old in all likelyhood, and that we can see light from stars that are so far away that it would have taken the light close to 15 billion years to reach us.
Most useless argument of all time.