[quote]Fergy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Exactly what most evolutionist try to do, that has by my argument this whole time.
I am as much an ‘evolutionist’ as I am an ‘atomist’ or a ‘gravitationalist’ or a ‘germist’. I laugh every time I see this word used.
They are taking a theory and then trying to use evidence to support it. And if it doesn’t they just don’t use it.
You seem to have things backwards here.
Both concepts are based on faith not on science in the truest sense of the word because we cannot replicate. If you cannot admit that then there is no hope for you and I would never want to use any research you supported.
The theory of evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. I fail to see how faith plays any part in this whatsoever.
A journal titled evolutionary biology holds the same weight to me. Peer reviewed by a bunch of other evolutionary scientist trying to add credibility to their theory just as biased as any creationist journal. Get it through your skull, these journals are no better.
I was not aware that it was ‘their’ theory. I mean, it’s all just a conspiracy to push the views of a some evolutionary biologists onto everyone, right? Give me a break.
Also, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That’s abiogenesis.[/quote]
You make my case for me, thank you.
You are as blinded as those creationist who try to use science to support the existence of a GOD. Science cannot support nor refute it.
And as I have stated before, I am a proponent of natural selection, of gene shifting, mutations, manmade alterations in gentic composition, I have even worked in this area.
But much of the theories involved in evolution require explanation of the evidence to mean what you want it to, rather than the evidence just speaking for itself.
Both creationism(which also allows for natural selection and genetic shifts) and evolution are ways to fill the unanswerable gaps left by science and the lack of true experimentation to answer them.
We can’t go back intime to see what happened. so we need to fill the Gaps somehow.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
Glad to make your case .
I am indeed blinded by observable reality.
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.[/quote]
Observable reality is how religion came up in the first place, people were just too stupid to understand what was going on. In another thousand years religion will be dead and people will be laughing at “evolutionists”. All our theories are based on our perception of the world. The difference between creationism and evolution is that people were much smarter when evolution theory was thought up.
And as I have stated before, I am a proponent of natural selection, of gene shifting, mutations, manmade alterations in gentic composition, I have even worked in this area.
[/quote]
How do you look at rock strata and the fossiles in them?
Has every new species been created?
How big changes does natural selection, gene shifting and mutations allow?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
Glad to make your case .
I am indeed blinded by observable reality.
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.
Observable reality is how religion came up in the first place, people were just too stupid to understand what was going on. In another thousand years religion will be dead and people will be laughing at “evolutionists”. All our theories are based on our perception of the world. The difference between creationism and evolution is that people were much smarter when evolution theory was thought up.
I’ll listen to the smarter people.[/quote]
I disagree, I think religion is an undeniable human condition.
If you are talking withstanding the test of time, religion has the upper hand to individual science theories.
As long as there are questions like the origination of matter, the existence of infinity inward and outward, there will always be a religion of some sort. And I don’t think any of those will ever be comprehended by a human brain.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
ninearms wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
As for the whale legs thing, maybe he had a bunch of spare parts lying around, ever seen a platypus?
What sort of intelligent designer would have spare parts lying around? That’s just bad planning. Besides, he could have made a giant centipede that was a mile long, which would have been way more awesome.
What fun would perfection be?
I see,so the imperfection is all part of the intelligent design,because the designer has an impish sense of humour.
Got it,now it all makes sense.[/quote]
If man was created in Gods imagine…and some of us have pretty sick senses of humor…wouldn’t that be the same for the creator.
I know if I was a divine being capable of creating life I would come up with some crazy shit.
It is very possible for there to be a creator as well as evolution. They can co-exist.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I meant religion will be dead as in it will evolve and drop current creationism.
I think most religion already has. That’s why there are IDers.[/quote]
ID seems like a poorly disguised creationism.
I won’t discount the notion of God guiding the universe, but I doubt he talks to us directly without talking to other creatures. Thinking that seems pretty arrogant.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I meant religion will be dead as in it will evolve and drop current creationism.
I think most religion already has. That’s why there are IDers.
ID seems like a poorly disguised creationism.
I won’t discount the notion of God guiding the universe, but I doubt he talks to us directly without talking to other creatures. Thinking that seems pretty arrogant.[/quote]
I’'m not sure what the connection between talking to humans directly and ID is.
Carl Zimmer wrote a book called Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. I highly recommend it to anyone interested or even scared of the topic and would like to be understand it better.
Couple things…
As was mentioned, there is no such thing as “macro” and “micro” evolution in reality, there is just evolution.
And for the religious or ID folks? Seriously? Why would accepting something that we see evidence for everyday and is so natural “bad” or “wrong?” You can still embrace concepts, which some may label as ‘spiritual’ while still understanding this fundamental phenomenon that is, and always has been, occurring. Hasn’t it been proven enough? Why use Biotest Surge lol? It’s a product of the scientific method. Studying evolution requires the same method. People do it day in and day out. It’s real folks.
I like Judaism out of all of them (suppose Zen Buddhism would be close second, I donno), and have looked into it. It’s true, Abraham had one hell of an idea… truly revolutionary for its time, and it left a powerful influence, for better or worse, on Western civilization. But come on guys, it’s 2008.
Has anyone read up on “memes” and memetics? Quite interesting…
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.[/quote]
What are you talking about? ;\
When I said observable reality, I was referring to well… observable reality (evidence for evolution). I.e. endogenous retroviral DNA, human chromosome 2, etc. etc. etc.
