Evolution is Wrong?

[pookie]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
I’m not vilifying science. I am just concerned about how scientific results are presented as rock-solid fact, this is absolutely how it is, there is no other
possible explanation, every other opinion is wrong.[/quote]

To be fair, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a scientific article presented in such a way.

You might get that from various journalists when they’re vulgarizing for the layman, but it’s not accurate.

You might get something like that if you claim the world is 6000 years old. Scientists will dismiss that idea outright as being “wrong” because there is zero supporting evidence for it, while there are mountains of evidence for a 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion year old Earth.

At some point, you can’t consider every idea on an equal footing. Resources, and especially time, aren’t infinite. Scientist won’t be interested in wasting time ‘disproving’ a young Earth, when nothing in the way of actual facts suggests it.

That doesn’t mean that they won’t consider an idea that is scientifically sound, with supporting evidence. That’s how science is done.

If someone tells you you can build an Olympia caliber physique using only a pair of 10 lbs dumbells and training 10 minutes a week, will you spend a lot of time listening to his method? Or will you dismiss it outright because you know that flies in the face of everything we know about training? The person might also say “Oh, that guy claims he knows everything and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong…”

[quote]I have no problem with sceintists stating the there is evidence of this and that and we believe this may be how it happened, but to come out and say “these are the undisputable facts”, everyone else is wrong is, well, wrong.

I don’t claim to be a scientific mind. I have a degree in English and a Masters in Management (science mostly makes my head hurt). You are obviously much more well versed in the field of scientifc discovery than I. A lot of what you have said is fascinating and has really made me think, however it has also led me to more questions and has even deepened my faith in the Almighty.[/quote]

Unless you believe in an actively interventionist God, science in no way “disproves” God. Science does believe though, that from the Big Bang onward (and maybe even before) all that’s happened has happened following the laws of nature (which are authored by God, if that’s your personal inclination).

Science rejects the possibility that something, at some point, happened without a natural explanation. Hence, even the formation of life on Earth is thought to require only the various elements, the laws of physics and enough time until life appears.

I wouldn’t worry about religion getting in the way of science. Scientific discovery abroad is more of a reflection of the American school system’s obsession with catering to the lowest denominator, and cheap international labor.

I’m not talking about grade schools and high schools (although a good base is important) but rather prestigious institutions like MIT, JPL and various renowned universities.

All those international scientists are for a large part trained in American colleges then return to the homeland.

A lot of scientists will go where they can get their work done. Unless you’re working in purely theoretical fields, it’s probably a lot easier to time for your projects on the Large Hadron Collider if you’re not halfway across the planet. Many of your most brilliant peers will also be there and, like it or not, that’s where “it” will be happening.

All those scientists might also teach and/or lecture, and are more likely to do so in nearby institutions than to keep flying across the planet to do it in the USA.

Also, other countries tend to have lower ethical standards and are able to conduct research tht would be illegal here.

That’s probably a factor too, but some research requires extremely advanced equipment; machinery that you’re only going to find in the most advanced western nations. As far as I know, Europe and Japan have pretty similar ethical outlook on research.

Again, I’m not an expert. Perhaps you have a differing opinion. Religious beliefs are not a stumbling block. We’ve pretty much killed God in this country.

There is a lot of pressure from fundamentalist groups to change the scientific curriculum in schools. It’s not God or the idea of God that needs to be killed, but the inflexible and retrograde fundamentalist mentality.

[PGJ]

[quote]pookie wrote:

Again, I’m not an expert. Perhaps you have a differing opinion. Religious beliefs are not a stumbling block. We’ve pretty much killed God in this country.

There is a lot of pressure from fundamentalist groups to change the scientific curriculum in schools. It’s not God or the idea of God that needs to be killed, but the inflexible and retrograde fundamentalist mentality.
[/quote]

Good points all. This has been a great discussion. I’d like to comment on this particular item. I am Christian and go to a Baptist church that has it’s own Christian school.

From my perspective on the “inside” of the fundamentalist movement (however, I do not consider myself a fundamentalist) I can tell you that the problem we (Christians) have with TOE is that it has completely replacing Creationism in school curriculum.

The fear is that schools, as they become more secular (actually, totally secular), are purposely and politically removing ALL references to God or an Almighty of any sort in favor of cold, hard secular science. It would not be a problem if TOE and Creationism were taught equally as Theories.

SIDE NOTE: I took my family to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles recently, we went to a short movie about the Earth. It started out with the swirling gasses, Big Bang, primordial soup, bacterial creatures evolving into fish, who eventually crawled out on land and became animals and man and so on.

Classic TOE. It was presented as absolute fact. Never did the narrator say “this is what scientist think may have happened” or “this is a theory”. Stuff like that makes Christians shake their heads.

I have never heard a preacher say flat out that TOE must go. I’ve only heard them ask for equal air-time for Creationism. I myself am skeptical of the “young Earth” theory and a lot of stuff I’ve heard in church, and so are many other devout Christians.

