|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:00:09 AM | "Sounds to me like you can't conclusively define evolution in any way that it can't be refuted."
It seems that way to you, because you do not understand the scientific method. The Theory of Relativity is not the same as it was when Einstein posited it. It has been honed, improved upon and added to, but the essence remains perfectly sound and consistent with empirical evidence. Ditto for quantum physics. Ditto for any scientific theory. Scientific theories are not fixed constructs. The essence of evolution by natural selection remains perfectly sound and consistent with empirical evidence, but the details have been improved and honed over the last century. Misquoting theory, ignoring facts, dredging up discarded conjectures, and positing non-falsifiable hypotheses in no way aids in that honing process. You have been shown, in conclusive terms, over and over and over why your cut and pasted arguments are flawed, and you ignore them. If you are not willing to learn, then I don't see the point in responding to you at all. It would seem that you are simply afraid of the theory, because it threatens some preconceived notion of yours. Flailing wildly in order to preserve a preconceived notion is not science; it is lunacy. You clearly do not understand the theory at all. What you are familiar with are the prevarications of a political agenda. I suggest you actually learn biology before you presume to contribute to biology. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:00:27 AM | Sixth: Many sources cited by Evil Kyro are early 80's, but now we have DNA science!!!! and from there we can get a LOT more information than from fossils (hehe arcane paleonthologists would kill me for saying that but as a Molecular Biologist I say yes!).
From what I've read on DNA science so far it would appear to have a very strong potential for killing the the "common ancestor" model at long last. OK I AM GOING TO SAY YES, if and only if that ability to adapt involves the processes of "natural selection", genetic drift, population bottlenecks and speciation among many others. In that case, such ID just gave the universe the physical and chemical laws necessary to conduct all the biochemical processes needed. In that case, the ID is called mother nature which happens to like playing dice *as Einstein would put it.
That last statement isn't a logical conclusion of your previous statement. Btw, "natural selection" by a process of what produces the most offsping? Or a "survival of the fittest"? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:37:55 AM | From what I've read on DNA science so far it would appear to have a very strong potential for killing the the "common ancestor" model
Well please enlighten us, as all I've seen on DNA research seems to support the idea of a common ancestor.
the Genetic Code in the table above has also been called "The Universal Genetic Code". It is known as "universal", because it is used by all known organisms as a code for DNA, mRNA, and tRNA. The universality of the genetic code encompases animals (including humans), plants, fungi, archaea, bacteria, and viruses. However, all rules have their exceptions, and such is the case with the Genetic Code; small variations in the code exist in mitochondria and certain microbes. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that these variances represent only a small fraction of known cases, and that the Genetic Code applies quite broadly, certainly to all known nuclear genes.
Oh, and this is a good site if you can wade through the terminology.
Compelling Data for Common Descent from Matching Redundant DNA Sequences
http://home.comcast.net/~rrr33/descent.pdf#search='common%20ancestor%20DNA%20evolution'
Or this one if you want a shorter read.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/1_identity/alike.html
Humans and one species of worm, for example, share 21% of their genes; humans and mice share 90%. Scientists compare the genes of plants, animals and humans primarily to learn more about ourselves.
Fruit fly 36%
Mouse 90%
Roundworm 21%
Yeast 23%
Thale cress 15%
Zebrafish 85%
E coli 7%
Chimp 98%
Rat 90%
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:46:12 AM | Ok, here is question for ID to answer.... If all people originated from just 2 or 8 or 12 people, then where did all of the diseases specific to humans come from.
There are thousands of diseases that are fatal to humans and do not infect any other species. For these diseseases to survive and propogate from the begining of mankind, the first few people would have to have had hundreds of each fatal disease.
So come on then, tell me how this is posible? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 10:51:46 AM |
Please provide some of the evidences and alternative interpretations that invalidate the theory of evolution, as well as the theory that they more reasonably validate.
EK second response:
Not as long as Evolutionists keep changing the definition of it. The moment I bring up evidence that refutes evolution, someone comes out and says that that isn't what defines evolution so therefore my points are invalid.
Sounds to me like you can't conclusively define evolution in any way that it can't be refuted.
So in other words you can't. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:09:36 AM |
Ok, here is question for ID to answer.... If all people originated from just 2 or 8 or 12 people, then where did all of the diseases specific to humans come from.
From a creationist point of view I know the answer to that question. However do you know the answer as an Evolutionist? People originating from 2 or 8 or 12 ancestors is likely the same for your beliefs also. From a strict ID point of view I don't know the solution but perhaps it is the same as the Evolutionist answer you will enlighten me with. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:14:01 AM |
So in other words you can't.
