I Realized Why Evolution Is a Fact

Off Topic
41

[quote]Fergy wrote:
Otep wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Now that you have concluded from the similarity of a gas pump to a penis and a gas tank to a vagina, regarding complexity of life forms that “organic molecules simply fell into place according to where the laws of physics told them to go” and your gas tank example “destroys any lingering doubts that biological system are too complex to be explained by evolution,” perhaps you can explain to me how the laws of physics told molecules where to go such that, for example:

While having parents that both had two-chambered hearts and corresponding circulatory and respiratory systems that interfaced perfectly with those hearts, molecules were told how to re-arrange for one or more of the offspring so that DNA now coded for new proteins that resulted (how? explain the mechanism) in an offspring with a three-chambered heart, fully functional the first time right off the bat and well interfaced, necessarily differently, with the circulatory and respiratory systems.

And how the laws of physics told molecules how to successfully carry these necessarily quite complex (as the change is quite complex) DNA changes on to future generations, as this was the only creature on the planet at this time with the 3-chambered heart.

I mean, obviously what with the gas pump and the gas tank you’ve proven this… I just would appreciate the explanation that gives at least some degree of detail or at least plausibility?

Oh, that’s simple; God did it.

Ehm, wrong. The fuzzy pink unicorn did it.
[/quote]

Okay, now you’re just being preposterous.

On a more serious level, while I do hold with the tenants of ID (there exists a benevolent, intelligent order behind the universe), I reject the scientific theories of ID, because I don’t see them offering anything new.

The above example of Newton is excellent. Saying ‘God did it’ doesn’t explain anything. Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.

I don’t really see conflict between faith and science.

That said, that’s just my opinion. Feel free to rail.

42

[quote]belligerent wrote:
So today I was filling up my car at the gas station and it occurred to me that the way that gas is transferred from the pump to the car is similar to the manner in which semen is transferred from the male to the female; i.e. by inserting a funnel into a reciprocal.

This got me thinking. Is it some big coincidence that the engineers devised the same system of fluid transfer as nature? Of course not. The penis/vagina arrangement was neither intelligently designed, nor did it occur randomly. Instead, it simply evolved in the only way that was possible, conforming to the niche created by nature. The organic molecules simply fell into place according to where the laws of physics told them to go.

I feel somewhat stupid for not realizing this a long time ago. Nevertheless, it destroys any lingering doubts that biological system are too complex to be explained by evolution.[/quote]

What a load of crap.

For example:
And…why did penises and vaginas develop (“evolve”) if there was no previous use for them? That which is useless is dropped, so there would be no purpose for them until they are fully functional (we’re talking sexually, now…not “urinally”).

43

[quote]Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.
[/quote]

Just for the sake of argument:

What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?

And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…

44

By the way,

Great post, Bill

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Now that you have concluded from the similarity of a gas pump to a penis and a gas tank to a vagina, regarding complexity of life forms that “organic molecules simply fell into place according to where the laws of physics told them to go” and your gas tank example “destroys any lingering doubts that biological system are too complex to be explained by evolution,” perhaps you can explain to me how the laws of physics told molecules where to go such that, for example:

While having parents that both had two-chambered hearts and corresponding circulatory and respiratory systems that interfaced perfectly with those hearts, molecules were told how to re-arrange for one or more of the offspring so that DNA now coded for new proteins that resulted (how? explain the mechanism) in an offspring with a three-chambered heart, fully functional the first time right off the bat and well interfaced, necessarily differently, with the circulatory and respiratory systems.

And how the laws of physics told molecules how to successfully carry these necessarily quite complex (as the change is quite complex) DNA changes on to future generations, as this was the only creature on the planet at this time with the 3-chambered heart.

I mean, obviously what with the gas pump and the gas tank you’ve proven this… I just would appreciate the explanation that gives at least some degree of detail or at least plausibility?[/quote]

45

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.

Just for the sake of argument:

What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?

And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…

[/quote]

What if Religion was all wrong, right from the start. Do you think they would admit it. I’m preety damn sure they were and are wrong, but I can’t prove it.

46

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Now that you have concluded from the similarity of a gas pump to a penis and a gas tank to a vagina, regarding complexity of life forms that “organic molecules simply fell into place according to where the laws of physics told them to go” and your gas tank example “destroys any lingering doubts that biological system are too complex to be explained by evolution,” perhaps you can explain to me how the laws of physics told molecules where to go such that, for example:

While having parents that both had two-chambered hearts and corresponding circulatory and respiratory systems that interfaced perfectly with those hearts, molecules were told how to re-arrange for one or more of the offspring so that DNA now coded for new proteins that resulted (how? explain the mechanism) in an offspring with a three-chambered heart, fully functional the first time right off the bat and well interfaced, necessarily differently, with the circulatory and respiratory systems.

And how the laws of physics told molecules how to successfully carry these necessarily quite complex (as the change is quite complex) DNA changes on to future generations, as this was the only creature on the planet at this time with the 3-chambered heart.

