I mentioned the phrase "flaws in evolution" in the context of challenging the constant assertion by may that evolution is a proven well understood and accepted fact, as opposed to a flawed theory.
Proponents of evolution in Hubpages don't like facing these issues, as it messes with their doctrine.
Like hypocrites, those they ridicule for their faith in God, (et all), yet they themselves engage in biased, self serving dogmas, without honestly acknowledging the (most obvious) flaws.
One MAJOR flaw, staring them (us) in the face is the helplessness of adaptation, mutation and rise of new species to compensate for the rate of extinction now being measured, and quantified, as (as many experts assert) is now beyond the equilibrium.
IE, we are loosing more than we are gaining.
Mind you, these "experts" dont even know what the rate of "gaining" is, or was.
So, lets just look at the FACTS.
We can measure/estimate the number we lose, because we knew we had them.
We cannot measure newly evolved species, because we have not observed ANY!
Please don't confuse that with, we have not discovered any, because we are discovering many all the time.
Here are just two sites for reference.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/prog … on_crisis/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … ies-evolve
Not quite sure how an example of species that cannot effectively compete in a changing ecological niche is a flaw in evolution. Rather, it would seem to be more evidence of the viability of that theory.
An example of animals evolving before our eyes?
The horse, donkey and the zebra.
The lion and tiger.
antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Just of the top of my head.
So. That's your answer for evolution.
The rise of new species.
I guess you refuted my OP flawlessly.
So, where are all the experts?
Probably went to church, since it's sunday.
Wow. Just to be clear, your using photos of who? Aborigines? And they are your examples of human evolution happening before our eyes? Because of their color? Because of their height? Are you saying they are more or less evolved than others? Please explain your "evidence."
You guys don't see the adaptation that takes place when left in isolation?
the horse and the donkey and the zebra? All can still produce offspring just no viable offspring.
the lion and the tiger. Both adapted to different environments with a different social structure and can still produce viable offspring.
bacteria evolving to a new hostil threat.
No animal is more evolved then another. That statement shows you don't know what you are talking about.
You didn't answer any of my questions, although I guess you did try and address my request that you explain your evidence, by giving examples of adaptability, but I am not sure what that has to do with the theory that man was ever anything but man.
So now, please tell me, what about the Aborigines? What were you eluding to with them? Is that where the answer is?
Ignoring the semantics problem of a man that isn't a man, you would have to define man in a manner consistent with biological definitions and not just anything with a soul. At that point a "man that isn't a man" can be found, or at least the remnants of such a creature. You might start with Neanderthal or even homo habilis, depending on your definition
Earlier speculation regarding Neanderthals led to wild interpretations, which have only fairly recently dissipated in favor of less sensationalism. Please take a look at more recent reconstructions than those stereotypical images the name brings to mind for many of us, because of what we were shown in school. I think I've seen these folks at Wal-Mart.
http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstruction … erthal.php
You understand how different they were then us right? They arrived in Europe about 400 000 years before humans and appeared to lack our creativity as well as our long childhood development.
I am aware of many of the interpretations and conclusions made to incorporate facts and hard evidence available regarding "early man". Do I consider these conclusive? No, but it is always interesting to see and consider the speculations scientists apply to their findings.
Perhaps we could conduct our own anthropological study into the utilization and application of hard facts by scientists and how their conclusions align with their own preconceived notions and academic indoctrination, when other interpretations would be just as viable. Might be interesting. Do you think I could get a grant?
I take reconstructions, particularly the fleshy and surface areas, with a giant grain of salt. I remember the old ones, covered in hair for instance - what has been the determining factor in making these ones virtually hairless in comparison?
Be that as it may, however, are you suggesting that Neanderthal was human? Not homo sapiens, obviously, but "man"? The last I heard they had no spoken language - missing the physical requirements for speech they couldn't. Diet was considerably different (caused by difference in dentition) and likely the digestive system as well. Needless to say there are other differences.
If Neanderthal is "man" then I'm looking for something else - something close to man, but not man, that evolved into man. When found, the question becomes exactly where the creature became "man" and that creature becomes proof of evolution's viability. But without your agreement as to which ancestor was not man, we cannot show anything. Was homo habilis (our direct ancestor) "man" in your opinion?
Wilderness, I was not drawing a conclusion, but rather casting doubt because I don't believe science has the information required to make the conclusions it does. Based on your previous posts, I know you hold science and scientists in high, almost reverent regard. You have made comments about their superior intellect, inferring (or at least that was my impression), that they should be allowed artistic license, since the result of that would likely have merit. I am not similarly impressed, and therefore not compelled to give their findings the weight you do, particularly in areas where interpretation plays a major role.
I know first hand that science's ability to analyze and then exploit what I consider to be God's creation, in an effort to improve our existence has, and continues to produce fantastic results. I am a huge fan of this. I have mentioned I have a daughter with multiple disabilities, including ones that are perpetually life threatening. After over two decades of working very closely with the medical community it is clear to me that even at the level that science hits the streets, it must be closely watched and considered, when applied. Without it, we would never have had a chance, but had we put our faith entirely in the experts, we would have lost her long ago, on multiple occassions. With such a complex kid, we never assume anyone is right, and that diligence has proven critical several times over the years. Needless to say, tensions have run high between us and the medical community, but recently, out of respect for over 20 years of success with a most difficult case, they have begun to warm up to us.
Regarding your questions of "early man," I believe there has been man, and some adaptation has taken place with us. There have been primates, some of whom undoubtedly are extinct. Which each sample represents could perhaps be determined with objective research, or perhaps it would require data we don't have access to. It is far from proven.
When science starts speculating about origins, like it or not, it is nearly impossible for them not to be influenced by their own philosophical views, since facts alone can't paint the picture. This results in making clear inferences, if not drawing actual conclusions, the facts don't exclusively bear out. I believe our origin, (meaning how this all got started), is a venue science can't legitimately speak to. It is easy to get caught up in some of their reasoning, and I even enjoy doing so on occasion. I often have wondered, if you washed the scientific record with an acid that eroded away all but the hard evidence and gave it to truly objective analysts, what conclusions would they draw? Perhaps you have confidence that this is what has been done. I don't share that confidence.
Reverence? Not hardly. Higher intelligence that non-scientists? Equally unlikely. Better trained to reason objectively? In most cases, yes. A good scientist knows of the danger and tries to avoid it.
Why can't the origin of the universe be investigated by science? Because God made it? There's that "objectivity" (or lack thereof) that science tries to avoid.
Washing the record with acid would be a good idea. Far too much "science" is heavily contaminated with politics, religion, money and nearly anything else you can imagine. It is not, however, as bad as I suspect you view it.
My wife and I love dogs. Unfortunately, our daughter is afraid of them, so we can't have one. If we could, it would be a Chinook. Fascinating breed, embodying all the qualities I would look for in a dog. Of course, this breed is new, as breeds go, having only been registered and recognized by the AKC back in 1991. I don't really consider the creative exploitation of the incredible adaptation God engineered into living organisms as evidence for one kind of animal somehow becoming another.
So, please tell me how three different types of horses, two different types of cats, and however many types of bacteria prove man, (or any organism), evolved from anything else? I do agree with your last statement, that no animal is more evolved than another...., because none of them are evolved in the way you mean. They have just adapted, and calling that adaptation "evolution" provides the only shred of credibility the term can lay claim to. Take away the adaptability within kinds and what do you have?
How have you illustrated by any of this that I don't know what I am talking about? And please...do tell me about your point with the Aborigines. You have me curious.
You asked for an animal that is becoming another and I gave you the horse, donkey and the zebra. All three have adapted to a new environment, look different, can still breed, but the genetic difference no longer allow the offspring to be viable. In other words they can no longer become one species. There are numerous examples of what you asked for.
As for humans, the evidence is overwhelming in favour of a common ancestor with other great apes. Genetic and fossil records are a good start. There is no reason to lie, why would you think one would?
Now you've implied twice that my motives for showing the differences in humans that have adapted to a different environment was racially motivated. I don't appreciate that and it wasn't me who implied one was more evolved then the next. Don't make that mistake again please, I'm not a racist and I don't like the implication and I had already explained why I used the photo.
Actually Rad, I didn't ask you for anything initially. I was responding to your response to aka-dj, but had I asked for examples of evolution in motion, none of these would have been even slightly compelling. That's okay, because I have asked for this before, have studied the theory off and on for over 30 years, and had my nose rubbed in whatever example the person I happen to be discussing with feels is significant, and frankly none of those were compelling either. What would be? Anything that indicated something transcending basic adaptability. If such evidence exists, it has eluded my investigations and those of all the folks who have attempted to enlighten me, as well as those preparing the documents and web sites I am constantly referred to in an attempt to free me from the perceived bonds of the "scientific illiteracy" that anyone disagreeing with evolution is believed, by some, to be afflicted with.
I am not really concerned with the theory-de-jour, but last I heard I thought many scientists were distancing themselves from the ape s**t. Childish, I know, but I couldn't resist. Anyway, I know science is not in agreement on who the ancestors would have been. As for lying, I don't think you are. I think you believe this stuff. I think it is what your super-ego wants...perhaps even needs... to be true.
I made no mistake. Your choice to incorporate those images the way you did made a clear implication nobody could miss. I'll not apologize for your poor choice, even if you clarify, (as you should), that it is not representative of your view. I made no direct accusation, but rather asked questions which provided you with an opportunity to clarify your position. So clear was the impression left by your presentation, that I felt you might want to address it. My repeated inquiry was the result of your initial lack of response. Your post was at best, a very unfortunate and insensitive choice. Do you disagree?
I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend evolution. I guess the fossil records, genetic records and the various methods of dating are not sufficient for you as you've go the bible telling you dinosaurs must have existed along side humans a few thousand years ago. I only bother trying to help you because I can't believe what I'm reading.
The horse, donkey and zebra are a perfect example of what you are looking for. They are no longer the same species and yet they were, had to be. And now no longer able to reproduce viable offspring.
Why do you think it's racist to show a picture of how humans have adapted to environments? Tell me are you one of the people who think humans were made by God about 5 or 6 thousand years ago as described in the OT? If so those pictures show a rather massive adaptation within just a few thousand years don't you think? Discussing human adaptation does not make anyone a racist, unless as you said it implied one group was more evolved. You said that, I didn't. I've addressed this every step of the way. Look back and read. If you again imply I'm a racist, we will be done.
I'll do you one better, Rad. It is true I was offended by what I felt was a clear implication of your post, whether intended or not, and this is what motivated my response. Perhaps I succumbed to a degree, to the very political correctness I have come to abhor. I don't think my sensitivity was incorrect, nor that a response was not warranted, but in rereading the exchange I do understand your intent with the posting. I have never found you to be racist, and I have read many of your posts for some time now. I should have considered that and simply pointed out my concern to you while avoiding the implications. For that I do apologize.
It really does get tiring.., all this "sorry you are unable to comprehend", and "scientifically illiterate", etc. Really? If you cannot glean from my prose a hint of my intellect which would negate those accusations, then so be it. Paint me as the simpleton and dolt it seems you consider any believer to be. As with evolution though, you may find it a difficult premise to support when the dust settles. So then perhaps the super ego or indoctrination? No, but I should grant leeway here, since I tend to have the same suspicions regarding atheists.
I leave the issues you inquire about on the table because at this point it would be what I affectionately call, arguing from the middle. Our perspectives are so divergent that employing the same approaches at understanding each other as we have been seeing in the forums is bound to only result in the same pointless and circular arguments. I have an idea and approach in mind that may well be no more successful, ( I have reason to have my doubts), but there are a few here, including Wilderness and yourself, with whom at some point I might like to try it. For now, however, I think this OP warrants indulging. What comes out here may well serve as a good foundation for the future conversations I've eluded to.
Now I find this rather curious.
You consider these changes "radical" in the space of (say) 6000 yrs.
Then why is it so incredulous to think the same (extremely complex) human could evolve from slime in a mere few billion?
This evolutionary thread exists only in the imaginations of humans. Certainly not in any fossil records.
And even MORE certainly not in measurable scientific method.
Because the difference in time scale between thousands of years and billions of years is the difference between a minute and a decade.
This is no answer to the problem.
I see humans of 6000 years ago as essentially the same as we are now.
Most evolutionists would agree with me.
I don't think you grasp the magnitude of what's required to go from slime to you and me in a mere "decade".
O ye of great faith! I salute you.
Here's a practical question for the simple minded (like me, of course).
How many (likely) measurable stages could we identify in this so called evolutionary process?
I await your answer, before we can proceed to the next step.
Actually, all of this so called fossil evidence could be layed out on a standard pool table. I take it you haven't heard that many so called "important finds" in the previous early century have been proven hoaxes?
BTW, the hyoid bone is a complete mystery. It has no known point of origin, nor does it exist in any known ancestor or even relative. This massive evolutionary leap simply appeared within the population within 25000 years. We know this to be impossible but have no explanation. Most science simply looks away.
There are, however, two possibilities that would explain it. The first is that our carbon dating (and possibly other methods related) is massively wrong. There seems to be mounting evidence to this conclusion. There is a mountain of evidence that radio decay slows and speeds depending on local and space phenomena, sometimes to a very large degree.
The second, and again, there is mounting evidence, is genetic manipulation. The evidence in this case is forensic, anecdotal, and scientific, and there is no physical evidence. However, when you consider that this manipulation would be dated to approximately 225000 years ago, exactly what would be expected to survive?
I personally believe we will probably never know our origin in it's entirety. I believ that the truth will be much stranger than fiction, and even the super aliens will have to acknowledge the hand of a divine force in guiding our development.