The list goes on and on.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
In the end, I still have a problem with species divergence in the evolutionary theory. I don’t see an offspring having a different number of chromosomes and still being able to reproduce.
I mean you are talking about small steps, but at one point there would have to, for example, be an organism with 23 chromosomes that the next generation had say 24 (a change that would make an offspring unable to breed with it’s population, these are the kind of leaps the fossil record shows)
If it was some haphazard one of a kind mutation, the one and only 24 chromosome organism wouldn’t be able to breed.
There would have to be a co-mutation of a large portion of a generation of a species for this to make any since to me in terms of breed-ability and sustainability.
Unless for every significant change like that there would have to be an Adam and Eve type pair, but even that requires “random” mutation of multiple animals at the same time and place with the same mutation.
This is one place where ID makes more sense to me. The belief that these kind of changes occur with some sort of guidance. I’m not saying that it’s fact, but there are some reasons behind it.
The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.
I am interested to hear your opinion on the fused chromosome that humans possess and it’s relationship to two ape chromosomes.
I can’t really imagine how a proponent of ID could address that particular issue in a manner that isn’t ridiculous.
That is an interesting point that things don’t have to be advantageous to propagate and can even be disadvantageous. But again that is not the evolution my biology teacher taught me.
All sorts of negative traits can spread throughout natural populations.
I’m not really sure what you mean when you say “that is not the evolution my biology teacher taught me”. Could you please elaborate on that statement? I could be wrong here, but I think you may have slightly misunderstood the article.
What I was saying is that isn’t the version of evolution I’ve read in middle and high school text books. Mutation happens, if its good, they survive better and pass on their traits.
With the passage of negative traits, do you think creatures often de-evolve? Are humans de-evolving because we medically save inferior genes?
[/quote]
When I say that negative traits can spread throughout populations, I don’t mean that it would spread to every individual, or even become common.
The article wasn’t implying that the extra chromosomes variant would spread to every individual, despite the fact that it is disadvantageous when breeding with the rest of the population. The point is that it can it can spread through the population enough for two individuals with the extra chromosome to eventually cross paths and breed.
You were claiming that two organisms would have to randomly mutate at the same time and then breed with each other, which would be of very low probability. This is not true.
I guess it would depend on you definition of “nothing”.
Even if I actually believed that “something” came out of “nothing”, this would be no reason to ignore all of the evidence in support of the theory of evolution.
[quote]
The absolute fundamental laws of science had to of been violated at some point, no matter what you believe. What the hell is the difference if you believe they were violated trillions of years ago, or thousands of years ago?
I also do not completely buy into evolution at least as I understand it (could be lack of education on my part). But, regardless of how sure and proven scientific “facts” are, They many times need revising and rewriting.
For example something as fundamentally sound as saying the earth is round (as stated by one poster). Guess what, it’s not. You are depending on perspective based spacial relationships to quantify that. In other words, the earth isn’t round from every perspective. It isn’t an undeniable fact and is false in certain cases. It’s called length contraction.
Something in science is only undeniable fact until the next generation of thinking comes around. In a couple hundred years, how many “facts” you hold near and dear would be laughed at in a science classroom? What about until the end of time? Do you 100% believe evolutionary theory as it now stands will last that long? I’d go with the chance someone will have an ah-ha moment about the formation of life that will change scientific understanding in that time.[/quote]
I agree with this. I am sure that our understanding of evolution will change a lot in the next hundred years.
Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?
[/quote]
Sadly, this one actually makes sense. Testicles work best when they are a bit cooler than the rest of the body. Scots in kilts have high sperm counts, for example.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
And that would include giving whales useless appendages? Including giving the Right Whale actual legs? What’s efficient about including superfluities?
Would a designer also:
Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?
Attach the optic nerve to the wrong side of the eye, creating a blind spot?
Give snakes pelvises?
Give manatees fingernails on their fins?
Give the same useless hip bones that were given to whales to all the Sirenians?
That’s some pretty crappy design work.[/quote]
The problem with the inefficient design argument is that we end up in the ridiculous territory where we are trying to imagine what the creator was thinking, and what factors were taken into account when designing the universe.
In every case that you sited it will be possible for people to justify why the designer may have chosen to do it that way. Eg Vertebrates actually have an inverted retina in order to protect it from UV damage.
[quote]Alffi wrote:
A clear fanciful example, though completely serious, is the macroevolutionary impossibility of ever finding an animal such as a Pegasus. Since a Pegasus would be a mammal closely related to the horse, its wings would be considered derived characters. However, Pegasus wings cannot be modifications of its ancestors’ structures, since the immediate predicted ancestors of Pegasi and horses had no possible structures there to modify (Futuyma 1998, p. 110). This carefully crafted argument is hard to falsify. If such a Pegasus horse was ever found, then it could be easy to prescribe evolution as an explanation and posit the existence of intermediates which may never be found. [/quote]
This is absurd. You discuss something that can’t be found, especially since it would be physically impossible for something the size horse to fly, even it it has wings. We could actually use the absence of pegasi fossils as evidence for evolution. (Very weak evidence to be sure!)
Then you state that if it were found, that evolution would be try to describe it in clever terms that would be hard to falsify. What is even harder to falsify is a hypothetical argument about a creature that will never be found.
Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?
Sadly, this one actually makes sense. Testicles work best when they are a bit cooler than the rest of the body. Scots in kilts have high sperm counts, for example.
So remember: boxers, not briefs.[/quote]
It makes sense to keep them cool, yes, but would a designer really not offer them any protection from damage given their critical fucntion?
.