I mean, obviously what with the gas pump and the gas tank you’ve proven this… I just would appreciate the explanation that gives at least some degree of detail or at least plausibility?

I dont think physics had anything to do with it really… These would be more likely described by the findings of biology.

I’m having a hard time gathering what the spirit of this post was supposed to be. Surely a science guy such as Bill Roberts does not thumb his nose at evolution? Say it aint so Bill.[/quote]

Rather a scientific person SHOULD NOT blithely assume and assert that because there are some principles and mechanisms we understand, we know for a fact that everything observed, including things far beyond our understanding, are definitely caused by those principles and mechanisms.

If one can’t follow through in detail as to how yes in fact this is explained and here’s how, it’s bad practice to assume and assert it’s proven that one’s master explanation is correct.

It’s very non-scientific to overreach in one’s judgment of what one has supposedly proven.

As for the thought that a Google search will reveal the answer: Good luck. Actually the situation is that while we understand how molecular biology combined with selection can yield such things as more GH being produced thus resulting in greater sizem, or a different pigment or different amount of pigment being produced thus resulting in change in color – or other examples where we can understand how nuclei making RNA for differing amounts of a protein or different variants of a protein can make a change – we do not understand the general question of how coding for different proteins yields different complex organ structures or bodyplans. At all.

Just how the nuclei directing (so to speak) ribosomes to crank out different proteins results in different organ and body structures is not known.

When that is not known, it’s an absurd gap to claim that from our learning a mechanism by which coding for different proteins can be selected for over time, this explains all the complexity of life. “Just have the right chemicals in a soup, input energy and time, and a few billion years later you’ll have all the life forms we have today, it’s proven, it’s a scientific fact, anyone who hasn’t learned this is stupid, hyuk hyuk hyuk, but we is so smart.”

Doing so regardless of gaps we can’t show how to fill can be explained in only 3 ways I think:

  1. Blithe unawareness that there are unexplained things at all.

  2. Blithe assumption that “surely” the explanation has to cover any problems, regardless that one cannot shows step by step how it’s possible and cannot find anyone who can do so. This would fall into the category of carelessness or just very sloppy thinking.

  3. Being psychologically determined to reject what is perceived as a or the competing view as to be willing to assert far more than what is intellectually honest to assert, so as to not have to deal with or to actually ridicule the other view. This would have to be, I think, more common among those sound enough in science that they should not be falling into the first 2 categories.

47

[quote]Otep wrote:

I don’t really see conflict between faith and science.
[/quote]

Perfectly stated.

Funny thing I noticed in university was that more and more of my fellow students rejected/questioned the possibility of God as they progressed from freshmen to seniors. But many of the masters/Phds and professors, were able to find a balance and hold both their faith and their scientific principles close to their heart.

48

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
Otep wrote:

I don’t really see conflict between faith and science.

Perfectly stated.

Funny thing I noticed in university was that more and more of my fellow students rejected/questioned the possibility of God as they progressed from freshmen to seniors. But many of the masters/Phds and professors, were able to find a balance and hold both their faith and their scientific principles close to their heart.[/quote]

Which may or may not be a good thing…

49

[quote]streamline wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.

Just for the sake of argument:

What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?

And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…

What if Religion was all wrong, right from the start. Do you think they would admit it. I’m preety damn sure they were and are wrong, but I can’t prove it.[/quote]

Of course, it will never be proven wrong.

But for the sake of argument:

If it was proven, I’d bet many true believers would abandon their ways and go into “Eat, Drink, and be Merry for tomorrow we die,” mode.

Now that I answered you, what about my original question?

50

[quote]Fergy wrote:
Irreducible Complexity is stupid. End of story. :|[/quote]

To me: the story of complex stupidity ends with irreducibility

51

[quote]belligerent wrote:
The penis/vagina arrangement was neither intelligently designed, nor did it occur randomly.
[/quote]

You are partially correct for the fact that sexual selection is an active process and therefore not random in any sense. The reproductive arrangement is the result of millions of generations of organization and selection. It is intelligent in the fact that intelligent life forms do choose the traits that will be procreated.

However, humans did not have a say in what form their bodies were going to take because all the genetic mutations that resulted in the human form were predetermined by sexual selection from organisms that came before.

Physics only played a role in the development of life with regard to its physical structure – chemistry, protein folding and synthesis, etc.

52

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.

Just for the sake of argument:

What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?

And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…

[/quote]

Well, I’m not a doctor, but as near as I can tell, the theory of evolution was pretty revolutionary at the time of it’s inception. People were highly critical. However, one of the benefits of evolution was that it could explain things that weren’t currently explainable. Moreover, it made predictions that were testable, and the results of those tests helped refine the theory.

So the idea of it being ‘wrong from the get-go’ seems implausible, simply because… it explains things better than any other available model we have.