From this post, it's obvious that it is not well understood. The only point for debate is whether it is the lack of intelligence or simply the unwillingness to understand.
Yes, it's an unwillingness to learn.
Are you ignoring all the flaws too?
Just because you take logical contradictions as facts and just because you cannot understand(it is "understand" not learn), doesn't mean others have the same problem.
Gravity, relativity, laws of thermodynamics, cosmic expansion and the laws of planetary motion are all theories like evolution, but don't be fooled by the term 'theory'. In science, 'theory' indicates the highest level of certainty. It means that there is overwhelming supporting evidence for a particular hypothesis.
Facts are the observable and objectively verifiable phenomena these hypotheses try to explain. If an hypothesis is well substantiated, by which I mean it has been repeatedly confirmed through experiment and observation, then it is considered a scientific theory and generally (tentatively) accepted as accurate. All of the above are well substantiated.
The fact that alternative hypotheses can (and are) conceived does not indicate that an existing theory is inaccurate. The accuracy of a theory is determined by measuring its ability to make accurate predictions about a phenomenon. As it stands, evolution is currently the most substantiated explanation of changes in the inherited characteristics of biological organisms over time. So the theory of evolution is not a fact, but by any scientific measure, the theory of evolution is the most accurate explanation of the relevant phenomenon, and is therefore (tentatively) accepted as accurate.
Standard evolutionary apologetic rhetoric.
Heard it all before.
Theory is theory, redefining it does not help your cause, and certainly does nothing to convince me.
You can save the skin on your fingerips, typing all this text.
Ever since the Scientific Method was founded, a theory has always been the highest proof of science (just one step under Laws and Mathematics), and aside from evolution, other theories include heliocentrism, cells, the Big Bang, the wave theory of light, and relativity.
Theory is theory. Redefining it does not help your cause, and certainly does nothing to convince me.
If you've heard it all before, why haven't you verified the meaning of the term "theory" in science and stopped treating it as a pure guess, similar to creation "theory"?
You now know you have misunderstood the meaning of the term when used in the world of knowledge and science; it would seem best to use it properly in search of better communication.
I'm not redefining anything. These are the terms used in science. We tentatively accept, as scientific theory, those hypotheses we can prove are the most accurate, and we tentatively discard those others. That's how a body of scientific knowledge is built.
Discarding an existing theory despite the absence of anything that can be proven to be more accurate, is not reasonable scientific judgement. Likewise, adopting a new hypothesis despite an absence of proof that it is more accurate than the existing theory, is not reasonable scientific judgement.
So discarding the theory of evolution would only be reasonable if an alternative hypothesis is scientifically proven to be more accurate, and if it is equally or better substantiated. No such alternative hypothesis exists. Therefore the theory of evolution remains the most accurate and substantiated explanation of the relevant phenomena, and we tentatively accept it as correct.
Maybe the problem is that there is some lack of understanding of the definition of a theory.
A theory is:
the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another;
the general or abstract principles of a body of fact;
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena;
a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject.
Theory is not a guess or an untested hypothesis.
Theory results from testing hypotheses.
Yes, evolution is well understood as fact for anyone who actually understands it. This thread is ample evidence of someone with little to no understanding of evolution.
Yes, we already know you believe evolution jeopardizes your religious beliefs and that lashing out is all one can muster when they are deplete of the facts.
First of all, the extinction of species has nothing to do with validating or refuting the understanding, the facts and the evidence of evolution. That is a laughable red herring.
And secondly, you show well beyond a doubt no understanding of evolution when you make the silly assertion that we have not observed any newly evolved species.
And, to answer your next question, no, monkeys will not evolve into humans overnight.
Why is this thread in the Education and Science forum?
Evolution cannot be understood, because it never happened.
Sure, you can claim to understand the theorised process, but only in it's most simplistic form.
You apply the real world reality to the theory, and it fails the test.
Keep believing your science fiction, if it keeps you happy
Two can play that game.
Mines definitely better than yours.
Is that a joke? You do realize the author of that video has basically created the same 747 assembled in a junkyard argument comparing the gene with a computer. Another dishonest believer who doesn't understand evolution.
You understand he hypothesis of evolution.
I have no problem understanding it either.
That does not equate to, it is fact.
So, the human genome, went from bacteria, to it's current state, all by random chance.
As I said, science fiction.
Well, here's absolute proof that you don't understand evolution--you think it's random chance. In fact, it's the exact opposite of random.
If you look back even to Darwin's observations about the same species of finch growing different beak shapes based on where they lived, you would have to be blind, deaf, dumb, and mentally deficient to possibly believe that their beak shapes changing to match their environment was caused by random chance.
Evolution is simply the passing on of superior adaptations and/or physical traits (the mating game also heavily influences evolutionary changes) from parent to offspring. Given enough time, entirely new breeds and species appear.
It only took us ~3000 years to turn the wolf into your adorable little shih tsu. And also, we constantly have to upgrade our medicines because bacteria and viruses adapt too quickly to them. Not only is that evolution in action, but it's evolution set on fast-forward.
There's another flaw in your argument.
Wolves have NEVER evolved into shih tzu!
Man made them.
It would be interesting to think that a shih tzu has something beneficial, or superior over a wolf in the wild, necessitating evolutionary change.
As for virus, or bacteria adapting to medicine, well, we haven't seen any bacteria become anything BUT a bacteria. It matters not, how many generations they pass.
Thanks for trying, though.
And you further showcase your lack of understanding when it comes to evolution: adaptations don't always make the animal better, neither are they always beneficial.
For example, the kakapo. It is the world's only flightless parrot. It has no defense mechanisms. It cannot run fast and, as stated, cannot fly. When it greets danger, it just stands still. This is a bird that evolved in an environment where there were no natural predators.
So because the kakapo had no predators, all of its defensive traits and most of its mobility traits were eschewed over time. And so, once actual predators were introduced to their environment, they were pretty much slaughtered wholesale practically overnight. The only reason they still survive is because they're horny little buggers.
So no. Evolution doesn't always make you better. In many cases, it turns you into a walking ball of defenseless meat.
The dodo bird and most birds which evolved on Madagascar.
No one has indicated that evolution is necessarily progress. Evolution is change over time; change over time that can be advantageous in the short-run, and as we have seen, disadvantageous in the long-run.
As for the extinction of the dodo bird: Its extinction resulted from over-hunting and from destruction of natural habitat---by humans.
But, wild dogs of some prehistoric variety did somehow come into close proximity with humans and did evolve into the dog (generic) as we know it today. Obviously breeds were developed by humans, but the domesticated dog predates most breeds of dogs common today.
And as for the evolution of bacteria, here is an interesting news story:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46152646/ns/t … eQWG0FwrE0
Yes, that's called "artificial selection" as opposed to "natural selection".
That statement is full admittance to not understanding evolution. Yet, you persist. Curious behavior.
You have an uncanny ability to miss the point.
Congratulations on doing so, yet again.
The fact that I understood the argument being presented in the video is the same tired argument long refuted shows that I got the point and perhaps you missed it.
The problem with the argument is that the author asserts one can create the very same thing in a short period of time in which evolution took massive spans of time to accomplish. The argument thusly backfires in the face of those who don't understand this concept.
Yes exactly, you don't understand evolution, yet you continue to dismiss it. That is dishonesty.
That is a lie and you know it.
I don't believe in evolution, I understand it. It doesn't keep nor deplete my happiness in the least, just like any other scientific fact.
Extinction is not necessarily a function of evolution. Extinction, as we have clearly witnessed in the modern era, is often the function of over-harvesting, destruction of habitat.
Science demonstrates as well that the extinction of the dinosaurs, for example, was not the work of evolution, but of some catastrophic event or series of events.
I have several issues with evolution theory, but the one that I will mention is the fact that scientists assert that everything goes through a slow process of development over millions and billions of years that got us to where we are today. More particularly the human brain, over billions of years, has slowly developed in our ability to form thoughts and communicate. On the contrary human civilization has been evidenced to form around seven thousand years or so ago, and has spiraled exponentially in growth ever since.
So slowly but surely we developed from a organism, to a type of fish, to a type of primate over billions of years, then all of a sudden over a mere seven thousand years we go from practically no organized thought, to being farmers, to writers, to manipulating metals, to being city builders, to building ships, and weapons, to developing technology, to building vehicles, to blasting off into space, to inventing microchips, to communicating with anyone and everyone across the entire globe so we can send funny pictures of cats to people in Timbuktu.
It seems to me that this so called billion year process is not only lacking in evidence, but that there is evidence which contradicts it all together.
Are you confusing physical (genetic) changes that produce the ability to reason with reasoning and gathering of knowledge?
One requires millions of years while the other, once the first is accomplished, requires thousands. It's like being amazed that we traveled at 20 mph or less for 50,000 years but then went supersonic in 100 once flight was discovered.
And yet there was absolutely zero change in the human brain capacity. No evolution whatsoever was involved.
Your kidding right? We are still evolving my friend. Every few years the IQ tests have to be rescaled so that the average is still 100.
You are confusing the two, aren't you?
No, there have been no major changes in the past 50,000 or 100,000 years in genetic or physical structure. There have been massive changes in the knowledge held in the brain and other medium (cave drawings, books, electronic memory, etc.) however. Knowledge builds on itself, but has nothing to do with evolution past evolving the ability to gather knowledge.
That's a well stated opinion!
Shame we can't prove any of it.
What made humans successful is our ability to share information. How many of us can build a computer from scratch materials? Can I prove that? yes.
What made humans successful was a diversified, scavengers diet and a hardwired pack mentality ,accompanied by a dominant brain lobe. That gave us a dominant eye, and the unprecedented ability to kill nearly any other creature on earth. With that seemingly accidental gift, we were able to compete with larger and more dangerous animals.
Insects are actually better than us at sharing information.
I can build a simple computer from scratch- it's called an abbacus.LOL
What makes humans successful is our ability to share or sell information. Once we started do so we flourished. Not that hard to understand really.
For an intelligent person. You know average IQ is 100 means there are people whose IQ is below 100 and such people find it easier to believe their guardians and follow the herd and argue for it, than think.(I agree that the willingness to use intelligence matters more than having it)
Einstein had a pretty low IQ and yet he is considered one of the mostintelligent people who ever lived. Again Darwin was "below average" during his school years and he is again one of the most influential people ever to live.
Peoples intelligence shines depending on whether or not they are studying a subject that intrests them personally and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution...we are after all still only using 10% of the brain we have at the moment.
Do you believers routinely lie and make up stuff like this? Who checked Einstein's or Darwin's IQ?
Better performance in school is not related to IQ alone. And who said IQ alone is the measurement of intelligence?
If evolution is not a matter of interest for you people, why do you comment about evolution? And evolution is too simple that it does not even require a high intelligence to understand.
If you are commenting about yourself you might be right, but if you are commenting about the human kind, then this is another lie. Isn't there something about not lying in your scriptures?
Well i'm afraid to tell you its true, if you bothered to read anything about them you'd know (and im not talking about Wikipedia!) I certainly do not think IQ is a measure of intelligence and that's why I used Einstein and Darwin as examples...
Evolution does interest me greatly. I am however amazed at how people try to attribute all life on earth to this as you say very simple concept...Every single theory in the history of the world has been greatly modified before it becomes an acceptable fact and evolution is NO different. it will become fact but only within a small sphere of authority, it certainly will never become fact as regards explaining all life on earth.
Cmon...you cant just tell me i'm lying and end it there
Fair enough! I'm willing to learn, what's your theory? And what evidence do you have to support it?
From where then did you get The IQ figure? And I didn't say anything about IQ, I only said anybody with an average intelligence can understand evolution.
A theory is only a theory, not a fact. There are only two theories regarding the life on earth, creation and evolution. As creation is irrational(self contradictory) then only evolution remains. We know most things about evolution though we may not know about every intermediaries., but doesn't make that theory impossible.
What SPECIFIC evidence to the contrary---specific evidence which counters evolutionary theory, are you referring to?
How exactly does "society" a social and cultural construct demonstrate that biological and genetic evolutionary theories are invalid?
Which is a function of evolution that many animals, from apes and meerkats to ants and bacteria, exhibit obvious signs of.
How many meerkats have designed a computer, or sent its self to the moon? Answer, none. Why can't anything else but humans do that? Why haven't any other creatures that have been around longer than humans developed that part of their brains? Don't you think this is inconsistent with the idea we are all related to the same 3.8 billion year old universal ancestor?
Where are our 40 other arms? Why can't we see perfectly at night? Why can't we make buildings out of our spit? Why can't we breathe water? Why can't we carry things 11 times our own weight or jump 50 times our height? Don't you think this is inconsistent with the idea we are all related to the same 3.8 billion year old universal ancestor?
Because you seem to see the good stuff we have as supporting creationism, and also the good stuff we don't have as supporting creationism.
That makes me wonder what scenario, if any, you think would not support creationism.
...I'm assuming you're still in middle school, then? Because there is no way in hell you could've passed 7th Grade Biology.
Basic biology and basic understanding of genetics explains the diversity.
The old Punnet Square of dominant/recessive traits is a good place to start with understanding evolution of offspring toward AND/OR away from the genetic parents.
Why is that? Because I don't believe that we are related to ants and spiders?
The degree to which we are related to ants and spiders strikes me as being the same in creationism and evolution.
What am I missing?
Actually creationism asserts that we are not related to anything outside of the human race, where Evolutionism says we are related to every living thing.
And cosmology has proven that we are not only related to every living thing, but that every atom in every body and every thing is related; recycled and reused.
