I don’t really blame people who don’t have an in depth understanding of evolution, unless they’re like, biologists or something. A lot of people are raised with an incomplete understanding of it due to the controversy - my high school did not even go into too much depth, and I didn’t really have a good understanding of the entire process until I got to college.
Also, it IS a difficult concept to grasp. It’s fairly complex and pretty counter-intuitive, where religious explanations are more psychologically friendly and easier to understand. However, there’s still no excuse for teaching completely unscientific ideas in a science class. It sets such a horrible precendent and hurts our nation’s credibility as we’re raising a bunch of morons who won’t know jack about real science.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Sadly thats usually the level of questions you get from someone who doesnt understand or hasnt read up on it. In this case it literally happened to be the typical “Why are there still monkey’s if we evolved from them?” stuff. Other classics include “Having half of an eye is useless, therefore evolving an eye is impossible”, “A watch implies a watchmaker, so therefore humans imply a human-maker.” There are other cross over topics like the Big Bang, a totally different theory, but it generally garners the same level of questions.
I gather you’ve read “The Blind Watchmaker” too, then?[/quote]
Eyes are easy to explain… eyes more than likely started as a cluster of photoreceptive cells which could detect darkness and light, and as this adaptation increased the fitness of the organism, more of these genes were then passed on and the adaptation became more prevalent, and ultimately, more sophisticated.
No organism was born with a mutated half-eye and that trait was magically conserved and grew into a full eye over several generations. It doesn’t work like that; it is far more subtle. The original mutation was probably photoreceptive ability. This is seen in the “rods” cells in the back of our current eyes.
[quote]Da Vinci wrote:
I really hope that this thread is a joke. If it isn’t, evolution has only stopped with the intelligence of the thread starter. If you wanted detailed information on this topic, try picking up a book on evolution instead of posting on a bodybuilding forum. I mean really.[/quote]
If i had known it would generate this many angry posts i probably wouldnt have made this thread to begin with. It was meant to be in jest rather than serious. I guess this thread is officially FAIL.
[quote]dudinator wrote:
Well those scientists are wrong. That’s not the way evolution works. Our DNA has no idea that we don’t need body hair or a thicker bone structure. We pass on our traits to the next generation if we successfully reproduce, and if we’re unsuccessful, the traits aren’t passed on.
Even though I’d like to think all the weightlifting I do is going to slowly make my lineage more robust over the generations, it doesn’t work like that.[/quote]
QFT
It’s ridiculous how many people unknowingly follow that fellow Lamarck’s theory of use and disuse. A giraffe that’s constantly reaching up high to eat will have offspring with longer necks to facilitate eating up high? Sorry, no.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
Evolution takes a LOOOOONG time.
You can artificially create evolutionary conditions in a lab and see it within your life time if you wanted to.
And microbes are constantly evolving (MRSA anyone?).
If the history of the earth were a year, recorded history would be the last 35 seconds of the year.
We’re a drop in ocean of evolution. Check back in a few million years you’ll probably see something. [/quote]
I have a problem with this line of thinking. Not with you but the extrapolation of data way out of line with the data set. We take 35 seconds of data and are explaining the last year with it.
As a side note i don’t know how stuff ended up in the state that it is now.
Evolution has some glaring holes and one has to make huge leaps of faith to believe it as a fact.
vs.
Creation which makes no attempt to justify holes and it is just taken on faith.
I think it is disturbing that evolutionists disreguard everything else as trash and will not listen to other view points (not just creation any opposing viewpoint). This is unscientific methodology to assume your “Theory” is law and others are unscientific.
Typical debates i have see on evolution is not a critical analysis on Eve but an attack on creation. I think it more constructive to discuss the shortcomings and strenghts of Eve and put it up for public debate.
[quote]Affliction wrote:
Eyes are easy to explain… eyes more than likely started as a cluster of photoreceptive cells which could detect darkness and light, and as this adaptation increased the fitness of the organism, more of these genes were then passed on and the adaptation became more prevalent, and ultimately, more sophisticated.