[lucasa]

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Who said anything about life from non-life? I’m talking about creating life from NOTHING.[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing you specifically. This was in relevance to historical protestations of the same ilk.

Stand in an empty room and create life.

No current religious account has any deity standing in an empty room, confined to man’s current level of knowledge and power, creating life. Usually, step one is to have/obtain omniscience/omnipotence and step two is create life. You’re holding men to standards to which Gods aren’t even held.

At some point way back in history, there had to be nothing. No planets, no water, no air…nothing. Man will never be able to create life from nothing.

How long is “never”? And define “nothing”. If God/Allah/Ganesh/Zeus/Thetans had a pocket to another dimension and managed to stuff a little bit of matter into it, would they have created something from nothing in the pocket dimension? If we achieve the same feat in the next 13.5B yrs. would we have met the goals?

What does “Craig Venter PLANS to…” mean? I PLAN to be rich and famous.

“Craig Venter plans to…” is akin to David Sarnoff’s “TV in every home” plan or Gates’ “personal computer” or “server in every home” plan. His company sequenced the human genome faster and cheaper than the NIH (they shared data so it’s hard to say how much faster and cheaper) and the majority of the technology and methods to achieve his “reanimation” goal exist, it’s just a matter of funding and logistics to make it work. I’m unaware of your financial situation, but if you’re 20-something and have a net worth of $500,000 or have a $100,000+/yr. salary. I’d say yes, it’s like your plan to rich.

[pookie]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
From my perspective on the “inside” of the fundamentalist movement (however, I do not consider myself a fundamentalist) I can tell you that the problem we (Christians) have with TOE is that it has completely replacing Creationism in school curriculum.[/quote]

It shouldn’t be replacing it. TOE should be taught in science class, and creationism in religious studies. Trying to teach creationism as fact or as ‘scientific’ is what causes frictions.

The fear is that schools, as they become more secular (actually, totally secular), are purposely and politically removing ALL references to God or an Almighty of any sort in favor of cold, hard secular science. It would not be a problem if TOE and Creationism were taught equally as Theories.

The problem with that is that creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a mythological tale of creation.

[quote]SIDE NOTE: I took my family to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles recently, we went to a short movie about the Earth. It started out with the swirling gasses, Big Bang, primordial soup, bacterial creatures evolving into fish, who eventually crawled out on land and became animals and man and so on.

Classic TOE. It was presented as absolute fact. Never did the narrator say “this is what scientist think may have happened” or “this is a theory”. Stuff like that makes Christians shake their heads.[/quote]

Isn’t that understood? If we thought differently, it would be presented differently. What’s being presented is simply, to the best or our current knowledge, how the universe and life happened. There’s nothing to say that God didn’t cause the Big Bang and fine tune all the physical constants of the universe.

I have never heard a preacher say flat out that TOE must go. I’ve only heard them ask for equal air-time for Creationism.

That’s exactly what I was referring too above when I was talking about denaturing science. If a kid is thought that creationism is just as valid a scientific theory as big bang/evolution, then he’s not getting a true understanding of what science is, or how it works.

I myself am skeptical of the “young Earth” theory and a lot of stuff I’ve heard in church, and so are many other devout Christians.

That’s one thing the Catholic Church has going for it. It’s doctrine of “progressive revelation” allows it to change their views (slowly, but still…) as new knowledge is acquired. While they usually fight it at first (ex: Galileo) then eventually come around. They can accept the Big Bang as the “real” way the universe came to be, while reconciling it with the allegorical tale of creation in Genesis 1. They’ve even accepted evolution as “more than just a theory.” a few years back. Somehow, they’ve accepted that science can contradict literal scripture, while yet taking nothing away from God or the spiritual guidance of man.

[PGJ]

[quote]pookie wrote:
PGJ wrote:
From my perspective on the “inside” of the fundamentalist movement (however, I do not consider myself a fundamentalist) I can tell you that the problem we (Christians) have with TOE is that it has completely replacing Creationism in school curriculum.

It shouldn’t be replacing it. TOE should be taught in science class, and creationism in religious studies. Trying to teach creationism as fact or as ‘scientific’ is what causes frictions.

The fear is that schools, as they become more secular (actually, totally secular), are purposely and politically removing ALL references to God or an Almighty of any sort in favor of cold, hard secular science. It would not be a problem if TOE and Creationism were taught equally as Theories.

The problem with that is that creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a mythological tale of creation.

SIDE NOTE: I took my family to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles recently, we went to a short movie about the Earth. It started out with the swirling gasses, Big Bang, primordial soup, bacterial creatures evolving into fish, who eventually crawled out on land and became animals and man and so on.

Classic TOE. It was presented as absolute fact. Never did the narrator say “this is what scientist think may have happened” or “this is a theory”. Stuff like that makes Christians shake their heads.