In every one of us, if the scientific evidence of cosmology is understood, are related and connected to the singularity of mass/matter present at the moment before/moment of/moment after the Big Bang.
I would disagree, it seems similar ot me.
In both schemas we share the condition of having been created by a) God or (b) abiogenisis and natural selection.
In both schemas humans are distinguished by the special trait of a) a soul or b) Establishing a unique degree of tool use leading to advanced control of our own environment.
In both cases the a degree of uniqueness is disputed by a) St Francis and other theologians who see animals as possessing some degree of soul or b) comparative psychologists who show that all traits humans have exist in some degree in other animals.
How does Creationism account for the fact that humans and non-humans share genetic material?
This is really not about what we believe. It is about what science has proven.
Whether you believe it or don't believe it, your genetic material is the same material that is found in every other living creature on the planet. The only difference between humans and bugs, for example, is the quantity and organization of that genetic material.
Do you not believe that there is genetic material? DNA? RNA? Genetic structures?
Do you not believe in the findings of the human genome project?
No...if we understand evolutionary (biological and genetic) then you would understand how evolution itself accounts for the diversity of species.
Basic evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life and intelligence on the planet Earth and makes clear that evolution does not mean we all evolve on the same path or at the same speed. Evolution is (among other things) a function of environment or of place and as environment or place developed diversely so did life develop diversely---including intelligent life.
I must say that Creationism is not central to all Christian belief systems. Roman Catholicism and many mainstream Protestant and Jewish sects, for example, embrace evolution and the so-called Big Bang Theory of the origins of the universe.
So what purpose does having such a complex brain serve to humans? If we are nothing more than really smart animals what does the ability to blow stuff up, use a soldering iron, create complex machinery and so forth, have to do with our survival?
...Really? You can't think of any possible ways that higher intelligence guarantees survival?
What about the ability to outsmart predators? Or trapping/killing them?
What about the ability to devise and to plan?
What about the ability to solve complex problems?
What about the ability to conserve and/or replicate resources?
Or how about those examples you yourself listed?!
Those are all survival traits. If you're dumber than your predator, you'll likely die. If you have no planning skills, you'll likely die. If you can't solve a life-threatening problem, you'll likely die. If you don't have ready access to vital resources, you'll likely die. Are you starting to get the picture yet?!
So why shouldn't anything else be able to use their brains the way that we do in order to survive? And if they don't need it why do we?
One thing central to evolution of any species is something called a mutation.
Mutations are random events.
Mutations are sometimes advantageous to the species, and as such, add to survival.
Survival itself contributes to the persistence of the mutation which over time becomes a genetic trait.
We selectively cause them in the lab using various forms of radiation and typing before and after. So I would say there is pretty absolute proof of them.
Yes, there is abundant evidence.
Do a quick web search of the keywords "evolution" + "mutations" and you will find many scientific resources that explain the phenomena and its connection to evolution.
I can see the theory all over the place but I'm asking for evidence.
Here is evidence and something that is a common part of human life:
Virus and bacteria mutate or change in response to efforts to kill them---efforts like anti-biotics and other drugs designed to destroy them. They evolve through what is called selective pressure or the survival of only those in the virus or bacteria population with a specific gene that enhances their resistance. Since viruses and bacteria reproduced very quickly we can witness their evolution from susceptible to something to resistant to something within days and weeks.
For example: What are called "anti-biotic resistant bateria" or bacteria which are genetically different from those susceptible to anti-biotics are bacteria that have evolved over time (as indicated above) and are now no longer susceptible to what we have to try to kill them.
Another example: A virus can mutate or change over time to make itself more virulent or more communicable. Viruses that mutate in ways that make them, then, airborne rather than blood (or other carrier) borne.
All of this is very specific evidence of mutation and evolution through mutation.
It seems to me that your saying that the evidence shows bacteria changing into bacteria, and a virus changing into a virus.
But why is it that even some evolutionists admit that mutations have absolutely no positive effect on evolution?
"A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species. That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change." -Stephen Jay Gould
That is exactly how you make a new species because when these mutation accumulate in a population to create reproductive isolation from other populations such that when they meet again they can no longer interbreed and create viable offspring.
The species barrier is a concept of human, in nature there is just degrees of genetic separation that make viable breeding less and less likely and eventually impossible..
An elegant example of this can be found in "ring species" like Larus gulls
Isn't that more of a genetic variation and not really any evidence of evolving? After all the same thing happens with dog breeding through isolation of the larger from the smaller until the genetic information has been removed (not by natural selection, but by a human directed unnatural selection process). You aren't going to be able to breed a chihuahua with a great dane, but in the end the two haven't changed from being dogs, just as the sea gulls are still sea gulls. There is still no evidence of upward and onward evolution, there is no increase in complexity, and as it's been stated, a mutation does not produce any new major raw material.
The seagull on the end of the ring are different species from each other, due to their degree of genetic separation, which was caused by genetic mutation and geographic selection for different traits.
The ring demonstrates that the same process that causes change within a species, causes speciation, and it does it very elegantly to boot.
As I said before, no new information was added to turn the seagull into a seagull. Which reminds me. My cousin used to own four goats of the same breed. Three were black and one of them was white, but the white one was killed by the others because it was a little different from the others. We could claim that to be an example of the ring species when it's really just a bunch of racist goats.
Once again... The horse, zebra and donkey. Perfect example of a transition as they can breed but no longer can produce viable (able to reproduce) offspring.
Behold! The Zedonk.
Have a nice day.
Did you read?
"The chromosome difference makes female hybrids poorly fertile and male hybrids generally sterile due to a phenomenon called Haldane's Rule."
In other words you can't mate the hybrids. The same with mules. The prefect example of a species in transition.
So what have the mules been transforming into for the last five thousand years? Aside from being mules.
You do know what a mule is right? A mule is the infertile offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Again, a perfect example of a species in transition. Here it is. The horse and the donkey and the Zebra.
And, mules are evolving! Some mules are now fertile.
Where did I say anything about mules evolving? They can't evolve as they can't breed with each other. They are the infertile offspring of the Horse and the Donkey.
Again, let me reiterate: Some mules are not infertile and are capable of breeding. In fact, the pace of female mules producing a foal seems, in the last few decades, to be accelerating. DNA testing has proven that these foals are, in fact, the offspring of a female mule.
Did humans have anything to do with these animals breeding?
Or did they happen naturally.
If the males are infertile then mules can't mate. It's simply an example of species in transition. They were once one species are are now no longer. Much like the African and Asian elephants. Offspring between the two have been born, but none have survived (to the best of my knowledge). Amazingly lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring even though they never cross paths in the wild and look and behave differently.
Absolutely nothing. It's the horse and donkey that are changing, not the mule.
You know, it gets kind of humorous when someone asks for evidence of evolution and is shown it, but then says "yes, but that's just genetic drift. We see it all the time!".
Because genetic drift is exactly what evolution is all about, and you're right - we see it all the time. Evolution in action, happening before our very eyes (almost, anyway). Psycheskinner is absolutely correct in that the term "species" is a human invention (and one that is quite incomplete), but inability for animals to mate pretty much defines the concept to nature.
Well that depends on what your definition of evolution is. As far as I'm aware there are six theories on evolution; Cosmic Evolution, Chemical evolution, Stellar evolution, Organic evolution, Macro-evolution, and Micro-evolution
The only one that we can actually see or have any evidence for is Micro-evolution which is nothing more than a variance between inner species. And even biologists such as Pierre-Paul Grassé admitted the pitfalls of using genetic mutations to give credence to evolutionist assumptions,
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.... The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.... There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it"
So forgive me for my lack of faith in the theory, I'm sure you can understand as you would most likely act the same way if I showed you some tiny fibrous piece of wood claiming that it came from the ark.
I strongly suspect that if you read some science you'd come to different conclusions---particularly about what is known and what facts have been gathered about the universe and its evolution.
May I suggest reading books by the following people (among many others):
Neil deGrasse Tyson
So, do you believe that in 6 days some creator made the universe and everything in it and that it and everything in it are static? Unchanging? Not evolving?
I am really trying to wrap my head around how and why the notion of a creator and static universe persists in the 21st century and despite centuries of proof to the contrary.
And forgive me if someone hands me a book that is bought and sold in the marketplace and that has been rewritten and edited and translated over many centuries and by many men, and yet, that same person expects me to believe this book was literally authored by some deity or creator and literally contains the knowledge of the universe and all that inhabits it and is literally the "gospel" or word of a god.
Read the "Alleged Discrepancies" portion on Genesis, and all of a sudden I was inundated with bullsh!t.
For just one example, water in the Earth's mantle? Are you kidding me? It would have boiled long, long, long, loooooong before it even passed through the crust, let alone made it into the "deep mantle." What kind of brain-dead troglodytes are these writers, and how have they not choked to death on drinking water yet?!
It never ceases to amaze me how little science/scientific fact is known AND how willing to suspend all reality some people are to adhere to their faith.
I glanced at some of the articles and it was the usual Christian Apologetics rhetorical drivel: Science bad. Scientists and their "allies" liars. Bible good. Bible truth.
Did you get past the word apologetics in the link?
The article was aimed at answering your objection to biblical integrity.
In essence, that it is no longer in it's original, intende form, but so degraded by continual translation, that it is no longer reliable.
It is no secret, that the Bible is more verifiable than any other ancient writings.
What does your comment have to do with the topic of the article link that I posted?
Oh, right, the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Typical paranoid ramblings of a fugitive sect (in this case, the Essenes) who give themselves a little comfort by predicting their oh-so-perfect leader will incite the apocalypse. The only reason they're significant is because they're old and because they proved that Jewish scholars don't cut corners when copying their texts.
No-one is forcing you to believe it's content.
But, at least you agree that the scribes were fastidious in their accurate transcription.
Have you ever seen a Jewish scribe at work? They're certifiably insane. They'll throw out an entire sheet if they didn't perfectly recreate a dot. The Torah and the Talmud are among the most well-preserved ancient texts in existence.
However, those Hebrew books aren't the texts people are referring to as "butchered by mistranslations." It's the Greek, Latin, and English translations, as well as the New Testament scriptures, they're talking about. Now those are atrocious.
No...I do not agree. The historical record indicates that many scribes were illiterate and therefore incapable of accurately transcribing any written words and that others were lazy or drunk---or otherwise impaired, when scribing texts and made numerous mistakes.
The link you posted [https://www.apologeticspress.org] leads to a page called "Apologetics Press" which has subheadings such as "Alleged Discrepancies", "America's Culture Wars", "Creation vs. Evolution", etc.
The page and the articles contained therein include a utterly nonsensical article titled "Water in the Earth’s Mantle" which makes the utterly absurd and equally nonsensical claim that the earth's mantle contains water---water from the flood referenced in the myth of Noah's Ark.
Thanks for that link. I surfed around a little and it opened my eyes to the length people will go to lie for their religion.
And yet you feel absolutely no irony whatsoever in offering me several books written on an unprovable subject, written and revised over and over by men.
The human being is physiologically inferior. It was the evolution of the human brain---particularly its strategic thinking, its critical thinking, its ability to process information in ways that allow us to think beyond the present moment and to react in ways not necessarily hinged on instinct that allowed humans to dominate the environments in which they lived.
As noted, our very survival was a function of our brains not our bodies.
There is no point arguing against the fact that superior intelligence and/or cognitive skills contributed to human survival.
Is religion---since religion (not faith) is socially and culturally constructed also a sign of that evolution?
Is Creationism itself a function of, and evidence of, the evolution of diverse species of plants and animals and other living organisms?
Or, is religion itself a marker of the presumed invalidity of theories of biological and genetic evolution; presumed invalidity that is, essentially, a function of failed understanding of the theories themselves?
Religion is a more complex form of superstition, and humans are hardly the only superstitious animals. And as irritating as it is, superstition is a fairly potent survival mechanic.
That is true. Religion, like evolution of a species itself, is a survival mechanism.
Did you know that evolutionary biological has shown that some people are actually hard-wired to believe in god and to engage with religion while others are not?
There is actually a genetic predisposition for faith and religiosity---and we do NOT all have it.
HAha. The Sumerians said that we were literally made to worship the gods, that we were predisposed to being subservient to them. It helped keep us under control. Supposedly it worked wonderfully, until we received a "communication" that the Annunaki weren't really gods...
seems once the antennae was erected, so to speak, we began to get other messages.
I think there are clearly evolutionary advantages to many religious beliefs. And unlike a God, evolution is a creator that has no ego and so does not need to be believed in, let alone worshiped.
Why do so many Christians get their knickers in a twist about evolution? Why is it so offensive a concept to them? What do they hope to gain by rigidly holding on to a literal interpretation of Genesis? Why do they insist on a level of scientific proof for evolution but singularly fail to offer anything, anything at all, in support of creationism? Why do they feel that their views are exempt from independent scrutiny?
I'm more than happy to accept a God directed evolution but after all I am a heretic.
My friend was head of biology at a well known university is a theological evolutionist He is highly respected around the world, and a believer. My gripe with evolution; though a theory it is taught as fact. Which really self limits the human who never knows there are other ways to believe.
And religion teaches God is a fact without any evidence. There are mounds of evidence for evolution and yet you think we should teach it as a maybe?
Actually, consciousness can be mathematically defined. Aether physics has a mathematical model that in essence proves the (theoretical) existence of a universal mind.
All very interesting. Like I said, the truth is probably stranger than any of us can imagine.
Heliocentrism is a theory, too. Should we stop teaching our kids that the Earth revolves around the sun, then?
Because, you know, it's ONLY a theory and all. It's not like a scientific theory is the step just below a scientific law or anything.