No organism was born with a mutated half-eye and that trait was magically conserved and grew into a full eye over several generations. It doesn’t work like that; it is far more subtle. The original mutation was probably photoreceptive ability. This is seen in the “rods” cells in the back of our current eyes.[/quote]
I understand that point, although tactics used by those whose goal it is to undermine the teaching of the Theory use the argument because it sounds good for about 5 seconds (at which point they are on to the next topic). It usually involved some kind of comparison like “You cant do anything with half a tractor, the same way you cant to anything with half an eye. Moving right along…”
It is a small branch off of the “Irreducible Complexity” idea, meaning if you removed the treads off of the tractor it would cease to function. Therefore the tractor was intelligently designed.
[quote]jakshafter wrote:
As a side note i don’t know how stuff ended up in the state that it is now.
Evolution has some glaring holes and one has to make huge leaps of faith to believe it as a fact.
vs.
Creation which makes no attempt to justify holes and it is just taken on faith.
I think it is disturbing that evolutionists disreguard everything else as trash and will not listen to other view points (not just creation any opposing viewpoint). This is unscientific methodology to assume your “Theory” is law and others are unscientific.
Typical debates i have see on evolution is not a critical analysis on Eve but an attack on creation. I think it more constructive to discuss the shortcomings and strenghts of Eve and put it up for public debate. [/quote]
I really feel the need to step in here, much of what you wrote is just flat out wrong.
Evolution is both a fact and a Theory. What I mean is, it is a fact that evolution occurs, and the Theory is the broader explanation of how it happens. Much like Gravity, that there is gravity is not a point of contention, how gravity occurs was up for debate until Einstein gave us relativity. Same thing with evolution.
What are the “glaring holes” in the Theory? By glaring holes I’m assuming you mean holes so big as to call the Theory into question about being true, not little tiny quibbles about finer points.
There are most certainly points of debate among biologist about the theory (Punctuated Equilibrium Vs. a Steady Model for example) but the Theory requires absolutely NO “faith” to “believe” in it. The mountains of evidence are out there if you doubt this. Talkorigins.net is a great starting place.
About the public debate issue, as I’ve already written the creationist have fine tuned tactics that make it easy for them to appear to win debates. They mention topics that would take a whole semester of school to explain in rapid fire succession to cast doubt on the topic. The other side has an impossible task of trying to cover them in 2 minute snippets.
The main alternative to Evolution, creationism or “intelligent design”, is not science for the simple reason that it is not testable. It is not falsifiable. Evolution is easily falsifiable if you understand how to do that, however every single attempt to do so so far has failed… This is called Science.
Final point about the “public debate” issue - The truth is not a democratic process. If I put an object into a box, we will not find out the true content of the box by having people vote on what they think it is. The only way to find out is to open the box… Which is what science does. Debating will do absolutely nothing to get us closer to the truth.
[quote]nowakc wrote:
I don’t really blame people who don’t have an in depth understanding of evolution, unless they’re like, biologists or something.
A lot of people are raised with an incomplete understanding of it due to the controversy - my high school did not even go into too much depth, and I didn’t really have a good understanding of the entire process until I got to college.
Also, it IS a difficult concept to grasp. It’s fairly complex and pretty counter-intuitive, where religious explanations are more psychologically friendly and easier to understand. However, there’s still no excuse for teaching completely unscientific ideas in a science class. It sets such a horrible precendent and hurts our nation’s credibility as we’re raising a bunch of morons who won’t know jack about real science.[/quote]
The theory, when covered in depth, can be quite tricky. Its taken me years to get to the level of understanding I have of it(Basically learned zero in high school as well)
But it really can be boiled down to a few sentences: Decent with modification based on Natural Selection and Genetic Drift. Populations will change in accord with their environmental pressures. The organisms able to reproduce the best will pass their genes on. Thats it really.
Unfortunately High Schools are usually the battle grounds for these types of issues because kids are “forced” to take classes like Bio which have standards of curriculum, whereas in college students can take whatever they want, like Theology if they so choose.
[quote]jakshafter wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
Evolution takes a LOOOOONG time.
You can artificially create evolutionary conditions in a lab and see it within your life time if you wanted to.
And microbes are constantly evolving (MRSA anyone?).
If the history of the earth were a year, recorded history would be the last 35 seconds of the year.