Isn’t that understood? If we thought differently, it would be presented differently. What’s being presented is simply, to the best or our current knowledge, how the universe and life happened. There’s nothing to say that God didn’t cause the Big Bang and fine tune all the physical constants of the universe.

I have never heard a preacher say flat out that TOE must go. I’ve only heard them ask for equal air-time for Creationism.

That’s exactly what I was referring too above when I was talking about denaturing science. If a kid is thought that creationism is just as valid a scientific theory as big bang/evolution, then he’s not getting a true understanding of what science is, or how it works.

I myself am skeptical of the “young Earth” theory and a lot of stuff I’ve heard in church, and so are many other devout Christians.

That’s one thing the Catholic Church has going for it. It’s doctrine of “progressive revelation” allows it to change their views (slowly, but still…) as new knowledge is acquired. While they usually fight it at first (ex: Galileo) then eventually come around. They can accept the Big Bang as the “real” way the universe came to be, while reconciling it with the allegorical tale of creation in Genesis 1. They’ve even accepted evolution as “more than just a theory.” a few years back. Somehow, they’ve accepted that science can contradict literal scripture, while yet taking nothing away from God or the spiritual guidance of man.
[/quote]

Is Evolution still considered a theory. I’m talking about beginning of the earth, the first life forms slowly changing into man and beast. I’m willing to accept that scientific evidence proves that certain genetic changes have occured over time, but as far as I can tell the big picture is still theory. And when evolution is taught in schools, it’s in the big picture format. If it’s still a theory, isn’t there room for another theory? I don’t believe the Catholic church has accepted the idea that man evolved from an ape-like creature (my Mom, raised hard-core Catholic in Catholic schools, still believed in 1986 that the universe revolved around the Earth. She was serious. Catholics no longer are taught that, of course). Perhaps there have been some small concessions, but big picture-wise, Christianity believes in Creation.

If it’s still a theory, it should be taught as a theory, not unquestionable fact.

[skor]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Is Evolution still considered a theory. I’m talking about beginning of the earth, the first life forms slowly changing into man and beast. I’m willing to accept that scientific evidence proves that certain genetic changes have occured over time, but as far as I can tell the big picture is still theory. And when evolution is taught in schools, it’s in the big picture format. If it’s still a theory, isn’t there room for another theory? I don’t believe the Catholic church has accepted the idea that man evolved from an ape-like creature (my Mom, raised hard-core Catholic in Catholic schools, still believed in 1986 that the universe revolved around the Earth. She was serious. Catholics no longer are taught that, of course). Perhaps there have been some small concessions, but big picture-wise, Christianity believes in Creation.

If it’s still a theory, it should be taught as a theory, not unquestionable fact.

[/quote]

You are confused about the meaning of the word “theory” when used in scientific context.

Theory

[pookie]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Is Evolution still considered a theory. I’m talking about beginning of the earth, the first life forms slowly changing into man and beast. I’m willing to accept that scientific evidence proves that certain genetic changes have occured over time, but as far as I can tell the big picture is still theory. And when evolution is taught in schools, it’s in the big picture format. If it’s still a theory, isn’t there room for another theory?[/quote]

Well yes, but the other theory has to be a scientific one. You can’t simply take Genesis 1 and say “teach his as science.” It doesn’t work. That’s exactly what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is parodying. If you teach non-scientific theories in science class, then anything goes, even FSM.

I don’t believe the Catholic church has accepted the idea that man evolved from an ape-like creature

I was looking for a link for you, and it seems that Pope Benedict has backtracked a little from John-Paul II’s position. Just my luck that the one time I speak in good of a church they make me eat my words.

(my Mom, raised hard-core Catholic in Catholic schools, still believed in 1986 that the universe revolved around the Earth. She was serious.

Well, you could define the Earth as your fixed frame of reference, and adjust all the other equations to take that into account and everything would work just fine.

Catholics no longer are taught that, of course). Perhaps there have been some small concessions, but big picture-wise, Christianity believes in Creation.

You can still have Creation of a universe where life eventually appears. Again, isn’t it presumptuous to say that that’s not the way God did it? Personally, I find that way a lot more awe inspiring than the prosaic 6 days of creations with Adam made from dirt and Eve from one of his ribs.

My mom used to believe that men had one less rib than women did.

If it’s still a theory, it should be taught as a theory, not unquestionable fact.

I don’t think there are any unquestionable facts in science. None of our present theories are capable of explaining everything, all the time. They all have various flaws and edge cases where they fall apart.

That doesn’t mean that they’re just random ideas scientist pulled out of their behinds after a night of heavy drinking. Most of the well accepted ones are backed by a lot of supporting evidence, vs. a few non-working cases. Those non-working cases tell us that the theories aren’t complete or need adjustments. Maybe even a completely new approach (like with String Theory vs. the Standard Model). But whatever new approach is proposed, it has to meet the criteria of a scientific theory. It should explain at least as much as the theory it wishes to replace; it should fix some of the problems the old theory has. When a new theory meets those demands, it eventually replaces the old one (Relativity replacing Newton’s Gravity, for example); what will not do is to disguise religious belief, such as creationism, with scientific sounding terminology and propose that as an alternative (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution as the best know example.)