It's always amusing to me that when one dares to question the scientific religion of evolution, the atheists, agnostics, and what have you, get their knickers twisted.
It's almost as if we have to believe in evolution with unwavering faith or we are complete deniers of reality.
I for one, do not hold it against others for not believing in Jesus even though the Bible is a true source of intelligence from the very being who created everything.
The fact that you might not believe it means that you question the standard religious explanation of how the world works. So why can't we do the same with scientists?
Science is objective and only concerned with seeking the objective truth based upon evidence and observation. Religion does not seek proof and is fractured into innumerable camps based upon opinion.
The Genesis creation myth is that a myth because there is no evidence to substantiate it. We have no idea who wrote it or when. We have no idea whether or not God dictated it to them verbatim, or whether the authors simply wrote up the locally common held beliefs. We can look at other parallel myths and see similarities, so which came first, which influenced the other? It's all just too vague, and we only have a single statement "All scripture is God breathed......." to pin any credibility on it. But even that statement is just another author expressing an opinion; we weren't there to observe the writing being created and we cannot get inside the heads of the authors.
So to think Genesis represents a literal reportage account is to commit intellectual suicide. As science disproves a literal account, we can only conclude that Genesis provides analogy, principles and a representation of the thoughts of the authors.
So your conclusion is that a scientific guess is superior to a religious assertion, regardless of the fact that there is hardly any evidence to support it.
So how is it explained scientifically that all the animals in the world that started out as organisms which came out of their own various "primordial oozes" with such diversity and yet humans are the only animals that are capable of producing an intelligent thought?
One would think that if everything evolves constantly, their would be a multitude of animals that we would have been competing in the space race with.
I have heard that dolphins are one of the smartest creatures on the Earth but to date nobody has ever seen one build an internal combustion engine.
Because evolving the capability of humans requires many prerequisites such as complex vocal range, binocular vision, and certain cognitive traits. Hands are also somewhat important in being able to construct anything, period. Evolution has nothing to do with achieving the 'smartest mind'. Everything in evolution is an 'accident' that works. Human intelligence is an offset of all the right adaptations occurring at the right time, because it somehow made us successful in producing more offspring.
Interestingly, and some might even say miraculously, Humans posses no ability to actually survive in the wild. We can't live without shelter, we can't hunt without weapons, and human babies are uniquely defenseless in that they could not possibly fend for themselves for at least the first decade of their existence and yet they have survived regardless of the fact that we are far from being the "fittest". Whereas most other animals in the world, with few exceptions, hit the ground running as soon as they step outside of the womb.
It's kind of silly -if you think about it- to say that people share a common ancestor with apes when we share so little in common. in fact if I were a betting man I would say that we are closer to mercats, or squirrels.
That isn't true at all. There are other humans in this world besides those in the technological modern part, way more robust than we are. We can't survive the same way domesticated animals and hand-raised wild animals can't, we haven't learned how to, but we can always learn. Humans have evolved to use weapons and other tools. That is our species trait.
You're also not too educated on animals, I don't know of any mammal that can survive on its own soon after birth. Our closest relatives also have longer developmental periods of many years. Many reptiles fit the definition of what you're speaking. Humans are very 'fit'. Fitness has nothing to do with strength. Humans are actually apes.
By "fit" I was referring to the adage coined by Herbert Spencer that is commonly attached to evolution theory. And you can't prove that Humans are related to Apes. We actually came out of the ground. You should already know that but you don't seem to be very educated in the history of creation.
Yes...that's exactly what I meant. Humans are very fit, and fitness has nothing to do with strength.
No, humans actually are apes, look it up.
That's more of an opinion and not an actual fact. It's fine that science can come to conclusions about certain things, and make educated guesses about the physical world, but stating one's conclusion to the clues they find as a fact is purely motivated by self interest. Religious people however, are more honest on the matter in that they can admit their conclusions are faith based.
Your understanding of this subject really isn't up to par, based on what you've said here and your hub on evolution. You need to read the link I posted about what 'fitness' is. You cannot argue and criticize something that you don't understand. I don't agree with the phrase "everyone is entitled to their opinion". You don't have your facts straight, the question is are you willing to do something about that?
Referring to a hub that I wrote two years ago shows me that you have enough passion on the subject to be an apologist for the religion of Evolutionism. And I never said that being fit means being strong.
What is interesting is that instead of accepting the evidence that they find which does not support their conclusions the evolution zealots have been known to fraudulently fill in the gaps (for money of course). It's called fossil fraud and it's very common for their religion.
Such has been the case with Archaeoraptor, Tikaalik, and lets not forget about the human hands and feet they added to the "Lucy" ape woman statue at the St. Louis Zoo.
The whole idea of science is to gather facts and data and then come to conclusions. Quite the opposite occurs however, when it comes to evolution. It's really more of an excuse for people who don't like to think about the fact that they will some day have to answer to a God for all of their past misdeeds. That's why there is such an extensive hall of shame for evolution supporters.
The element about your hub that made me reach my conclusion about your understanding of fitness and evolution is something you restated here: "and human babies are uniquely defenseless in that they could not possibly fend for themselves for at least the first decade of their existence and yet they have survived regardless of the fact that we are far from being the "fittest". "
That's because you have already come to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about before trying to understand what I have said. And you have come to that conclusion because you are emotionally invested in your beliefs like a religious person.
Yes science is superior to religious assertion. The former is based on study, observation, objectivity; the latter is based upon subjective opinion.
So the Lucy exhibit is an objective assertion of science? In that case I think I found a new species too.
Sounds like you may be in the running for a Golden Crocoduck award, because your ignorance is astonishing.
Do you have a superior peer reviewed explanation for our existence which takes the genetic, fossil records into account?
Well all I have to do is the same thing the people who created Lucy did. I'll find a dead Duck, and a dead alligator, and combine them. Bam! I'm a scientist!
Go ahead, see how far that gets you. Those scientists have no reason to lie, but you do.
What reason did they have to lie and how do you know they lied? If you have evidence please bring it forward.
Well there's Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce man, there's Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis the dinosaur/bird "missing link", there's the hoax of Johann Beringer, the Calaveras Skull fraud, the Sicilian Maltese-manufactured fossils of invertebrates and fish, and the still standing Lucy exhibit in St. Louis that scientists conveniently added human hands and feet to.
And the motive? Well I'm not a mind reader, but the benevolence and outstanding character of Darwinist believers the world over just may be compromised by their lack of evidence, and the dazzle of fame and the almighty dollar.
You forgot to mention the bible? What's up with that?
The Bible is not a science book. So because I have proven Evolutionism as a religion of liars, you as an apologist now wish to counter by attacking the Bible. Thus there is no difference between Bible nerds and evolution nerds. All you need now is your FSM bumper sticker.
The Bible is, essentially, a fictional account of some imagined past edited over time to support evolving (pardon the pun) religious ideologies and contrivances.
Evolution is a scientific theory which suggests a plausible, evidence-driven explanation for how plant and animal life---as well as the planet itself, emerged and developed over time, on the earth.
I strongly suggest you read Kuhn's THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS to get a sense of what a scientific theory is and how theories change and are modified over time.
Depends on what "superior" means, and that depends on the context. Is science superior to religious assertion in the context of obtaining objectively verifiable information? Absolutely. Is science superior to religious assertion in the context of creating a narrative that people find solace in, and base the meaning of their life on? Not necessarily.
This is absolutely untrue. Scientific dogma can be clung to as closely as any religious idea. In fact, it continues to this day. It takes tremendous bravery to release information into the scientific world that goes against the standard theories, because scientists that are stupid enough to attack bastions of scientific theory are blacklisted.
Does anyone know about this http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
There's absolutely no reason for anyone to discuss evolution with you if you won't hold Creationism to the same scrutiny, period.
It's been an interesting discussion between just a few folk so far.
I notice that no-one has actually addressed the OP regarding evolutions destructive course.
If evolution is an "upward" trend, it is creating a catastrophic downward path.
So you're puzzled as to why there are fewer species now because you think evolution is supposed to do nothing but create limitless kinds of life forms?
You really don't understand evolution at all, then--it's all about life adapting to its environment. If the piranha is perfectly suited to his river habitat, what need would his genes have to mutate? If the gorilla is perfectly suited to his patch of jungle, then why would his genes ever dictate that changes need to be made?
Life exploded during the Cambrian era largely because the Earth's environments were ever-shifting and new adaptations needed to be made, not because evolution has to reach some arbitrary Species Count Quota.
So, in your example, it's ok if the gorilla dies out.
Humans, like piranhas, are reducing gorilla habitat at an alarming rate (s we are for most large mammal species), and we will make them extinct.
I understand evolution just fine.
So, we should evolution take it's natural course, and watch these species die out.
As a product of evolution, why should anyone care?
Aside from the animals we consume to survive, we really shouldn't. But it doesn't matter, really. We'll die out eventually, as well, and something else will take our place.
You will only receive what you give. If you go about robbing and murdering because you are a product of evolution, you will be behind bars. But will you start doing all these things if there is no god? I do not rob or kill not because I am afraid of any god nor because I want any eternal life, it is just maturity.
Robbing and murdering is wrong.
Evolution teaches no morals. Who teaches you right and wrong?
Then why is it not wrong that the Israelite robbed the Palestinian of their land, or killed even pregnant women(as described in OT)?
Then why religious people do all these things?
Who teach lions to care for their sick?
If one is a social animal, one cannot survive without co-operation and only that animal groups with co-operation survive.
So evolution preserve that animals with better co-operation, and the rules of interaction between same members of a group you call morals. It may be different from that of us, but all animals that live in groups have "morals". Say foxes are life long faithful partners.
So if you were not taught to kill, would you kill?
Try it, even without any god it is difficult to kill even an animal.
PS: Even your supposed jesus understood this. Haven't you read in bible that "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but has an end"? There are some morals and law among satan too!!!!
There are men who kill without remorse, or without a moral compass.
They, like you and me, evolved that way.
Who are you, or who am I to say they are wrong.
My question to you was "who teaches you right and wrong?"
Weapons of mass destruction are therefore neither good nor evil. They are simply tools of evolved man to control his own destiny.
That statement ought to put a chill down your spine.
Why? Because you know, inherently that somethings are right and some things are wrong.
Is it ok for a man to beat his wife?
No, they were born that way. They are the psychopaths. At the opposite extreme is the extreme altruists, but majority falls in between some to the more extremes. If one of the character is better for survival, more offsprings of that character survive and gradually that trait becomes the major character of the species - that is evolution
Why do you want to judge? It is not the individual but the society to which the individual is born that decides the morals. In America, the morality of that society is that the women can expose most of her body parts and can work(while a few centuries before that was not the case) while in some other societies that is immoral, and the moral changes as more and more knowledge is accumulated. Even christians morals changed over centuries. Very few things are inherently wrong, most are educated. The inherently right and wrong are the things that help in better survival and reproduction, nothing else
Killing women for "adultery" in an islamic country, is good, then.
Female genital mutilation in Africa is good, then.
Human sacrifice in native tribes in New Guinea, is good then.
I got it!
No, it is keeping slaves and stoning children for disobedience is what is good!!! Or may be, being against homosexuals and their union that is good.
Got some problem with comprehension?
I didn't say anything is good or bad, that is your take.
Does any of the actions mentioned by you improves the survival of the species to say that is good?
The last two cases is obvious, those populations are dwindling. But it is very rarely one character alone decides survival, it is the combination. If the those people had made better technology(instead of the europeans), they would have been sitting in your place and telling me that "not doing human sacrifice" is not good.
There is an easy way to decide, go to the islamic society and tell them that "Killing women for "adultery" i is sin and it is bad", you will know what they and their god think. Also do not forget that it was the same thing asked by your god too(in OT).
the Darwinian theory of evolution is practically dead. We now know that there is a limited amount of micro evolutionary changes that can take place within a species before it can't go any further, to try and get around this problem some scientists have come up with the idea of transmutation which is basically a massive jump so that you can get from fish to amphibian, etc (exactly the same as saying god did it because there is absolutely no empirical evidence for this idea as it does not require the transitional fossils they have tried so hard to find.)
The idea that life follows a sequential pattern has also been widely criticized for again, no empirical evidence just hypotheticals. it's ironic to think that Darwinist evolutionists have been hammering anyone who believes in god as being pig ignorant and unscientific when the theory of evolution which was accepted in 1859 was based on the assumption that people would find the evidence later...Darwin freely admits this himself. Evolution was built on the social consensus of people of that time, not on evidence.
100+ years on and still scarcely any observable evidence has been put forward for evolution (Macro evolution that is.)
Take the mammal for example, it has some very unique characteristics which have absolutely no transitional possibilities and is separate altogether from anything else. The cerebral cortex, pituatory gland and the hair of mammals are perfect examples of those unique characteristics. Every mammal has them, from us to mice we all have the same basic structure. Is it really possible that random chance mutations endowed us with these? because that is exactly what evolution is suggesting.
Hair? All mammals have hair? Dolphins? Some have a small amount before birth, but after that, nothing. Mammals in the water, wonder how that happened?
rad man the point that you are scathing over is that hair is unique to mammals and there is no transition between having it and not having it. it is simply there, in many different forms however the basic genetic code for it is the same.
I don't see having mammals in the water as a problem in any way....why not?
Transitional possibilities might include the marsupials - something rather in between. Or perhaps a Platypus. Or the echidnas; egg laying, warm blooded and lactating animals.
"Is it really possible that random chance mutations endowed us with these?"