Now, that being said, there are still events left unexplained. Which require further thought and investigation. If suddenly the scientific body comes across evidence that supports any entirely new theory of the way organism evolve (I’m sorry, I don’t know of any other word to sum up progressive adaptation that leads to new species) and in addition explains how large leaps of adaptation are created (eyes, three and four chambered hearts, etc.), I have faith the scientific body will be at first highly skeptical of this new development, and as the evidence mounts, slowly change their minds.

Until, of course, the new model is replaced with a still newer, better one.

That said, I haven’t found ID (which, as near as I can tell, is the main competitor with the theory of evolution) to make testable assertions. So as far as a scientific model, I think evolution is the best we have at the moment.

53

When I was in high school, probably around 16 years old, nearly 30 years ago, I thought up the “Big Bounce Theory” (I even called it that). Man was I pissed a couple of months ago when Scientific American had it on their cover. All I had to do was talk about it on some kind of forum like this and it would have been mine.

Belligerent, lay off the hippy lettuce.

54

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
streamline wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.

Just for the sake of argument:

What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?

And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…

What if Religion was all wrong, right from the start. Do you think they would admit it. I’m preety damn sure they were and are wrong, but I can’t prove it.

Of course, it will never be proven wrong.

But for the sake of argument:

If it was proven, I’d bet many true believers would abandon their ways and go into “Eat, Drink, and be Merry for tomorrow we die,” mode.
[/quote]

What if there’s significant evidence for the existence of God and the usefulness of religion? Would athiests become true believers?

This isn’t a one-sided thing. Everyone’s looking at the same evidence on this issue.

55

Not sure what you’re referring to, the students just learning the the scientific process or the more advanced people applying it.

Just to clarify, what I meant to bring up kind of is in line with Bill Robert’s post.

Students typically take a little bit of knowledge and jump to broad conclusions. Generally this is partly due to the way we teach since you have to address a persons ability to understand before diving deep into intricate detail (ie. ist year anatomy starts with the bones, but eventually over the course of an academic program the understanding is much more granual).

As most people continue their academic learnings and are exposed to the lab environment and research skills, they learn that the conclusions they draw should be limited to what was actually tested and controlled for. They may speculate beyond the experiment, but this should be only to provide context to potentailly drive future research. For example, labs rats given X dose of fish oils responded with Y changes to blood samples compared to the control.

This could lead to adjusting some variables such as dosage, age of rats, sample size etc… in an attempt to replicate the results. Eventually you could speculate a response for humans, then begin testing on humans.

There is nothing in the second group discussed here that prohibits religious beliefs since faith like life in general is much to broad to exclusively follow scientific principles.

A simple analogy relevant to this website would be a newbie that comes on, reads all the articles and then starts giving advise on the proper way to get big/gain strength. (This would never happen, right?)

On the other hand, you have a vetern that is able to give advise based on personal/observed results. Generally this is much more inclusive of different methods as they ahve seen people get results by using various training methods.

Sorry for the long post, I hope it clears up my position.

56

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.

Just for the sake of argument:

What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?

And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…

[/quote]

Umm… There are countless examples in science of something being proven wrong, and then the rest of the community readily accepting it. You just cant argue with fact… Unless you are religious.

What in our society (of which more than 50% of the population rejects the theory, and up to 75% reject it as a natural phenomenon) is based on evolution?

57

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
tkisner wrote:
Explain the flagella in the basic cell structure. Or the eye. Evolution hasn’t been able to. Maybe you can be so wise to deduce it for us.

Please, please, please tell me you are joking? You could literally spend 14 seconds on google or wikipedia and find this information out.[/quote]

because if it’s on the internet it must be true?

is this debate really going on again?

someone who does not want to be swayed will not be swayed, regardless of facts, logic or insults.

however, that being said, carry on - this is very entertaining so far.

58

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Otep wrote:
Evolution tries, at least, and when it’s wrong, it’s both promptly admitted and the old model is revised in light of newer facts.

Just for the sake of argument:

What if the entire basis for the belief of evolution is wrong from the get-go? I highly doubt that they would revise it…for the simple fact that so much of our society/education is based on the “fact” of evolution?

And, fyi, I don’t think it’s promptly admitted when wrong…but that’s a different topic altogether…

Umm… There are countless examples in science of something being proven wrong, and then the rest of the community readily accepting it. You just cant argue with fact… Unless you are religious.

What in our society (of which more than 50% of the population rejects the theory, and up to 75% reject it as a natural phenomenon) is based on evolution?[/quote]

People need to realize that science is a method of studying the world around us, first and foremost. So of course it’s going to be wrong sometimes, but with the refining of the scientific method over the years, it’s getting better at explaining the universe around us.

Also people need to realize, that just because you believe in intelligent design, shouldn’t strengthen your argument for any particular religion because they all have the same probability of being wrong. Just watch this short video and you’ll understand my reasoning.

59
60

[quote]miroku333 wrote:
because if it’s on the internet it must be true?[/quote]

Not always, but you can at least surmise that if many different sources reinforce an idea with evidence, and it all happens to be logical and makes sense, then there’s at least a decent chance it is true.

What is a religious person, Alex.