[etaco]

[quote]pookie wrote:

Unless you believe in an actively interventionist God, science in no way “disproves” God. Science does believe though, that from the Big Bang onward (and maybe even before) all that’s happened has happened following the laws of nature (which are authored by God, if that’s your personal inclination).

[/quote]

I think there is a fundamental clash between traditional christian theology and evolutionary theory even if one discounts Genesis as no more than an allegorical tale.

If God engineered the universe such that every outcome- the universe, earth, life, evolution, man, “the end”- was known in advance and determined by him then you have predestination and consequently there is no room for free will. Without free will the religion founders on the issue of theodacy.

[pookie]

[quote]etaco wrote:
If God engineered the universe such that every outcome- the universe, earth, life, evolution, man, “the end”- was known in advance and determined by him then you have predestination and consequently there is no room for free will. Without free will the religion founders on the issue of theodacy. [/quote]

Whether he builds it ‘manually’ in six days, or produces it by putting just the right amount of spin on the Big Bang, it doesn’t really change the end result, no?

Maybe free will is “built-in” because there is a built-in randomness to the universe? Quantum Mechanics says that you can never know everything about a particle…

Interestingly enough, recent findings in various fields tend to suggest that we might not have free will at all, only a very convincing illusion of it. See:

Free will – you only think you have it

and

Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t (Published 2007)

and

Free to choose?

[Lorisco]

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

While functional or benign mutations are a possible factor, the truth is there is already a tremendous amount of genetic variability in most species. It’s been reported that there are people that simply don’t develop AIDS when they are infected with HIV, for instance. I don’t think I have ever heard of a disease that has a 100% kill rate, why do you think this is?
[/quote]

You are making assumptions. While it is true that there are genetic abnormalities in all species, for the most part (depends on how you define abnormality) this is rare, not the other way around like you imply.

True, to most all diseases for whatever reason some people live. However, to date medical science cannot relate all that directly to genetic factors. Also, you seem to be unfamiliar with medical science, so let me just say that it is based on the opposite model of evolution. Medical treatments work on the majority of people because of our genetic similarities, not differences. It is true that there are people who do not respond to these treatments, but is a small percentage, approximately 5-20% depending on the systems involved. Of these, for arguments sake lets say that half are functional and half not. So lets say that 2-10% have genetic variations that support survival.

So what you are asking people to believe is that 2-10% of a single celled organism (for arguments sake we can just start here as you seem to have no rationale for how this complex system came to be that would even allow the development of any organic life) had genetic variations that allowed them to flourish in the environment. Then, of these cells that survived, they had 2-10% random genetic variation that again allowed them to flourish and thus develop. And so on, and so on, for millions of millions of variations. The odds of this occurring grow exponentially for each random variation. This is mathematically improbable.

Absolutely not. I am beginning to suspect that your disbelief in evolution is the result of not understanding its mechanisms. This is not a shot, and no one can know everything, so there is really no need to get defensive, but I am curious to know how much you have studied biology (eg, middle school, high school, undergraduate, or graduate level). To reiterate, there is much genetic variation between members of most species. It’s this variation that allows for adaptation: individuals that are best suited to the environment reproduce more, and pass on their genetics to future generations. Those that are not well suited to their environment have fewer offspring, and their genetics become less common.

See above. I suspect that this is where biological theory conflicts with real world medical science.

The monkeys that are around today DID evolve (into modern monkeys, from a more primitive monkey). Yes, you are absolutely right, there had to be a separation of one population into two or more for the lineages to evolve differently. There is no need for swimming for this to occur, however. Natural disasters and voluntary dispersal can account for it just fine. But yes, presumably. You would be amazed, however, at how quickly different populations will develop mating signals that ensure they only mate with each other.

Wow, there must have been a shit load of disasters back then to allow this to occur. Again, astronomical odds of this occurring.

You seem to not clearly understand the number of variables involved in this model and the actual chances of this occurring. I understand that it is a theory, and really the only one we have at the moment. And as I have stated before, that is probably because of social norms, not lack of evidence.

In any case, I guess I have to say that macroevolution is possible, but based on our current knowledge, not probable. And the fact that there is no other accepted model out there does not make it more probable. That is a social issue, not science.

Lastly, I challenge you to REALLY open your mind and think how an environment (system) could randomly occur to support the development of life in the first place. Then, think about how this system would have to continue this stability for billions of years RANDOMLY. The odds are incomprehensible.