Yes. Do try and remember that the mutations themselves are random, but whether it is kept around or not is NOT random at all.
the example of the platypus is not valid because the eggs that it lays are precisely as you would expect to find in a reptilian species and also the it mammalian features are exactly as you would find in other mammals so while it is an incredible mystery to both evolution and the typological view of life, it is still not an example of transition. not 100% sure on the other examples you have put forward but I would assume that it's much the same story (but I will look into that, except marsupials:)
wilderness where are the billions upon billions...upon billions of transitional fossils then?
Remember the example of the fruit fly, scientists managed to fit millions of years of evolution (Random chance mutations) into a few decades, what was the result? While the fruit flies did mutate the mutations where all bad. some having wings coming out of their heads while others being given extra legs. not only that but after a few generations of breeding the fruit fly reverted back to its original self. This proves that even millions of years is not enough for evolution to take place, in fact it would need infinite time...apparently there is only 8 million years difference between us and chimps, but if you cant change a fruit fly even slightly in the equivalent of a few million years could that figure really be accurate?
can you really explain the complexity of life with such a simplistic idea of Darwinian evolution? (I do stress the Darwinian version)
Please also tell me any theory that has existed in the past that has not been radically changed over the years in order for it to eventually become a fact but only in a small sphere of authority.
Why isn't the platypus a potential transition? It has the characteristics of both reptiles and mammals; the very definition of a transition. And yes, the echidnas are the same; animals that have characteristics of both reptiles and mammals.
Why do you ask for "transitional" fossils? Every fossil is transitional, from one species to another. Even species that haven't changed in a million years will one day either change or go extinct.
The fruit fly - it proves nothing of the sort. It proves than the random mutations were not viable; this is something that is completely normal. You can claim it would take infinite time, but I would surely like to see those calculations (including the premises they are based on).
Complexity - yes you can.
Theories change, and often only in a small sphere of authority. Creationism is an excellent example; the small "authority" sphere has been forced to change the theory to one of billions of years rather than 7 days and to include evolution rather than a handful of dust. True, the "authorities" have made no observations, no tests and no peer reviews, but they remain "authoritative" in the eyes of millions that do not seek knowledge themselves.
for it to be a transitional example you would need subordinate mammalian feature or a more pre historic type of egg, don't forget there is again absolutely no proof of the platypus descending from another lineage because there is no evidence of it.
"every fossil is transitional" oh dear but what you see in these so called transitional fossils is little to no change BUT if we are to believe that all life on earth came from the same source then what we should be able to see is ACTUAL transitional fossils which can show us from the original point when life emerged the simplest of animals right up to the more "Complex"...this all scientists will tell you we do not have s why should you say otherwise? not only that we should have billions of examples of the mutated animals that went wrong...we don't, seriously we should be swimming in these fossils!
Surely the fact that within millions of years a fruit fly couldn't change even slightly shows how far off the current theory of evolution is off at being able to explain life on earth, this is common sense. For evolution to work you would have to go back to the Lamarckian view of it which I would be evolution from a directed source this is becoming more and more obvious.
"Complexity - yes you can." ....well that's me convinced then.
lets not talk about creationism, its stupid. However the point I was getting at is that it is a historical fact that evolution will be greatly modified over time and will end up only having a small sphere of authority because it hasn't got enough weight behind its ideas.
why are you so disgusted by the idea that evolution needs to change in order to fit in with new facts as they come in? Evolution is a perfect example of the intelligence of the masses and I suppose its just too early to push you for that much needed change.
I didn't claim the platypus was transitional to mammalian - I said it is a possible candidate for such a creature. Which is what you asked for; some animal that could be in the process of changing to a mammal.
Doesn't seem that you understand what the word "transitional" means. You're complaining that there is little to no change between fossils; exactly the definition of transitional. Very small changes often impossible to detect from fossil remains. The problem is that you seem to think that organisms leaving behind .00000001% of their remains as fossilized remains, and humans finding .0000001% of those few available remains will produce a sample of every possible change that evolution produces. It won't.
Fruit flies going through millions of years of artificial evolution - unlikely in the extreme. Impossible, I should say; that would mean Billions of generations, many with differing environments and all subject to mutation. It means thousands or millions of differing isolated groups, with subsequent thousands of generations. It didn't happen in a lab. Somebody is exaggerating wildly.
Evolution: the capacity of a species to evolve into another species. That hasn't and can't change without the entire theory becoming false. The specifics of individual species, the concepts of what causes mutations, the possibilities of extreme environmental changes over large areas (dinosaur killer asteroid, maybe); all those ideas change and grow, but the basic premise that species evolve and change does not.
well I'm not going to argue with you any longer so lets just concentrate on your last comment because it shows exactly why you are unwilling to see the flaws in evolution, if it cannot sand up to scrutiny then as you put it the entire theory will become false. I don't fully agree with this but it does really point out why evolutionists are so dogmatic.
Is it dogmatic to say the sky is blue because we are looking at it and it is blue? Species changing into other species across generations has been observed, it does happen. It has been made to happen experimentally, and observed to happen naturally without even resorting to the fossil record.
funnily enough yes it is because the sky only seems to be blue when in fact it is no particular colour at all.
phsyceskinner I have no problem with species being able to change to a degree however like anyone who has bothered to study it I have a serious problem with the bridges beyond species ever even conceivably being breached by something as childish as Darwinian evolution.
Mammals by all empirical and logical evidence have not in any way to be shown as coming from anything other than mammals. Also even species within the mammalian family have clear boundaries that cannot be stepped over...that is not contestable by evolution, only hypothetically can it challenge that basic premise.
Same goes for birds, reptiles and fish.
You may have a problem with it, but it has demonstrably happened multiple times. It has even be produce in the lab with drosophila. Darwin himself came up with the theory because humans do this all the time with artificial selection, they the environment can clearly do it also.
Species is just an artificial point we define in the progression. There is no barrier there to prevent variation crossing into speciation. If the progression can happen, it can go past that point. And it does.
That IS a problem, isn't it? That "species" has no real, definitive, description, but is nothing more than a biological definition made up specifically for each and every species.
When does a changing organism become another species? Whenever we say it does - if you don't agree that it is a different species then the organism didn't change species.
well there are 800,000 different species of spider but their basic blueprint is still the same and no transition from one blueprint of structure to another has emerged.
It really is a joke to deny the flaws in the theory of evolution when they are so blatant...
No....it...doesn't....and it certainly has not been demonstrable, maybe we are talking about different things? i'm not talking about a lion and a tiger type of difference im talking about mammal and bird difference, each of which have very pinpoint specific elements to them which is what makes them totally unique without a shred of evidence to say otherwise and that is irrefutable fact.
OK - last statement that evolution is about species changing to another species.
It is self evident that species can and do change, and only a fool would argue that that cannot happen. The leaves only the idea that changes can accumulate to the point that a new species can occur.
Personally I don't see the problem of accumulating changes. I HAVE seen people attempting to prove mathematically it can't happen - that it requires infinite time to produce a finite number of changes - but the math is always seriously flawed.
Proof positive that you don't understand evolution: You still think it's random.
The success of one trait over another and the deliberate passing-on of that trait? There's nothing less random.
zelkiro you don't understand the Darwinian version of evolution then. it is random and it will not allow for any sort of order.
Deliberate passing on sounds like intelligence so that phrase cannot be used, seriously the definition of evolution keeps changing from person to person...
False. While mutations are indeed random (or intentionally caused by man) the long term results of those mutations are most definitely NOT random at all.
Lots of people fail to understand this, that evolution is not random at all. It is a combination of statistical near certainty, combined with a very wide range of probabilities dealing with environment.
statistical near certainty using the laws of the universe and mathematics hmm? again if you are going to use that as a defence then you need to explain where those perfect laws originated from...to get to the bottom of things I guess really it goes beyond evolution and ultimately the originof our clockwork universe, which is even harder for you to defend
lets just both be humble and conclude that neither of us really have a clue because even the most eminent scientists will admit that they don't because new evidence is coming in ALL of the time and we simply cant keep up with it all.
Your comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.
Natural selection is clearly not random. The clue is in the name.
Best guess is that laws of the universe came out of the big bang. How? Nobody has a clue, except of course those that blithely claim that "Godunnit" without having a clue of how or even if there IS a god.
But that's not a reason to not try and figure it out.
well to me god is antecedent of the big bang, something that logically precedes it.
If the universe is purely physical then wouldn't something non physical have to make it? why not god? spiritual creates physical.....
There is no logic at all in that statement. Just wishful thinking. You have no evidence for anything spiritual and yet claim the physical came from something imagined.
If the universe is purely physical then wouldn't something physical have to have made it? Why can't it just start?
Why not God? Why not the Easter bunny? Why not God is the worst argument imaginable. I maintain that the universe is but a speck of dirt on a giant Easter bunny. Why not?
I do believe I was talking to someone else and if you was following the conversation we came to the conclusion that neither of us really know just like the rest of the human race.
ok so you are happy that the physical always existed and nothing came before it, very shallow minded but if you are genuinely happy with that then keep it im not looking to take it away from you.
also your right I have no evidence for anything spiritual, but the idea of spirit came first so its up to the atheists to disprove it by purely physical means and you guys have done a pretty shoddy job so far. i'm not going into it with you because I know your mind is clearly already made up...which by the speed in which the scientific community is moving at these days will make you a metaphorical caveman
1. You are making the claim of spirits, which means it's up to you to supply evidence. If I claim the Easter bunny to be real it's up to me to supply evidence. One can not supply evidence against something that doesn't exist.
2. Do you only have discussions with those you think you can convince your opinion is correct?
1. with the lack of any real alternative I am sticking to the original idea my ancestors had because it is still the most logical option, this idea was here first so its up to you to refute that if you can. Your argument here goes both ways because as I have discussed there is really no evidence for the macro evolution you put your faith in, your alternative of evolution is still magic with the only difference being that you have no magician to do the tricks whereas I do.
2. I discuss it with people who I see as open minded and less dogmatic individuals as yourself, I don't really want to beat my head on a wall.
How many times have I and others showed you evidence of what you call Macro evolution complete with fossil records?
You think faith came first? And you think first is right? You make the claim of a supernatural, you supply evidence, that's simply how it works.
HAHAHA oh god I do hope people read these posts just so they can see that not once have I in any way been shown anything that could be considered an example of macro evolution...this topic has run its course now your just dreaming up evidence for yourself.
no one has even touched on the fossil record mate, what are you on about
Perhaps you missed this?
And perhaps you don't remember talking about the horse, donkey and zebra?
and what am I looking at?
YOUR NOT GETTING IT!!!
I have no problem with certain levels of evolution but it doesn't even come close to explaining the diversity of life...I've explained why and I don't intend to again as you have alreadylabelled me a creationist proving your ignorance.
So you don't think God created the universe? Those that do call themselves creationist my find your statement offensive as you think the term is derogatory.
As for the fossil, perhaps you should have clicked the link, you may have learned something. It's a dino-bird and it should be, it should be, it should be like that. A little Dr. Seuss.
It may be antecedal to you, but you have nothing at all to base that conclusion on and that becomes a major problem. You're complaining that every detail, every micro change in evolution is not known but then turn around and declare there is a god, another universe for it to live in and that it made this one without the tiniest bit of evidence. Can you see the problem with that?
You then ask if our physical universe requires a non-physical one - to the best of our knowledge the answer is no. There is nothing in our knowledge base that requires another universe.
ok one thing there I don't ask for every detail to be filled...I happen to agree with micro evolution as I have clearly pointed out...its macro evolution I have a problem with and i'm not alone.
I know and understand you're not alone; it seems like every creationist makes the same claim. That seeing micro evolution means you should also see macro evolution. That it takes hundreds of thousands of years to see such macro changes is somehow conveniently set aside or even used as "proof".
The big question is how you go from seeing evolution in action to saying it can't happen twice to the same species. That one is something I have real difficulty with.
don't call me a creationist just because I can see an alternative that involves more than what evolution can offer, I am not a creationist.
Sorry. I took the statement:
"If the universe is purely physical then wouldn't something non physical have to make it? why not god? spiritual creates physical"
to mean that you believe a god created the universe.
Yea, come on man, you simply thinks that God created everything as is, which is nothing like what creationist think.
I do believe in a god but the term creationist is derogatory because it insinuates I believe in 7 days literal creation and so forth which I don't. not all people who believe in god are like them and it is unfair to label me as such
No offense intended, and I do apologize if you did take offense at being called a "creationist".
You must understand, however, that every single individual has a different belief set when it comes to religion (which includes a god creating the universe). It is inevitable that all be lumped together with the term "creationist" even while knowing that different people will have different ideas as to the specifics of that creation. (Indeed, a great many Christians now feel that those 7 days are actually an indeterminate amount of time.) Whatever those beliefs are, it always comes down to an ET (generally called "god") intentionally creating our universe and as long as you espouse that belief you will undoubtedly be gathered in with all the rest that do when it comes to labeling. But there is generally no intent to offend in doing so and I did not so intend.
No Big Bang. It's in it's death throes.
There are other sites that you can find that might help explain it.
Don't take my word for it. Google Alton Harp and Redshift.
The problem with red shift was just the tip of the iceberg, it opened a huge can of worms with more questions than answers.
Still, the physical evidence is unquestionable, and Even the scientific dogmatists will eventually have to come up with a new theory.
Actually, there is one-
THE UNIVERSE IS AND ALWAYS HAS JUST BEEN.
No beginning, no end, just is.
This is such a fantastic thought that for some reason everyone, even atheists, become terrified at the thought.
Why did it start expanding 14 billion years ago, then?