We’re a drop in ocean of evolution. Check back in a few million years you’ll probably see something.
I have a problem with this line of thinking. Not with you but the extrapolation of data way out of line with the data set. We take 35 seconds of data and are explaining the last year with it.[/quote]
Actually we have been using the last 35 seconds(probably more like the last 10) to research the rest of the year. We have reliable data that allows us to peak back into time as it were. We need not rely on only the last 2000-4000 years of recording because the information we gather tells us about the past, not only the present.
[quote]jakshafter wrote:
As a side note i don’t know how stuff ended up in the state that it is now.
Evolution has some glaring holes and one has to make huge leaps of faith to believe it as a fact.
vs.
Creation which makes no attempt to justify holes and it is just taken on faith.
I think it is disturbing that evolutionists disreguard everything else as trash and will not listen to other view points (not just creation any opposing viewpoint). This is unscientific methodology to assume your “Theory” is law and others are unscientific.
Typical debates i have see on evolution is not a critical analysis on Eve but an attack on creation. I think it more constructive to discuss the shortcomings and strenghts of Eve and put it up for public debate. [/quote]
The reason scientists won’t give “Creation Science” the time of day as a competing theory is that it is not science. Scientific theories have to be formulated under a certain process and have to meet certain criterion.
In order to be classified as “Scientific” a theory has to first be based on observation. Then, the theory has to be able to be tested by making predictions and seeing if those predictions fit the real world. Any contradictions must be accounted for in the theory either by changing it or by correctly interpreting the theory. Then a new round of predictive testing must be done and so on.
“Creation Science” fails in this crucial regard. Creationists started with the conclusion, that the world is designed, and then seek to find evidence that fits their world view. Any evidence that does not fit with their theory must be simply explained away (i.e. fossils were left here by the devil/god to fool man). There is no predictive power. The theory can never be honestly tested or changed.
Also, please explain what you mean by “glaring holes” in evolutionary theory.
[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:
power_bulker wrote:
I’ve got a dumb question, since I have no background in post secondary genetics/biology/biochemistry/etc.
Is the DNA passed on in our sperm the exact same DNA we had right from the day we were born? Or is it altered a bit by the time you reproduce?
It’s altered. There is a small factor of mutation but also the factor that the sperm (and eggs for females) in our bodies are haploid, as opposed to the the rest of the cells in our body, which are diploid. This means that the sperm cells have half the number of chromosomes. We have a total of 46 chromosomes (unless you have trisomy or are polyploidy). 23 from your father and 23 from your mother and they can grouped into pairs.
During meiosis, these chromosomes are randomly assorted so there are many variations. There is also the factor of crossing over where homologous non-sister chromatids exchange regions at the chiasmata.
So, in theory, each person has the potential to create up to 2^23 gametes (assuming you are heterozygous at every gene) and without factoring in crossing over. If a male and female were to mate, the offspring could be 1 in over 7 trillion.
If our DNA stayed exactly the same when we passed them on, then a male and female would produce offspring that would essentially be clones each other. So your brother (assuming you are not identical twins) would be the clone of you even though you could be a few years apart. [/quote]
Good, glad to see you mentioned crossing over, it’s often overlooked in lay explanations. To reiterate and emphasize a point, only mutations in germ line cells will be transmitted to offspring.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
As a side note i don’t know how stuff ended up in the state that it is now.
Evolution has some glaring holes and one has to make huge leaps of faith to believe it as a fact.
vs.
Creation which makes no attempt to justify holes and it is just taken on faith.
I think it is disturbing that evolutionists disreguard everything else as trash and will not listen to other view points (not just creation any opposing viewpoint). This is unscientific methodology to assume your “Theory” is law and others are unscientific.
Typical debates i have see on evolution is not a critical analysis on Eve but an attack on creation. I think it more constructive to discuss the shortcomings and strenghts of Eve and put it up for public debate.
I really feel the need to step in here, much of what you wrote is just flat out wrong.
Evolution is both a fact and a Theory. What I mean is, it is a fact that evolution occurs, and the Theory is the broader explanation of how it happens. Much like Gravity, that there is gravity is not a point of contention, how gravity occurs was up for debate until Einstein gave us relativity. Same thing with evolution. [/quote]
To start off i want you to know that i am not trying to justify a belief in creation so do not attack on this point. I am just saying evo is a theory.