[PGJ]

[quote]pookie wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Is Evolution still considered a theory. I’m talking about beginning of the earth, the first life forms slowly changing into man and beast. I’m willing to accept that scientific evidence proves that certain genetic changes have occured over time, but as far as I can tell the big picture is still theory. And when evolution is taught in schools, it’s in the big picture format. If it’s still a theory, isn’t there room for another theory?

Well yes, but the other theory has to be a scientific one. You can’t simply take Genesis 1 and say “teach his as science.” It doesn’t work. That’s exactly what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is parodying. If you teach non-scientific theories in science class, then anything goes, even FSM.

I don’t believe the Catholic church has accepted the idea that man evolved from an ape-like creature

I was looking for a link for you, and it seems that Pope Benedict has backtracked a little from John-Paul II’s position. Just my luck that the one time I speak in good of a church they make me eat my words.

(my Mom, raised hard-core Catholic in Catholic schools, still believed in 1986 that the universe revolved around the Earth. She was serious.

Well, you could define the Earth as your fixed frame of reference, and adjust all the other equations to take that into account and everything would work just fine.

Catholics no longer are taught that, of course). Perhaps there have been some small concessions, but big picture-wise, Christianity believes in Creation.

You can still have Creation of a universe where life eventually appears. Again, isn’t it presumptuous to say that that’s not the way God did it? Personally, I find that way a lot more awe inspiring than the prosaic 6 days of creations with Adam made from dirt and Eve from one of his ribs.

My mom used to believe that men had one less rib than women did.

If it’s still a theory, it should be taught as a theory, not unquestionable fact.

I don’t think there are any unquestionable facts in science. None of our present theories are capable of explaining everything, all the time. They all have various flaws and edge cases where they fall apart.

That doesn’t mean that they’re just random ideas scientist pulled out of their behinds after a night of heavy drinking. Most of the well accepted ones are backed by a lot of supporting evidence, vs. a few non-working cases. Those non-working cases tell us that the theories aren’t complete or need adjustments. Maybe even a completely new approach (like with String Theory vs. the Standard Model). But whatever new approach is proposed, it has to meet the criteria of a scientific theory. It should explain at least as much as the theory it wishes to replace; it should fix some of the problems the old theory has. When a new theory meets those demands, it eventually replaces the old one (Relativity replacing Newton’s Gravity, for example); what will not do is to disguise religious belief, such as creationism, with scientific sounding terminology and propose that as an alternative (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution as the best know example.)
[/quote]

Creation states that God created the heavens and the Earth is 6 actual days. Man and woman were created then exactly as they are now. Totally unscientific, yes. But that is the foundation of FAITH. If I have to see and feel everything before I believe, I have no faith. Science has hard facts, religion has faith. Sometimes these two polar opposites go out of their way to prove each other wrong, even to the point of making stuff up.

I see and understand a lot (not all) of what you are saying and I believe there may be something to it, however it is not enough to shake my faith. Between Christian Creationism and scientific TOE, I think we cover about 90% of the western societies beliefs (I know nothing about far east or muslim culture). I think if both were presented as theories in school (and elsewhere) everyone could get along.

[Beowolf]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
pookie wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Is Evolution still considered a theory. I’m talking about beginning of the earth, the first life forms slowly changing into man and beast. I’m willing to accept that scientific evidence proves that certain genetic changes have occured over time, but as far as I can tell the big picture is still theory. And when evolution is taught in schools, it’s in the big picture format. If it’s still a theory, isn’t there room for another theory?

Well yes, but the other theory has to be a scientific one. You can’t simply take Genesis 1 and say “teach his as science.” It doesn’t work. That’s exactly what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is parodying. If you teach non-scientific theories in science class, then anything goes, even FSM.

I don’t believe the Catholic church has accepted the idea that man evolved from an ape-like creature

I was looking for a link for you, and it seems that Pope Benedict has backtracked a little from John-Paul II’s position. Just my luck that the one time I speak in good of a church they make me eat my words.

(my Mom, raised hard-core Catholic in Catholic schools, still believed in 1986 that the universe revolved around the Earth. She was serious.

Well, you could define the Earth as your fixed frame of reference, and adjust all the other equations to take that into account and everything would work just fine.

Catholics no longer are taught that, of course). Perhaps there have been some small concessions, but big picture-wise, Christianity believes in Creation.

You can still have Creation of a universe where life eventually appears. Again, isn’t it presumptuous to say that that’s not the way God did it? Personally, I find that way a lot more awe inspiring than the prosaic 6 days of creations with Adam made from dirt and Eve from one of his ribs.

My mom used to believe that men had one less rib than women did.

If it’s still a theory, it should be taught as a theory, not unquestionable fact.

I don’t think there are any unquestionable facts in science. None of our present theories are capable of explaining everything, all the time. They all have various flaws and edge cases where they fall apart.