Please read the information in the provided link. It's obvious from your question that you didn't check the link. The point is that there have always been alternative theories, but people seem to know only the commonly accepted, easy B.S. The link provided is a jumping off point to one of those opposing theories.
It's put forward by Scientists. It's repeatable and provable in a laboratory.(Unlike black matter and such nonsense, all mathematical rabbit holes). It does not follow scientific nor religious convention. And it's predictions have been accurate.
Approach it with an open mind, not a closed mind.
In order to try to understand what I point to, you'll have to understand what red shift is, and what Alton Harp discovered. There are scientifically observable problems with the expansion theory. This is a scientific counterpoint, explanation and solution.
Read it before you respond, because your post above seems kind of like you saying "I know you are but what am I?". An empty argument and strawman.
Sorry, but although Arp did some fine work a long time ago, he turned crackpot, his arguments have been refuted by observations, not to mention the blatant falsehoods he embarrassingly continues to embrace.
Evolution is happening all time, right in front of us. Every species has been undergoing subtle changes that we might not differentiate right away, but are evident 100s of years into the future.
As many have stated examples. Like Horse, Donkey, Zebra. Dogs. Dogs actually are descendants of wolves. And in dogs alone there are about 200 breeds that we have bred over the past 3000 years or so. Even humans are no different. We ourselves have evolved from tree dwelling species to an intelligent species. We have evolved from pygmy sized people in Africa to over 6 feet tall humans in Europe. DNA evidence points that all of the world
population comes from Africa.
Evolution is happening all the time and its happening right under our nose. We cannot stop evolution. It is very similar to that philosophical note that says that if there is anything that is constant in the world i e is change. Change is happening all the time. If you don't accept change and adapt to the changes, you'll be no where.
Selective breeding is not analogous to mutation.
Mutation occurs without breeding.
In fact, bacteria and viruses do become more complex and their DNA is altered.
Selective breeding is analogous to natural selection. In fact it partially inspired Darwin's original formulation fo the theory of evolution.
because if human environments cause genetic change, far larger and harsher natural environments must do the same.
Oh course they do. Look at the people of the far north in North America and Russia. They have been forced to adapt to withstand frostbite.
I love evolution, now.
In fact I love whales.
Look what they could become in a few million years!
Halton Harp's work was initially debunked/disproven with data collected by the Hubble Telescope. Current observations and data analysis continue to debunk/disprove Harp. Current counterpoints to Hawking and other proponents of the Big Bang come from Leonard Susskind, among others, and are very interesting.
Yet interestingly, proponents can still use the same data and interpret it Arp's way. The thing is, the data itself is not the problem, it's how the two schools of thought interpret it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Harp's math, nor his techniques, and only vocal proponents of the BBT have called him a crackpot. Like I said, scientific dogmatism.
Here's some more info http://electric-cosmos.org/AppendixB.pdf
Tell me there's something wrong with the idea that certain objects have intrinsic red shift. Seems completely plausible to me. No two stellar objects should have to be exactly alike in any way.
More correctly put, Arp's conclusions haven't been debunked, they've been discredited by people with a vested interest in discrediting them. Any way, this is my last post on this subject. I wasn't defending any particular theory, ironically, I was pointing to a situation in which a good scientist (One of Hubble's team) was discredited for having the audacity to produce evidence that went against a scientific holy grail, The BBT.
The concept of "redshift" is not about something "intrinsic" to anything. Objects do not have a property called redshift. Redshift is a function of space and time; of movement of an object away from a fixed object.
Redshift most simply understood as the Doppler Effect.
Some basic science: A "redshift"---is the perception of movement and occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Cosmological redshift is a function of the expansion of the universe, and distant light sources show redshift as a function of their rate of increase in their distance from Earth.
The bottom-line: Redshift proves the validity of the Big Bang and the inflationary universe and NOT the notion of a static universe.
Nonsense, Arp's assertions have been refuted because there is much better observational equipment than there was when he made the initial claim. Since then he hasn't budged on his position no matter how much evidence is produced, and that is why he is called a crackpot.
Yes, by the very process and results defined as "red shift", hence an object would have to exhibit the same properties and characteristics that meet the definition.
Red shift is when light moves to the red end of the visible spectrum when the source of light is moving away from the observer. Gravitational redshift is when light moves through a gravity "well" produced by all objects.
How can an object exhibit those properties and characteristics "intrinsically" and be differentiated from other objects that don't?
That's the conspiracy theory. It is a silly one to say the least.
The BBT is not a 'scientific holy grail', that is just nonsense. It is simply the only theory thus far that agrees with all the evidence. It's based on General Relativity, which has shown to be a fairly accurate description of the universe, thus far. As better equipment is built, scientists will find the answers to the unknown elements that will either support or falsify the BBT.
No scientist worth his salt has a problem with that.
Arp's assertions definitely appeared plausible at the time, until better equipment was built and it was found that he was dead wrong. The fact he refuses to accept that is his problem and no one else.
I think Isaac Asimov got it right when he quipped:
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
There is truth in that. Few creationists recognize the vast difference between a hypothesis and a theory, ignore the rigorous testing and checking, the peer reviews and repeatability that are necessary to go from one to the other.
Like life in a test tube from inner material.
Repeatable, testable, peer review-able, and proven to be true.
Life from non-life, documented, accepted and promoted.
I get it.
Not sure how engineering that can produce life from non-living materials is a "theory", but basically yes.
I have read reports where just such an action was accomplished. I have NOT read reports of anyone else duplicating the experiment as there is nothing new there. Just engineering to figure out how to make the chemicals combine properly - no theory to be disproved.
Should the work prove to be economically viable, no doubt others will figure it out as well, using different techniques to accomplish the same thing, but it still won't be an earth shattering theory. Just using engineering to accomplish something we see nature do all around us every day. Like learning to fly or learning to put fake "shark skin" on a submarine to make it go faster or with less noise.
Yes, we see inanimate objects coming to life every day, all around us.
I will keep my eyes open a little wider as of tomorrow. It seems I've missed it so far.
Mocking what one is uninformed about is counterproductive.
In fact, genetic material is NOT a "living thing", but it constitutes living things---including humans. No one is suggesting that inanimate objects come to life. Inanimate objects are not made of the stuff of living things; not made of genetic material that are the building blocks of life.
Are you still here promoting ignorance and dishonesty? When you will you ever take the time to understand evolution? Never?
A little exaggeration (or a lot) goes a long way to support the unsupportable, doesn't it? At least if one has an opinion that conflicts with reality...
I'm confused... you have pointed out that evolution may be imperfect, and therefore your conclusion is that creationism is the way to go? Now, if I ever saw flawed logic...
Also, we have observed notable changes in animals that can change. If you know anything about biology, a sort of "evolution" is actually facilitated by predators encroaching on territory and killing off a large population - where normally any noticable changes in a species would take in the least hundreds of thousands of years to develop. This fast-paced evolution can be already seen in elephants. Poachers go for the elephants with the largest tusks, and so elephants are now evolving to have smaller tusks.
Also, VERY IMPORTANT: I would like to explain the difference between Scientific Law and Theory.
A scientific THEORY is a general statement to describe something observed in nature that is CONFIRMED by all available evidence. Theories such as evolution are very well grounded in fact, regardless of if you have the education to fully understand it. Any biologist worth his salt could explain in great detail why evolution is unarguably a FACT of nature. i.e. another scientific theory would be the theory of the heliocentric solar system: you don't argue about that theory, do you?
A scientific LAW is more grounded in mathematics usually, and are very specific: i.e. Newton's law's, and the laws of thermodynamics
So the basic idea is, the word theory in science is not of the same meaning as what most people would initially think. It's a common misconception that a scientific theory is not "proven", but in reality, a scientific theory is just a more generalized statement about science.
Just really wanted to agree with the second post in this thread: "Not quite sure how an example of species that cannot effectively compete in a changing ecological niche is a flaw in evolution. Rather, it would seem to be more evidence of the viability of that theory."
None of you have written one shred of anything useful.
You are just as good and active mockers as what you accuse me of.
That's one thing I DO understand very clearly.
Show me a picture of life created by men, in a test tube.
Why do you need to see pictures of men in test tubes? I don't think they will fit.
But, it's clear you don't understand evolution, yet you dismiss out of hand simply because it somehow jeopardizes your religious beliefs.
If you want something useful, read this...
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi … f-species/
So, back to the origins of this conversation:
How is evolution flawed simply because humans cannot create organic life in test tubes?
Because humans don't have the divine ability to create life. They can only make babies. That's not creating life.
There will never be any conditions in which a human can create life in the labratory.
Humans don't have the ability to put the life spark into organic material.
But, how is evolutionary theory flawed or wrong because human beings cannot (to date) create life?
Oh, I see I misunderstood your question.
It's a cause and effect thing you're getting at, right?
I guess what I do not understand is why the evolution of life must be "flawed" or wrong because you believe that a divinity initiated life.
The Catholic Church, for example, embraces Intelligent Design and maintains that while life was created by god, it was created to evolve as it has evolved. In other words: God is the grand architect of the universe and made a universe that would emerge from a Big Bang and then evolve---as evolutionary biology has discovered that it does, in fact, evolve. In other words, for Catholics Intelligent Design and evolution are not mutually-exclusive. Evolution is part of the plan of intelligent design.
This position, interestingly, is held by many scientists who refer, for example, to understanding the instant before the Big Bang as something better left to St Augustine and to other theologians.
Why would anyone wishing to understand the "instant" before the big bang to a theologian? A theologian that will make up an answer - any answer - that matches their predetermined prejudice of a diety and automatically discard all others? That will not check further as long as it agrees? That will not compare it to existing knowledge of physics and cosmology?
Indeed, it strikes me that any scientist that fails to understand that current knowledge is not all encompassing and that all of it (including "knowledge" of a diety) is subject to change with the advent of new knowledge isn't worthy of the label "scientist". So why would a real scientist entrust understanding that instant to someone who does NOT understand that?
Because scientists are able to admit when they cannot explain something with science.
That is NOT to say that scientists are not trying to work to understand the moment before the Big Bang. It is simply to say that they understand and admit that at least for now, the moment before the Big Bang---of which we really know nothing, is a moment better left to theology and not science.|
And remember, many "real"scientists are also believers in God and in something beyond what their science can know.
Better left to theology? That's funny. This is precisely what stops people thinking. We don't have an answer "God done it". No more thinking required. There are many physicist working on what's before the big bang none of them are saying "God done it".
Read St Augustine. The problem is not theology. Theology is a lively and intellectually challenging field of study.
As a historian I know one thing with near-absolute certainty: We cannot prove the counter-factual. We cannot prove, that is, that God does exist nor can we prove that a God does not exist.
Believing in or not believing in God is not a matter of science or history. It is a matter of faith---and faith is believing what we cannot prove or disprove.
And for the record, there most certainly ARE cosmologists and physicists working on the Big Bang who believe in God.
The Big Bang was originated by Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître---a Belgian astronomer and Jesuit priest. Currently, the Vatican Observatory employs several Jesuit/astronomers and Jesuit/cosmologists.
Here is a link to the Vatican Observatory: http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/index … at-history
Again, religion and faith and science are not mutually-exclusive. It is dogmatism from either religion or faith or science that works to make them so.
Make up your mind. First you claim we cannot know what happened before the big bang so we should leave it up to theology and now you admit there are people working on the problem.
The problem is theology, it prevents people from thinking they can get the answer.
And, you don't see the blatant contradiction there? How can theology be intellectually challenging when faith in what cannot be proven or dis-proven are grounds for the challenge? In other words, folks can make up whatever they want, which is not intellectually challenging unless one is writing fiction novels, and even then...
If one reads St Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine or William of Ockham, among so many others---all theologians, one realizes that one is steeped in a strong intellectual tradition.
Theologians do not "make up" whatever they want. Whether or accept religion or not, disparaging theology is again like comparing apples and oranges.
THEOLOGY: The systematic and rational study of concepts of God and their influences as well as the systematic and rational study of understanding and critiques of religious thought. Theology is, in fact, an academic discipline.
RELIGION: An organized system of beliefs, views, symbols, rituals and practices.
FAITH: Confidence or trust in the teachings of a specific religious system or view; beliefs not founded on proof.
And for the record, not all theologians are adherents to any specific religion or among the faithful. Those who study theology but are neither religious nor faithful are sometimes called agnostic theologians. Among them: Søren Kierkegaard.
Since there is no information whatsoever on gods and is based entirely on a "system of belief - not founded on proof", then theology is little more than the study of baloney.
NOTE: Theology is the study of gods and the influences of those gods---without reference to whether or not said gods are real or imagined.
Again, by definition:
Theology is the systematic and rational study of CONCEPTS of God and the influences of such concepts. Theology is scholarly and intellectual CRITIQUE of religious thought.
Such is not the stuff of "baloney".
Again, there is no information whatsoever on gods, none, zilch, nada. Hence, there cannot be any influences from something that has absolutely no information.
You can substitute the word god for leprechaun in your claims and it is equally invalid, in other words, it's all baloney.
Theology is the study of gods and the influences of those gods---without reference to whether or not said gods are real or imagined. Theology is the systematic and rational study of CONCEPTS of God and the influences of such concepts. Theology is scholarly and intellectual CRITIQUE of religious thought.
As for your claim that there is "no information" about gods:
Information is not necessarily fact or evidence. Information is simply a sequence of symbols that when transmitted can be interpreted as a message; information is a message conveyed; information is input.
There is most certainly "information" about gods as there are many, many narratives about gods. The issue of fact or fantasy is NOT relevant to whether or not something is information.
But, they are imagined, just like leprechauns, yet we don't find a field of study regarding the influences of leprechauns.
