Here’s a side topic: What so yall think about how scientists reactivated the teeth gene in hens that had been dormant since archaeopterix? I saw a prgram that mentioned that, and I was pretty amazed. I think that is a bit of proof of evolution.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Gentlemen, don’t confuse evolution with adaptation, humans getting taller, bacteria getting stronger is just adaptation, in evolution we’re expected to believe in one species evolving into another species.[/quote]
Speciation is what zoological mumbe jumbo. Species definition is tricky, as it is eithe geography or the innability to have viable offspring that define secies.
Take 2 types of tern, say the artic and any other one (pacific, say.) they are different species by distance, but would have viable offspring if they met in the same sexy bird bath and got it on.
evolution doesnt mean we suddenly go “pop”, into another being. It is the gradual change, so imperceptable to us with our tiny concept of time.
[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
Here’s a side topic: What so yall think about how scientists reactivated the teeth gene in hens that had been dormant since archaeopterix? I saw a prgram that mentioned that, and I was pretty amazed. I think that is a bit of proof of evolution.[/quote]
No, but that sounds interesting.
This is i guess the difference…thousands of small bits of evidence corroborating from around the world.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good post, John. Although I happen to disagree, you stated your case without getting excited and melodramatic and without using the taunting sneers of which the condescending college students are so fond.
Invariably in these debates the rock-chucking, boyz-in-da-hood, gang mentality tends to take over with the idea that the loudest, most boisterous voice MUST be the one with the right answers. I guess they think that now that they’re 19 - 24 years old and dad has bought 'em a good education at the university and the professors have done their job with the indoctrination du jour…well, they have arrived. In all fairness though I was probably exactly like them at that age…[/quote]
Thanks pushharder,
I’ve been rather deeply involved in the whole Evolution Vs. Creationism ‘debate’ for a while now, and really, it largely boils down to your core philosophical beliefs. Most people are simply not willing to change their own beliefs, but can’t wait to try and change everyone else’s viewpoint. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good pissing-match style debate, but that’s not what the original-poster was asking for.
I’m jumping on this thread late so excuse the off point post, but I have a few questions.
Does anyone have a scientifically supported argument against irreducable complexity?
Further, is it conceivable that we are stuck with the theory of evolution because we don’t have enough hard evidence to point us toward another theory?
I am not taking sides in this issue because I have a life but I was just wondering if anyone had any intelligent information on these subjects.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That is, or was I should say, the predominant proposed mechanism - gradual, barely imperceptible change over eons. It should be mentioned that it has fallen out of favor with many leading macroevolution proponents who now think large scale, rapid evolutionary changes took place usually due to some catastrophic event such as a large meteor impact.
[/quote]
If the environment changes abruptly, species will change rapidly. That does not mean that macroevolution-jumps happen, it is still step by step.
If the pressure is strong enough evolution can be incredibly fast, like in the case of sexual selection.
Species do not change for eons when they don?t have to, i.e. if their environment remains stable.
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
I’m jumping on this thread late so excuse the off point post, but I have a few questions.
Does anyone have a scientifically supported argument against irreducable complexity?
[/quote]
Yup , it is pretty simple actually:
How do you build this round doorways the Romans did? You use a wooden structure, then you build the doorway and afterwards you remove the structure. Now you have a “irreducible complex” doorway , you cannot remove anything without everything falling apart.
Evolution does the same, by accident, in those systems some organ that supported the biological structure that is now irreducible has withered away.
That is fine with the ET because once something is no longer needed it only costs energy to sustain it, therefore it has do go.
Absolutely!
[quote]
I am not taking sides in this issue because I have a life but I was just wondering if anyone had any intelligent information on these subjects.[/quote]
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
Does anyone have a scientifically supported argument against irreducable complexity?
[/quote]
perhaps you may find one here:
just as Einstein’s theories supplanted Newton’s…the scientific community is willing to accept an improved model that better explains the collection of data gathered up to this point…
if you come up with a superior hypothesis, submit it to a peer reviewed scientific journal…
generally when someone says ‘intelligent information on these subjects’, what they mean is ‘information that will support my pre-conceived beliefs’…
[quote]orion wrote:
ConanSpeaks wrote:
I’m jumping on this thread late so excuse the off point post, but I have a few questions.
Does anyone have a scientifically supported argument against irreducable complexity?
Yup , it is pretty simple actually:
How do you build this round doorways the Romans did? You use a wooden structure, then you build the doorway and afterwards you remove the structure. Now you have a “irreducible complex” doorway , you cannot remove anything without everything falling apart.
Evolution does the same, by accident, in those systems some organ that supported the biological structure that is now irreducible has withered away.
That is fine with the ET because once something is no longer needed it only costs energy to sustain it, therefore it has do go.
Further, is it conceivable that we are stuck with the theory of evolution because we don’t have enough hard evidence to point us toward another theory?
Absolutely!
I am not taking sides in this issue because I have a life but I was just wondering if anyone had any intelligent information on these subjects.
[/quote]
Ok, that is a decent attempt at an analogy but not the least bit scientific. Althought it appears to make sense applying that analogy to the development of an eye would mean that the optic nerve, cornea, rods & cones, all fall into place as random mutations take place. That does not appear to be sound reasoning to me. I am not a statician but do you have any idea what the statistical probability of that occuring is? Anyone have a more pausible explaination perhaps something with a little more sound evidence?