That doesn’t mean that they’re just random ideas scientist pulled out of their behinds after a night of heavy drinking. Most of the well accepted ones are backed by a lot of supporting evidence, vs. a few non-working cases. Those non-working cases tell us that the theories aren’t complete or need adjustments. Maybe even a completely new approach (like with String Theory vs. the Standard Model). But whatever new approach is proposed, it has to meet the criteria of a scientific theory. It should explain at least as much as the theory it wishes to replace; it should fix some of the problems the old theory has. When a new theory meets those demands, it eventually replaces the old one (Relativity replacing Newton’s Gravity, for example); what will not do is to disguise religious belief, such as creationism, with scientific sounding terminology and propose that as an alternative (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution as the best know example.)

Creation states that God created the heavens and the Earth is 6 actual days. Man and woman were created then exactly as they are now. Totally unscientific, yes. But that is the foundation of FAITH. If I have to see and feel everything before I believe, I have no faith. Science has hard facts, religion has faith. Sometimes these two polar opposites go out of their way to prove each other wrong, even to the point of making stuff up.

I see and understand a lot (not all) of what you are saying and I believe there may be something to it, however it is not enough to shake my faith. Between Christian Creationism and scientific TOE, I think we cover about 90% of the western societies beliefs (I know nothing about far east or muslim culture). I think if both were presented as theories in school (and elsewhere) everyone could get along.

[/quote]

Creationism = Zero evidence.
Evolution = Loads of evidence.

If we teach creationism in schools, why shouldn’t we also teach FSM as a theory? How about my favorite theory, that the universe is just the sneeze of a giant creature, and every time we sneeze we create and destroy an entire universe.

Teaching Evolution is not about undermining religion, it’s about teaching evolution. Maybe you don’t understand how important the concept of natural selection is to understanding biology. A whole damn lot of Bio 101 makes little to no sense if NS is completely false.

If a public high school wants to present creation in a mythology class, or a Bible Lit class (which I plan on taking soon), or a history of religion class, thats fine. But in Biology? Heck no! It’s simply not biology. It is not a theory, and should not be presented when other theories with overwhelmingly more evidence can be provided.

No science is fact, but science has evidence. Mythology is stories made up to explain something, and should NOT be taught in a science setting.

[PGJ]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Creationism = Zero evidence.
Evolution = Loads of evidence.

If we teach creationism in schools, why shouldn’t we also teach FSM as a theory? How about my favorite theory, that the universe is just the sneeze of a giant creature, and every time we sneeze we create and destroy an entire universe.

Teaching Evolution is not about undermining religion, it’s about teaching evolution. Maybe you don’t understand how important the concept of natural selection is to understanding biology. A whole damn lot of Bio 101 makes little to no sense if NS is completely false.

If a public high school wants to present creation in a mythology class, or a Bible Lit class (which I plan on taking soon), or a history of religion class, thats fine. But in Biology? Heck no! It’s simply not biology. It is not a theory, and should not be presented when other theories with overwhelmingly more evidence can be provided.

No science is fact, but science has evidence. Mythology is stories made up to explain something, and should NOT be taught in a science setting.[/quote]

My point is that TOE is still a THEORY. There are some pieces of it that are scientifically testable and all that, but the big picture is that we don’t know for sure. It’s all in the presentation.

Aren’t natural selection and TOE different things. I have no problem with the idea that over time, the weak are eliminated. I have no problem believing that long ago there were many more types of animals running around. What I have a problem with is someone digs up a weird looking skull or a piece of a shin bone and declares it as “ancient man” and proof of evolution. I have also seen zero proof that the animals we have today used to be other, genetically different animals. Maybe they got bigger or smaller or hairier, but rats didn’t become humans (as has been suggested). I’m not buying the “common ancestor” theory. It’s all speculation and should be presented as such.

[Aleksandr]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

You are making assumptions. While it is true that there are genetic abnormalities in all species, for the most part (depends on how you define abnormality) this is rare, not the other way around like you imply. [/quote]

We aren’t talking about “abnormalities”, we’re talking about genetic variation. In many species, there is tremendous genetic variation, and this is certainly the case in humans.

True, to most all diseases for whatever reason some people live. However, to date medical science cannot relate all that directly to genetic factors. Also, you seem to be unfamiliar with medical science, so let me just say that it is based on the opposite model of evolution. Medical treatments work on the majority of people because of our genetic similarities, not differences. It is true that there are people who do not respond to these treatments, but is a small percentage, approximately 5-20% depending on the systems involved. Of these, for arguments sake lets say that half are functional and half not. So lets say that 2-10% have genetic variations that support survival.

So what you are asking people to believe is that 2-10% of a single celled organism (for arguments sake we can just start here as you seem to have no rationale for how this complex system came to be that would even allow the development of any organic life) had genetic variations that allowed them to flourish in the environment. Then, of these cells that survived, they had 2-10% random genetic variation that again allowed them to flourish and thus develop. And so on, and so on, for millions of millions of variations. The odds of this occurring grow exponentially for each random variation. This is mathematically improbable.