Information: Noun: knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance.
Yet, by definition, information is knowledge, which is obviously factual.
Is knowledge all factual? Can we not know something even if that something is not factual, but fictional?
For example: We all "know" or have knowledge of the Easter Bunny, but the Easter Bunny is fiction.
Knowledge: Noun: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation.
Fiction: Noun: something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story.
The Easter Bunny is not knowledge or information, it is fiction.
Notice how easy things become when you don't make up definitions to words.
Clearly you want to limit the very concept of "knowledge" to only that which is factual which is, with all due respect, not tenable.
My I suggest:
Kant. "Critique of Pure Reason"
Plato. "Theory of the Forms"
Heisenberg. "Uncertainty Principle".
And my favorite of them all:
Schrödinger's discussion of the now-famous cat who is simultaneously alive and dead; fact and fiction; real and unreal.
Belief in leprechauns hasn't killed millions of people. May there is a case to study why people believe in god and why people don't.
Actually geneticists believe that there is a gene or a genetic trait for religiosity. Some of us have it; some of us do not. And, there also appears to be (ironically enough) some evolutionary hard-wiring to believe in deities.
Doesn't matter if they believe that or not, there is no evidence of such genetics. Certainly, mental disorders have been linked to religiosity.
Yes, it's called ignorance.
Not only is there evidence of genetics creating some religious predisposition, but the evidence is actually quite specific.
A specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. This specific gene acts by altering monoamine levels. VMAT2 works as a sort of vehicle which facilitates the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain. Twin studies have shown this gene to be inheritable.
So much for ignorance.
And of course there have never been any mad scientists has there.
If its all down to ignorance how do you account for those scientist that don't believe in the standard evolutionary theory?
You mean, crackpots and cranks? Yes, there are some.
They obviously don't understand evolution. No one cares what they believe.
My experience with scientists is that they do "care about" diverse thoughts and ideas and tend NOT to discard thoughts and ideas simply because they are inconsistent with their own.
Scientists do not reject ideas simply because they do not agree with their own ideas.
If that was the case, there could be and would be no scientific revolutions.
Again, a read of Thomas Kuhn's THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS would offer some insight into the notion of dominant scientific paradigms, how they are sustained, how they are challenged, how they experience and deal with crisis, and how they change.
There are an awful lot of scientist who believe in intelligent design and their theories cant be disproven either, even if Darwinists hate them.
Of course it can't. Postulate an invisible god that is completely undetectable and then postulate that it is responsible for everything that happens. Now declare it to be a scientific theory without testing, observation or peer review.
Presto! A theory that cannot be disproved.
Very good Wilderness, equate ID with the god theory and then discount it even if the evidence is the same as any other evolutionary theory.
Largely, everyone agrees on the evidence. It's the interpretation of that evidence that is the focus of the debate about Darwinian evolution. Darwin's champions arbitrarily limit the range of possible interpretations, for reasons that most cannot convincingly justify or even candidly specify.
Sorry, not everyone does.
Everyone agrees that natural selection works, everyone agrees that species change. We even agree that mutations occur. It's just that the odds against a specific mutation are high. Not zero, mind you, high.
So some postulate an invisible intelligence whether you name it God or not, whether you postulate omnipotence or not. Without evidence, without proof - simply because probabilities are low but non zero. Not everyone agrees that that makes a theory. Some of us think that an acceptable theory takes just a little more.
But Darwinian science dismisses ID out of hand without considering the science of it. Therefor concentrating only on the science behind Darwin's theory whether they try to prove or disprove it makes it incomplete and not proven. If it was proven without a doubt every scientist to a one would agree.
That is pure bs. ID simply has no grounds to go further than an ignorant assertion. It is dismissed because it is worthless.
But I thought they try to disprove it not dismiss it out of hand.
There's nothing to disprove, it's all nonsense creationism.
I think we agree: Creationism is nonsense.
And, so-called Intelligent Design is little more than an effort by those who understand that science is right (that evolutionary theory is accurate) and that Creationism nonsense to maintain some level of authority and control through religion. This leads adherents of Intelligent Design, like the Catholic Church, through a convoluted labyrinth of "logic" that would make Schrodinger's mind spin.
The biggest nonsense here is you all's stereotype.
Religion does not control me, nor any other Bible believing, God worshipping, Jesus following believer.
Evolution is one of the biggest scams ever to be unleashed on the human race, and the "intellectuals" fall for it like little children for candy.
Haven't you figured out that God will NOT be found through, intellect, scientific method, or your favourite catch cry, education. It's your "education" that got you into trouble to start with. You've succeeded (by and large) in removing God, and the Bible from schools, and all semblance of morality with it. I don't think any one likes the results that have been attained as a result.
Why is Intelligent Design nonsense?
One simple reason. You all have declared, "there is NO God". NOTHING else.
Mans wisdom, is nothing more than foolishness, for it is as temporal as the "best seller of the week", because it will last a short time, and be replaced by another.
Good luck with that!
So...What specifically then did Jesus say about the origins of the universe? About evolution?
If you follow no organized religion, then logic dictates that your beliefs about the origins of the universe and evolution of that universe be based entirely on scriptural evidence of Jesus' specific commentaries on the subjects.
Logic dictates no such thing.
You propose that prerequisite.
But, to quote one such "commentary", just for you;
Mark, Ch 10, vs 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."
Direct copy and paste from the New American Bible.
Notice how definitive the statement is!
You did ask, right?
How does that contradict evolution? How do you know God didn't make evolution?
As I said, what specifically did JESUS say?
Do not quote the "Gospel of Mark" from known to have been written in the Second Century A.D. and included in the AMERICAN BIBLE a translation (from Greek) first published in 1970 and in which speaks to sex and gender to cite a specific example of Jesus' comments about the origins of the universe and evolution.
Again, what did Jesus say about the origins of the universe and evolution?
Jesus: Totally omniscient and omnipotent, but doesn't quite know what hermaphrodites and eunuchs are.
Wait for the contradiction to the above statement.
Here is comes. Don't forget the "Religion does not control me"
There we go. "Religion does not control me" ---- "Haven't you figured out that God will NOT be found through..."
My dear friend you are indeed controlled by your religion. ID is not nonsense because it we have declared "there is no God". It's nonsense because it's only evidence is what the bible says which was written by people who had no understanding of the universe, but pretended they did.
If I were a betting man, I'd say, you are in agreement with me, IF, you were to explore the possibilities with the underlying premise, "there Is a God"
Atheist/evolutionist says there is no god, THEREFORE, there is only ONE explanation for all things being as they are.
Theist/creationist says, there IS (a) God, therefore, the evidence supports the concept of ID, because of the observable evidence CLEARLY points the a DESIGNER.
No, it doesn't. If it did, scientists would have tossed evolution in the bin long ago.
Then why not show that evidence that you claim CLEARLY points to a DESIGNER? If it's as clear as you claim all will be able to see it.
How does that saying go again?
For heaven's sake. Are you for real?
Are you guys blind, or so indoctrinated in this evo. stuff you cannot think and reason with an open, honest mind?
I guess you are.
It doesn't even warrant an answer! Not because there isn't one, or that I don't have one, it's because I have seen it debunked time and again. Not honestly, but deliberately, and unreasonably.
So you don't want to supply the evidence because you've seen it debunked previously? And you're saying we've been indoctrinated?
Most unbelievers would much rather believe in a beautiful afterlife, so we don't have the motive, we just don't see the evidence. Supply it and help me see it.
That's the saddest part of it.
Evidence FOR ID is all around you, yet you ask me for an example.
It's not lack of evidence, it's the lack of objectivity with the observer.
Okay, so you must think the Guinea Worm is an example of intelligent design? If you don't know what it is, I'll give you a brief explanation and you can explain why a loving God would design it to inflict pain on the poorest of the poor.
"Guinea worm disease is caused by drinking water contaminated by water fleas (microscopic arthropods known as copepods) that host the Dracunculus larva. Guinea worm disease used to thrive in some of the world's poorest areas, particularly those with limited or no access to clean water. In these areas, stagnant water sources may still host copepods, which can carry the larvae of the guinea worm."
"Approximately one year after the infection began, the worm creates a blister in the human host's skin—usually on the leg or foot. Within 72 hours the blister ruptures, exposing one end of the emergent worm. This blister causes a very painful burning sensation as the worm emerges. Infected persons often immerse the affected limb in water to relieve the burning sensation. Once the blister or open sore is submerged in water, the adult female releases hundreds of thousands of guinea worm larvae, contaminating the water supply."
Interesting how the guinea worm doesn't appear to fit into Gods plan for us but makes perfect sense when we look at the world through evolution?
Unfortunately, it's not. All I ever hear is "Wow! That's beautiful - I don't see how it could have happened by chance so must be a god that did it".
Ignorance, in other words. We don't know, we don't understand, we think the odds are too great without knowing what they really are - whatever we're ignorant of we assign to a god. It's been that way since caveman days even though we KNOW better now. But that doesn't make ID a science; it makes it a guess - a hypotheses. With the hypothesis made, it's now time to prove it to be true - so FIND that god you have hypothesized to be there. Don't quit, don't look for more unanswered questions or places we're ignorant and assign that to a god, too - FIND that god.
I've had no reason to NOT follow & love Him.
You haven't provided a single valid reason to follow and love your god, either.
No you didn't - you found an emotional response in yourself that you attribute to the presence of a god. An attribution made because you want it to be so - no evidence nor testing performed. No experimentation, no positive evidence found. Just a desire that it be so.
And while you may be quite happy in following the edicts of what you perceive to be a god because you have no negative reason not to, many people require a positive reason TO follow. It's the way they're built.
That is entirely false, the facts fit the observations, but you will never understand that until you take the time to understand how evolution works.
Did you read the link I provided?
Nope. You may want to educate yourself with this handy little series:
Yes, religion controls you, it causes you to fabricate lies, like the very next one you're going to tell...
Evolution is something you don't understand, the "intellectuals" do understand it. No one is going to slam you for not wanting to read books, think, reason and be an intellectual, you're perfectly free and clear to not do so. But, to dishonestly fabricate lies is something altogether different.
In other words, you will never be interested in gaining an education. No problem. But, just because you don't want to educate yourself doesn't mean the rest of the world wants to remain ignorant.
The assertion itself has no evidence to support it. If you want to believe that evidence is your god, that is your problem.
Funny though, there are many believers who have taken the time to understand evolution and they all support it, yet they have not declared "there is NO God" - quite the contrary, in fact.
Do you have anything to say about those believers?
Sorry, but it is highly unlikely evolution will be replaced by another, it has already been shown to be fact.
That must really annoy you.
I don't one can say the Catholic Church is on the same line of thinking as the Intelligent Designer's of the Southern US. One needs to give the Catholic's a little credit here in that while they think God has organized all of this they also understand the Earth to be old and understand evolution has brought us to where we are today while the IDer's think the Earth is new and humans and dinosaurs lived side by side a few thousand years ago much like the Flintstones.
What science? There is nothing but a declaration that a god made it all, without a shred of supporting evidence and thought. Only "I don't know, so it must have been a god".
Whether god or God makes no difference; an extremely capable and powerful ET from another universe. Which, of course, means that the other universe must also be declared to exist. Again without evidence.
They have no theories, they only have assertions based on incredulity.
But many aspect of ID can have have been disproven. We know the earth is old and no dinosaur has ever seen a man. We know evolution does happen and we know the IDer's flagellum theory is false as many missing links have been found when IDers said there couldn't and wouldn't be.
In 2000 and 2004, protein scientist Douglas Axe published papers in the Journal of Molecular Biology suggesting that amino acid sequences that yield stably folding proteins may be as uncommon as 1 in 10 to the power74 sequences. Axe's results are significant for the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. That is because they suggest that random mutation and natural selection would be unable to find the rare amino acid sequences that yield functional proteins. Instead, his results indicate that functional proteins are extremely rich in complex and specified information, a property that in our experience points to design.
The statement above can not be disproven however Darwinist scientists will say it doesn't mean anything because it doesn't fit in with their theory.
Since all evidence needs to be interpreted, science doesn't actually say anything--scientists do. So if certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn't mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth -- not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science.
Axe suggests that the sequences may be as uncommon as 1 in 10^74.
As no one has ever calculated the actual figure under then prevailing conditions, one might suggest that it may be 1 in 10^5,000. Or 1 out of 2.
Do you see the problem? To disprove the suggestion, one must succeed in doing the actual calculations; something that no one has been able to do, including Axe. No wonder they say it doesn't mean anything.
There are many if's and buts and maybe's in evolutionary science however it seems some scientists like to throw the baby out with the bathwater just to prove their theory.
That's where you having a problem, they don't want to prove the theory, they want to disprove it. The person who does that makes a name for themselves. Darwin's theory happened before he new about DNA and yet the discovery of DNA has helped and proven his case.
Ah I see, so what you are saying is because they cant disprove it then it must be true?
Darwin would have know that we pass something on to our offspring, even the ancient Greeks knew that.
Do you enjoy putting words in peoples mouths? Again, thats not what I said at all.
Tell me, are you dismissing evolution because of your religious beliefs? Because if so you are making a huge mistake combining science and religion. It's was caused the middle ages and Europe and the downfall of the Islamic Golden Age. It may help to set your religious beliefs aside and look objectively at the facts.
That is the best response you can come with to a complaint that 10^74 is grabbed out of the air without any backing at all? That some scientists throw the baby out with the bath water?
I think you made my point for me better than I ever could.
is the director of Biologic Institute. His research uses both experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After a Caltech PhD he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. His work has been reviewed in Nature and featured in a number of books, magazines and newspaper articles, including Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris, The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, and Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer.