[quote]DPH wrote:
generally when someone says ‘intelligent information on these subjects’, what they mean is ‘information that will support my pre-conceived beliefs’…[/quote]
What really is the objective of this statement? Are you attempting to uncover some ulterior motive?
How does one develop beliefs unless one continually searches for knowledge?
I stand by my statement that I am merely looking for information and have no desire to engage in an endless debate on a subject which I am admittedly not an authority.
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
I am not a statician but do you have any idea what the statistical probability of that occuring is?
[/quote]
if it occured that way the probability would be 100%…
in the year 3000BC what would the probability of been that a man would walked on the surface of the moon nearly five thousand years later? astronomical (hahaha)? and yet it happened…
probability arguments against the theory of evolution are bogus conjecture…
maybe you could find an answer here (although I doubt it, it seems as though you’ve already choosen an alternate belief):
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
DPH wrote:
generally when someone says ‘intelligent information on these subjects’, what they mean is ‘information that will support my pre-conceived beliefs’…
What really is the objective of this statement? Are you attempting to uncover some ulterior motive?
How does one develop beliefs unless one continually searches for knowledge?
I stand by my statement that I am merely looking for information and have no desire to engage in an endless debate on a subject which I am admittedly not an authority.
[/quote]
then read the links I sent you and shut the fuck up…
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
Ok, that is a decent attempt at an analogy but not the least bit scientific. Althought it appears to make sense applying that analogy to the development of an eye would mean that the optic nerve, cornea, rods & cones, all fall into place as random mutations take place. That does not appear to be sound reasoning to me. I am not a statician but do you have any idea what the statistical probability of that occuring is? Anyone have a more pausible explaination perhaps something with a little more sound evidence?
[/quote]
Im no statistician either, but over nearly infinite periods of time - lets say millions of years - and with the corresponding impressive number of generations, such improbabilities are almost inevitable.
To further complicate matters, each successful mutation starts to populate because of natural selection.
Therefore not only do you have millions of generations of mutating genepools, you have competition that makes sure the lucky go down in history.
One of the fastest reproducing bacteria is Escherichia Coli. In optimal conditions is can breed in 8 minutes. Ecology limitations aside, the number of possible generations of this miniscule bacteria, over one`s lifetime, is impressive. Imagine a couple of millions of years. Successful mutants are inevitable, IMO.
It is clear that the majority of you have not taken simple introductory level courses on evolution at the college level. Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, it amazes me that people even wish to debate these issues as if they are (mutually exclusive means that if one argument is true the other cannot be.)
Evolution simply provides an explanation to how species evolve, how heredity is transferred, how populations increase/decrease, etc. Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory with mountains of evidence supporting it (say, for instance, that plants convert energy from sunlight into chemical energy in a process we call photosynthesis.)
If you take the time to learn about evolution in detail almost every behavior exhibited by all species on this planet, even humans, can be explained through their desire to increase their genetic fitness. The insights you can gain about life and humanity in general are staggering. It completely transcends such a ridiculous argument like “creationism vs. evolution.”
If you want to believe in a deity then just say evolution is a mechanism created and installed by your deity of choice; simple enough right?
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
orion wrote:
ConanSpeaks wrote:
I’m jumping on this thread late so excuse the off point post, but I have a few questions.
Does anyone have a scientifically supported argument against irreducable complexity?
Yup , it is pretty simple actually:
How do you build this round doorways the Romans did? You use a wooden structure, then you build the doorway and afterwards you remove the structure. Now you have a “irreducible complex” doorway , you cannot remove anything without everything falling apart.
Evolution does the same, by accident, in those systems some organ that supported the biological structure that is now irreducible has withered away.
That is fine with the ET because once something is no longer needed it only costs energy to sustain it, therefore it has do go.
Further, is it conceivable that we are stuck with the theory of evolution because we don’t have enough hard evidence to point us toward another theory?
Absolutely!
I am not taking sides in this issue because I have a life but I was just wondering if anyone had any intelligent information on these subjects.
Ok, that is a decent attempt at an analogy but not the least bit scientific. Althought it appears to make sense applying that analogy to the development of an eye would mean that the optic nerve, cornea, rods & cones, all fall into place as random mutations take place. That does not appear to be sound reasoning to me. I am not a statician but do you have any idea what the statistical probability of that occuring is? Anyone have a more pausible explaination perhaps something with a little more sound evidence?
[/quote]
Right now there are around 30 kind of eyes that we know of.
If developing eyes is so hard why does everybody do it?
if they are designed why so many designs?
My explanation was probably pretty much the answer. Your brain, formed by evolution, has just troubles dealing with answers that deal with a time frame larger than they are comfortable to cope with…
I would have to say there is no reason not to accept evolution. It is a very complex science that is hard for a non-scientist to grasp. If I for some reason did not want to accept evolution, I would have to fully understand evolution and come up with a more feasible alternative. There is so much supporting it though, that an alternative would require massive amounts of contradicting evidence.
Like trying to come up with an alternative to any scientifically accepted theory, the evidence would have to be overwhelming. So if I were asked why I believe in evolution, I would have to say because I am a rational person who sees no reason not to.