Absolutely not. If every member of a species that was not optimally suited for its environment died, the loss of genetic variance would be catastrophic, especially if it happened repeatedly. However, if the better-suited individuals produce more viable offspring, whatever traits are most effective increase in frequency, while those that are least effective decrease. The example I gave of human illness is to provide evidence for genetic variation. Also, a lot of the variants that exist neither help nor hurt the individual, and are not selected for or against. If the species environment changes, this can change as well. This is how species are able to adapt to changes.

See above. I suspect that this is where biological theory conflicts with real world medical science.

Individual differences and genetic diversity within populations are not mutually exclusive. I don’t know what makes you assume that it is.

The monkeys that are around today DID evolve (into modern monkeys, from a more primitive monkey). Yes, you are absolutely right, there had to be a separation of one population into two or more for the lineages to evolve differently. There is no need for swimming for this to occur, however. Natural disasters and voluntary dispersal can account for it just fine. But yes, presumably. You would be amazed, however, at how quickly different populations will develop mating signals that ensure they only mate with each other.

Wow, there must have been a shit load of disasters back then to allow this to occur. Again, astronomical odds of this occurring.

You seem to have deliberately ignored voluntary dispersal, which is probably far more common than disasters. There are actually models that predict at which point an individual will leave a food-rich but over-crowded area for a food-poor, uncrowded one.

You seem to not clearly understand the number of variables involved in this model and the actual chances of this occurring. I understand that it is a theory, and really the only one we have at the moment. And as I have stated before, that is probably because of social norms, not lack of evidence.

In any case, I guess I have to say that macroevolution is possible, but based on our current knowledge, not probable. And the fact that there is no other accepted model out there does not make it more probable. That is a social issue, not science.

Evolution is probable. The “improbabilities” you discuss are simply not real.

Lastly, I challenge you to REALLY open your mind and think how an environment (system) could randomly occur to support the development of life in the first place. Then, think about how this system would have to continue this stability for billions of years RANDOMLY. The odds are incomprehensible.

For life to originate, maybe. For life to adapt, definitely not. I would say it is more improbable for evolution not. As for how small the odds are, we don’t have enough information to draw inferences. Some cosmologists say that the probability of the universe remaining as stable as it is can be compared to balancing a pencil on its point. However, we don’t know how many universes there are, and we don’t know how many planets there are in ours. If there are an infinite number of universes, the odds of at least one of them not becoming stable are extremely small. If there are trillions and trillions of planets in ours, it becomes improbable that life wouldn’t develop on its own on at least one of them.

But this leads me to a joke.

A group of scientists come together and approach God. They say “God, we don’t need you anymore, we have discovered how to make life ourselves.” God replies, “Oh really? Let’s have a competition then: whoever is able to make a man out dirt first wins.” The scientists, confident in their ability to make a man from dirt, bend down and grab a few handfuls, to which God replies “hold on a second, get your own dirt!”

You seem to have a hard time reconciling science with your belief in God. I view scientific discovery as evidence of God’s glory. If there are an infinite number of universes, and ours exists obly by chance, we should praise God for creating an infinite number of universes. In terms of evolution, we should be overcome with awe for God’s creation; a creation that is fully able to adapt and evolve.

[lucasa]

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Aren’t natural selection and TOE different things. I have no problem with the idea that over time, the weak are eliminated. I have no problem believing that long ago there were many more types of animals running around. What I have a problem with is someone digs up a weird looking skull or a piece of a shin bone and declares it as “ancient man” and proof of evolution. I have also seen zero proof that the animals we have today used to be other, genetically different animals. Maybe they got bigger or smaller or hairier, but rats didn’t become humans (as has been suggested). I’m not buying the “common ancestor” theory. It’s all speculation and should be presented as such.[/quote]

You keep mentioning the “finding bone X … declaring species Y” examples, what about the large number of other examples and corroborating evidence that goes along with those claims? And what about the extinct species either side of those claims?

e.g. They find a molar and a femur and declare it to be “Homo fictitious” and that it is “the missing link” between modern man and primates. Carbon, Uranium, and a myriad of other isotope dating indicates its to be too old to be a modern human but too young to be an extinct primate native of the area. DNA testing shows whatever creature it was to have 99% homology to chimps and 99.5% homology to modern humans? How would you regard the evidence that the +.5% over chimps represents genes that every human, but no primates have and that the -.5% under humans are genes that every known human has or must have? Should this change the thinking about the dozens of skeletal specimens (some complete, some complete several times) of H. habilis, H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus that went through the exact same rigors? Is this all just coincidence? Do you really believe that these creatures that are so pointedly similar to us just happened to be created entirely independently and just happened to not exist now? What about the same examples for vastly larger and more complete family trees such as ungulates (horses, goats, cows, pigs, etc.)?

[Ren]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
My point is that TOE is still a THEORY. There are some pieces of it that are scientifically testable and all that, but the big picture is that we don’t know for sure. It’s all in the presentation.