I suppose you have a better understanding than this guy then Wilderness.
Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01 … st-fa.html
Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.
Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material
http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2010/0 … s-axe.html
The let him publish his assumptions and calculations used in coming up with that number. At that point the "suggestion" and the "may" should go away and his peers can take notice and try to disprove his assertion. That's how you make a theory, you know.
Until that point his suggestion is no more than an unsubstantiated opinion. Not worth replying to.
That isn't even remotely true, but it is consistent with those who are scientifically illiterate.
You understand that evolution is observable right. It's demonstrable and observable and there are mounds of supporting evidence where species have evolved to no longer be able to become the same species.
Only by the interpretation of some scientists not all, but you seem to think that all scientists agree on everything,
And of course there are those who will continue to try and assert the Darwin's hypothesis was right.
Belief in gods hasn't seen anyone finding a pot of gold at the end of rainbow.
The difference is indoctrination.
Again, any scientist worth the label would far prefer "I don't know" to a made up, unsupportable answer designed solely to fit within a belief of a diety.
It's always funny when Creationists try to push their nonsense as science.
Creationism is quite specific in its position and unrelated to the work of, for example, the Vatican Observatory.
Roman Catholics generally, and certainly not Jesuit cosmologists specifically, are not Creationists. Creationism as literal and factual is anathema to Catholicism.
Considerations of the moment before the Big Bang are highly nuanced intellectual conversations which suggest, it seems, an authentic, meaningful, and sincere intersection of science, religion, philosophy, and the capacity for "what ifs" central to the human mind.
Such considerations are not the stuff of "nonsense".
Here's a pHd writing in favour of ID, who, contrary to your many assertions (lies) to the contrary, DOES understand evolution, but STILL chooses ID.
Purely based on evidence SUPPORTING the ID explanation of all things.
I don't expect any of you to actually read what is said.
But, that's your prerogative.
Hey, I understand, you can't allow the truth to undermine what you already believe.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds. I read that. It's nonsense. Then, I read other arguments from scientists who have had one on one discussions with Briney, who simply chooses to ignore everyone's rebuttals and refutations in favor of his creationist claims. He is no different than any other believer who denies evolution and uses the same old tired arguments, despite the fact he has a phd in microbiology.
Here's an interesting tid bit.
|"As an atheist evolving to agnosticism, and seeking answers to whether or not belief in God is potentially rational, my life was turned upside down 35 years ago by reading C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity." —Francis Collins
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books … ?_r=1&
Atheists are a genetic, evolutionary anomaly.
They think they are on the rise, but mother nature will see to it they eventually catch up to the overwhelming majority. Real humans who believe in and hold to some deity, or supernatural Spirit Being.
There are small pockets of resistance, but they have created their own deity, FSM.
Now, THAT's intelligence!
An genetic, evolutionary anomaly? Atheists are not "real humans"? Nature will make atheists extinct?
I really don't know how to even begin to respond to this or if response is even possible.
Suggesting that some people are an anomaly or a genetic mistake and not "real" humans and suggesting that the problem of their existence will be dealt with through extinction is, at least to me, not something to be taken lightly.
To suggest that a difference in belief removes negates one's humanity and is cause for extinction is not something to be taken lightly.
The world in which we live---no matter how one presumes we got here, is a world in which the notion that religion or beliefs make one an inhuman anomaly or a genetic mistake or something to be extinguished is all too real and too painful in its consequence to be taken lightly.
Let's get this straight. You call us genetic evolutionary abnormalities and not real humans and then when someone says "what?" you tell him to lighten up.
I am horrified by the thought that one could find any humor or levity in any suggestion that those that do not subscribe to a particular set of beliefs and/or a particular belief system are genetic anomalies, less than human, and bound for extinction.
Horrified yes, but not surprised. Sounds similar to the blatant racism that the Mormons ascribe to.
You forget that I don't believe, NOR aspire to hold to evolution! PERIOD.
Therefore, my comment was satirical at worst, and tongue-in-cheek humour at best.
If you can't see that, I feel for you. You have a sad view of life indeed.
If you care to know my REAL thoughts about you, it's that you are of infinite worth. You have a destiny that is way beyond what you can ever imagine.
You are loved beyond measure.
You have been redeemed by the creator, through the death and resurrection of Jesus.
If only you received it.
So, you just go on, and hang on to your godless evolutionary view and explanation of life.
Don't be too bothered by the thoughts of death, or extinction. After all, that's how evolution works.
Oh, that was your attempt at humour? Ha ha ha ha. Is this last post supposed to be humorous as well?
Any comment which suggests that people are---because of their beliefs sub-human or genetic mistakes or due for extinction is not humor at all. You may call it humor, but it is not.
I know...I was responding to the original post. The threading in Hubpages is most problematic and makes it very difficult to know to whom one is specifically responding.
Chronological is good; threaded is as well...but there seem to be some issues (at least with my browser) about "reply" in the threaded view. I need to work on this.
Go to the top right and click chronological where is says threaded. It'll make much more sense that way.
Have you clicked on the word "chronological" in the upper right corner of the page? It makes it so much clearer who is talking to whom.
I tell a joke, you take it seriously.
I tell you the truth, you take it as a joke.
Perhaps YOU'RE confused, and not me.
So...is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church---a man who accepts evolution as a fact, "godless"?
Are the millions of mainstream Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and faithful men and women who subscribe to other religions and belief systems and who accept evolution as factual, "godless"?
Are they too genetic mistakes and due for extinction?
No, it is the scientifically illiterate that are due for extinction. Don't be one of them.
This time...I entirely agree.
In a world in which engagement with information and facts and science are increasingly needed for meaningful and gainful employment, it seems likely that the scientifically illiterate will find themselves nearing extinction.
And not extinction by natural selection, but by cultural and social progress and pressure. As it becomes increasingly unacceptable to be scientifically illiterate and disengaged from information and facts and science, I suspect (if history is any guide to the future) to see a decrease in the numbers of those who subscribe to an anti-science, anti-information, anti-fact worldview.
That is because it is completely foreign, you have no grasp of the concept whatsoever.
Preachy nonsense. Probably the same nonsense that aspires one to be dishonest about facts and evidence.
And yet, it is the scientifically illiterate that will be dealing with extinction. That's how it works.
Evolution knows exactly whom to weed out.
Do you understand that evolution is a process and not a "thing" or discrete event?
My sense is that your think that (a) it is an event and (b) that there is no evidence of the process that evolution is.
What's the process again?
Is it something like minute, gradual change over long periods of time?
Evolution is not one process, but multiple processes. I strongly suggest that you work to read some science of the subject---and not something written and published by a Creationist.
I have read enough science fiction on the subject.
All jokes aside, there is nothing proven. PERIOD.
Evolution literature is riddled with such words as "might, could, probably, possibly, may have, we don't know, we think" etc.
You want to build your faith on such ambiguity, and uncertainty, by all means, do.
Conversely, the Bible doesn't have those words associated with God's creating the world and all life.
It's absolutely definitive, and the "science" doesn't contradict it.
It's evolutionary, and atheistic scientists that do. Not because of the evidence, but because of the perspective from which they examine that evidence.
It is absolutely logical to me and probably all Creationists, to understand that IF you start with the premise, "there is no God", you are by default forced to find/interpret evidence in tat light.
So, the logical outcome for Creationists is that IF there is a God, then it is entirely within the scope of possibility (and indeed probability) that He was the cause behind the event.
I have read enough of the material you (all) suggest, including the many links that have been posted, without ONE SHRED of convincing data, or information, to challenge me, or the views I hold.
BTW, if you think I was raised "religious", you'd be wrong. I actually believed evolution, BUT questioned it for many years, all BEFORE I became a believer. (Not that really matters to people like you and others here, since you all live to put people in a box.)
The universe was most definitely, without a doubt, created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This totally happened 100% for true, and your Bible can't contradict it.
What a stupid comment.
The Bible doesn't have to contradict it.
It is VERY clear Who did what.
It excludes all (potential) contenders.
Perhaps, you should read some science, instead.
Coming from someone who doesn't understand evolution, your claim is meaningless, let alone totally wrong.
No, it isn't.
We don't, we build our understand on facts and evidence.
And yet, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the bible.
That shows no understanding of science.
Evolution does not state "there is no God" hence your claim is meaningless.
You've done no such thing and you know it.
I don't but that fable for a second.
Your continuous, line by line response makes for boring reading.
You are wrong on so many levels, it's not even funny.
I can't understand how someone can display such an haughty and arrogant attitudes.
We have found you have yet to provide any flaws in evolution or have even a remote clue as to what evolution is all about.
Yet, you have not provided anything to support your assertions or show anyone here to be wrong.
The OP is ample display of that.
Real humans? Evolutionary anomaly?
Well at the very least you used the word "evolutionary" in a sentence.
Lewis' dishonest arguments have been dissected and refuted by many...
"He claimed to have been an Atheist in his youth but in all his writings about his 'new-found' faith nowhere does he explore the different possible gods and religions. Having become convinced that some phenomena must have a supernatural origin, he seems to have concluded without further questioning that this must be the Christian god of the Bible and that the Anglican Church into which he had been baptised a child must be the True Faith. It is therefore highly likely that, rather than being an Atheist in the sense of accepting that there is no evidential reason to be otherwise, and that the only reason for belief is evidence and not merely not knowing or not understanding how something works or why something is as it appears, he was simply a non-practising believer."
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.ca/p/cs … ected.html
Oy vey ATM. CS Lewis is one of the most respected authors of all time... secular or religious, period. His insight into the things of God are nothing less than inspired. His work spans the genre of children's, religious, classic and fantasy. You can find a quote that can make literally anyone look bad, including Mother Teresa, which you all have already attempted.
People, no matter who they are, no matter how awe inspiring, are still just ppl. We are all flawed, we are all less than perfect. When ppl shine, it's because they have broken out of the mold and have made a statement with their words and with their life that matter... not because they are perfect, but because they have made a difference. I hope that no one is as scrutinizing with your life as you are with everyone elses.
So what? He is as dishonest as many other believers making similar claims.
What is "bad" are his arguments, which have been refuted by many.
Utter nonsense. Lewis has not broken out of any mold or is inspiring at all. He is as dishonest as the day is long, just like other believers here.
So I see that a so-called ID proponent is "educated" and therefore his opposition to evolutionary theory is valid. Let me drop some names. David Cole, Fred Leuchter, David Irving. All three have degrees in one thing or another. All three are also Holocaust deniers. So, you put weight on someone's credentials and that validates all their theories?
Speaking of Holocaust deniers, there's no difference between the M.O. of deniers and creationists. Holocaust deniers take what we know, exploit unclear areas, twist them around and arrive at the conclusion that they're inaccurate. Creationists do the same thing with evolution. They read Answers in Genesis and other apologist sources, then use the same stock arguments to "blow holes" in evolution. That's not evidence, that's cherry-picking.
To date, no creationist has brought any solid proof that evolution is a flimsy theory, nor have they proven the existence of any kind of deity. The burden of proof is on you people. Hell, even the Catholic Church has accepted evolution as being valid. Micro evolution has been confirmed. Macro evolution - one species going to a different species - is simply a combination of several instances of micro evolution. We can't see it happen in real-time because macro evolution takes an incredible number of years to work. So quit it with the "we haven't seen it, so it's fake" argument. I can say the same for God.
I think the biggest flaw that displays the OP's ignorance is that he thinks evolution explains the existence of life. It doesn't. It explains the DIVERSITY of life. That's why it's entirely possible for creationists to agree with evolution as a divine mechanism for animal adaptation.
Very good argument.
So, your position is overwhelmingly valid, right?
"we haven't seen it, so it's true" because science fiction tells us so.
Show me the money!
What has evolutionary theory proven that is not beyond argument.
Ring species, atavisms, and varied adaptations among the same species come to mind rather quickly.
The horse, the donkey and the zebra. An example of evolution in progress, Three different looking animals that were once one proven by the fact that they can produce offspring, but today that offspring is sterile which they can no longer become one species (can't go back).
Let's not forget the African and Indian Elephants.
So...are you simply unaware of the proof that does exist---and it is plentiful (proof of the Big Bang, of evolution, etc.) and meets the scientific standards of replication of experimental findings OR do you just refuse to acknowledge the proof and choose, therefore, to disregard it?
At this point they have even watched evolution happened in the lab, beyond the point of speciation. If you don't consider that proof, well.
"Evolution literature is riddled with such words as "might, could, probably, possibly, may have, we don't know, we think" etc"
A HA! I knew it. You've almost directly quoted Ray Comfort, a Christian apologist. You didn't read any science. You lifted that off of him. And please, if you did read that somewhere (which is most likely a lie), please provide a reference.
by Jacqui 5 years ago
Is it possible to believe in both Creation and Microevolution?A comment on another question sparked this. Those who believe in Creation often scoff at the idea of Evolution eg we can't be descended from Apes etc..Adam and Eve etc. Yet, someone answered with the idea that they believed in...
by aka-dj 7 years ago
I found the following article most interesting.It's not for the non-technical minds, but not too difficult to grasp what is being said. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16 … t-collide/See what you think.
by smalika 7 years ago
The paleontologists have found no evidence of the existence of the intermediate creatures that are claimed by Darwin to have existed for the conversion of one animal species to another..
by Julie Grimes 7 years ago
With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind? That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this morning before I scurry off to work.Why I am asking this question is because it is...
by thetruthhurts2009 8 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by Phocas Vincent 3 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys, thank you.)
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|