Something cannot be both a fact and a theory. Those terms are contradictory. For example a woman cannot be both pregant and not pregant or a light both on and off. Moving on from this shortcomming in you logic, evolution is nothing like gravity which can be directly observed. They are not comparable.
[quote]
What are the “glaring holes” in the Theory? By glaring holes I’m assuming you mean holes so big as to call the Theory into question about being true, not little tiny quibbles about finer points.
There are most certainly points of debate among biologist about the theory (Punctuated Equilibrium Vs. a Steady Model for example) but the Theory requires absolutely NO “faith” to “believe” in it. The mountains of evidence are out there if you doubt this. Talkorigins.net is a great starting place. [/quote]
If we are talking a purely naturalistic origins there are several.
T=0 of the big bang
Chemical evolution (more complex molecules from simple ones) not possible as it violates the 3rd law of Thermo
Lack of any transitional species not just between humans and apes
Not supported by fossil timetables. (The fossil timetable in textbooks is a composite and doesn’t exist anywhere in the world)
There are more but that will give you something to chew on.
[quote]
About the public debate issue, as I’ve already written the creationist have fine tuned tactics that make it easy for them to appear to win debates. They mention topics that would take a whole semester of school to explain in rapid fire succession to cast doubt on the topic. The other side has an impossible task of trying to cover them in 2 minute snippets. [/quote]
This is terribly weak. Scientists are unable to defend their positions against nonscientists. Think about this, If you need to make more theories to justify your theory you may have a problem. I can defend either view point adeptly as a scientist (research engineer and published author).
This statement defeats itself. Evolution is not testable! By your own logic it isn’t science. Does that mean it is not science? Of course not it just means your logical criteria for science is a little off. Sorry if this seems insulting this is not my goal. “Iron sharpens iron” I am trying to make you more sound in your thinking.
[quote]
Final point about the “public debate” issue - The truth is not a democratic process. If I put an object into a box, we will not find out the true content of the box by having people vote on what they think it is. The only way to find out is to open the box… Which is what science does. Debating will do absolutely nothing to get us closer to the truth.[/quote]
Aye, truth is not up for debate it is by defination an absolute. No amount of debate can change facts. But to use your example we still do not know for certian what is in the box. We have good guesses.
But the problem is that one side of the people guessing silence any other viewpoints. It is not scientific to put forth a theory claim it to be true then decry all other views as trivial.
I apologise again if I say anything that seems insulting. Not my goal.
What are the “glaring holes” in the Theory? By glaring holes I’m assuming you mean holes so big as to call the Theory into question about being true, not little tiny quibbles about finer points.
There are most certainly points of debate among biologist about the theory (Punctuated Equilibrium Vs. a Steady Model for example) but the Theory requires absolutely NO “faith” to “believe” in it. The mountains of evidence are out there if you doubt this. Talkorigins.net is a great starting place.
[/quote]
The “glaring holes” are usually objections over things evolutionary theory doesn’t even attempt to explain, the result of gross ignorance of the theory or just plain absurdities or logical fallacies.
What are the “glaring holes” in the Theory? By glaring holes I’m assuming you mean holes so big as to call the Theory into question about being true, not little tiny quibbles about finer points.
There are most certainly points of debate among biologist about the theory (Punctuated Equilibrium Vs. a Steady Model for example) but the Theory requires absolutely NO “faith” to “believe” in it. The mountains of evidence are out there if you doubt this. Talkorigins.net is a great starting place.
The “glaring holes” are usually objections over things evolutionary theory doesn’t even attempt to explain, the result of gross ignorance of the theory or just plain absurdities or logical fallacies.[/quote]
I think this is a good point. Many people are grossly ignorant of what the theory of evo is. There are many different facets. Some are more believalbe than others. So lets set out what exactly we are discussing.
Are we discussing micro evolution? Which i define as an animal becoming a different subspecies of the same animal. Wolf becomes Labrador for example.
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.
Also listen to Lonnie.
Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.
[quote]JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.
Also listen to Lonnie.
Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.[/quote]
Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable
Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.