Aren’t natural selection and TOE different things. I have no problem with the idea that over time, the weak are eliminated. I have no problem believing that long ago there were many more types of animals running around. What I have a problem with is someone digs up a weird looking skull or a piece of a shin bone and declares it as “ancient man” and proof of evolution. I have also seen zero proof that the animals we have today used to be other, genetically different animals. Maybe they got bigger or smaller or hairier, but rats didn’t become humans (as has been suggested). I’m not buying the “common ancestor” theory. It’s all speculation and should be presented as such.

[/quote]

To quote The Princess Bride: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

I think we all understand that you have a problem with the way Evolutionary Theory is presented, but I still think you misunderstand what a theory is. I mean, we can start racking off theories that are the basis for our understanding of the universe and that scientists are using to further advance our knowledge everyday. Theories that meet the same requirements that evolution does to be called a theory. But in the end they are all just idle speculation right?

[Ren]

Falsifiability

is another fun read while we are talking about theories.

[PGJ]

[quote]Ren wrote:

Falsifiability

is another fun read while we are talking about theories.[/quote]

Holy Hell, my head hurts.

[Lorisco]

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
We aren’t talking about “abnormalities”, we’re talking about genetic variation. In many species, there is tremendous genetic variation, and this is certainly the case in humans.
[/quote]

Genetic variations are considered abnormal in the sense that it is rare and not the norm. They are not always dysfunctional, but they are abnormal in the sense that only a small percentage of the population has these variations.

Absolutely not. If every member of a species that was not optimally suited for its environment died, the loss of genetic variance would be catastrophic, especially if it happened repeatedly. However, if the better-suited individuals produce more viable offspring, whatever traits are most effective increase in frequency, while those that are least effective decrease. The example I gave of human illness is to provide evidence for genetic variation. Also, a lot of the variants that exist neither help nor hurt the individual, and are not selected for or against. If the species environment changes, this can change as well. This is how species are able to adapt to changes.

What you have just outlined is a good case for adaptation within species; genetic differences that are more suited to the current environment tend to increase. This is all well documented and measurable in a controlled setting. However, the idea that these genetic changes can exceed the current genetic framework into an entirely different species is not currently measurable and is only theory.

You seem to have deliberately ignored voluntary dispersal, which is probably far more common than disasters. There are actually models that predict at which point an individual will leave a food-rich but over-crowded area for a food-poor, uncrowded one.

You are generalizing. It is true that this does occur in some species, however, some species have been shown to do the opposite.

Evolution is probable. The “improbabilities” you discuss are simply not real.

Mathematically speaking it is very improbable. However, since it is currently the only game in town many tend to downplay the actually probability because “it makes sense to them”. But again, that is more social in nature.

For life to originate, maybe. For life to adapt, definitely not. I would say it is more improbable for evolution not.

You seem to be saying that, not based on the millions of internal and external variables that needed to be just right, and continue just right for billions of years, but based on your own reasoning that it makes sense and that you have no other explanation you are willing to explore.

As for how small the odds are, we don’t have enough information to draw inferences. Some cosmologists say that the probability of the universe remaining as stable as it is can be compared to balancing a pencil on its point. However, we don’t know how many universes there are, and we don’t know how many planets there are in ours. If there are an infinite number of universes, the odds of at least one of them not becoming stable are extremely small. If there are trillions and trillions of planets in ours, it becomes improbable that life wouldn’t develop on its own on at least one of them.

Well, as with all your arguments, that makes perfect sense. However, things don’t always play out that way. For example, if you have a pile of sand what are the changes that one of those grains of sand will develop into a piece of wood?

If you go to the beach or the desert with exponentially increased about of sand, are the odds of a gain of sand turning into a piece wood greater? Using the evolutionary model we would say yes, but using what science has been able to verify in a controlled setting, we would say no.

Also, if you read into the mathematical ideas of chaos theory, the chances of this all occurring are significantly greater than standing a pencil on end.

But this leads me to a joke.

A group of scientists come together and approach God. They say “God, we don’t need you anymore, we have discovered how to make life ourselves.” God replies, “Oh really? Let’s have a competition then: whoever is able to make a man out dirt first wins.” The scientists, confident in their ability to make a man from dirt, bend down and grab a few handfuls, to which God replies “hold on a second, get your own dirt!”

Good one! I like that joke!

[quote]
You seem to have a hard time reconciling science with your belief in God. I view scientific discovery as evidence of God’s glory. If there are an infinite number of universes, and ours exists obly by chance, we should praise God for creating an infinite number of universes. In terms of evolution, we should be overcome with awe for God’s creation; a creation that is fully able to adapt and evolve. [/quote]

I don’t recall saying I believe in God, but I’m open to the possibilities. I do believe that the odds are about the same in that it is equally probable that such a complex and awesome system could randomly occur and continue that way as it would be that a higher power is what put it in place.

[Kainjer]