Have you been paying attention for the last 116 pages of this thread?
Now, how about a clear and concise definition, summed up in one paragraph of what Evolutionists believe in how life came about. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:15:24 AM | ITs quite simple for evolution Evil_Kyro, Human specific diseases evolved from other diseases after humanity evolved.
ID caont use this cliam, because to do so would be to acept that evolution ocours. You can not claim evolution only ocours in becteria and viruses and not in multicelular animals. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:30:30 AM | "Now, how about a clear and concise definition, summed up in one paragraph of what Evolutionists believe in how life came about."
I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary theory," which, by the way, is some 1400 pages, and still does not cover everything. Perhaps it is your desire for pat answers that is the crux of the problem here. Simplistic answers like "God did it." are not remotely a scientific approach. He may very well have done it, but HOW he did it, is the question. If you want it summed up in one pat description, then the name of the theory alone does that- Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. If you want to know what that means to a substantive level of precision- study. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:35:07 AM |
ID caont use this cliam, because to do so would be to acept that evolution ocours. You can not claim evolution only ocours in becteria and viruses and not in multicelular animals.
The definitions I've seen of ID do not state that there is no evolution but that there is an ID directing it. Creationism is somewhat different, which is why I worded the post as I did realizing that it was a potential trap. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 12:08:01 PM |
I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary theory," which, by the way, is some 1400 pages, and still does not cover everything. Perhaps it is your desire for pat answers that is the crux of the problem here. Simplistic answers like "God did it." are not remotely a scientific approach. He may very well have done it, but HOW he did it, is the question. If you want it summed up in one pat description, then the name of the theory alone does that- Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. If you want to know what that means to a substantive level of precision- study.
Lol, I just read a review and a few excerpts of the book. Not trying to be mean here Wonka but his writing style is very similar to yours. Is there a reason for that?
Reading 1433 pages of that would have me expiring even faster than Gould did.
Gould being the proponent of puncuated equilibrium makes his book suspect in that it is for all intents and purpose an unfalsifiable theory and therefore a psuedo-science as you so often point out. I'm not the smartest fruit loop in the bowl but I haven't quite stepped into the realm of insanity as yet and am not about to go all the way by reading that book. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 12:32:55 PM | "Not trying to be mean here Wonka but his writing style is very similar to yours. Is there a reason for that?"
Go ahead and be mean if you perceive it that way; I'm hardly a saint myself, but I, for one, consider a large vocabulary, strong education, comprehensive compositional skills and the ability to comprehend abstract concepts to be positive qualities of an intellect, and you could scarcely compliment me better than to compare me with Stephen Jay Gould. A compliment I hardly deserve, actually. Do you understand the absurdity of dismissing a tome as invalid due to a lack of reading comprehension and retention skills? A bit of advice: the more you read, the better you get at it. And for the record- punctuated equilibrium is perfectly amenable to empirical observation, and I don't know where you get the idea that it isn't.
P.S.- if you want something more accessible to a layman then I recommend any number of books by Richard Dawkins on the subject. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2863 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 1:04:59 PM | Certainly my OK I AM GOING TO SAY YES argument was not perfectly constructed, I hope you understand that what I call "ID", if any, is just what others call Mother Nature.
Now to the interesting bit
From what I've read on DNA science so far it would appear to have a very strong potential for killing the the "common ancestor" model at long last.
Ehem... I would like to know what you call the common ancestor model, simply because the main critiques to that one (from the Scientific point of view) come from the lateral gene transfer people such as WF Doolittle, just look at the pictures here
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/phylogenetic_classification_and_.htm
The network or reticulated tree is their most current proposal and so far it is open to big discussions between those who propose gene transfer as a mainstream process in evolution and those saying that ocurred long time ago being nowadays neglegible.
In any case, I think we can agree that evolution exists. Great.
"natural selection" by a process of what produces the most offsping? Or a "survival of the fittest"?
This gives me a good idea... Why dont we start with some definitions here... | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2864 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 1:18:06 PM | Evolution>
The gradual process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life .
Natural Selection>
The process by which in every generation individuals of LOWER fitness are removed from the population.
Both highly summarised concepts come straight from Ernst Mayr; these are one liners suitable for further discussion on the Creation vs Evolution debate.
How Natural Selection occurs?
Well, from my perspective, we can start saying that
1) variation exists> there are no identical organisms. There might be twins, there might be clones, but the second after they separate, they interact with the environment in an independent way and that generates variation on them.
2) Successful traits and Survival> If you are attractive to the opposite sex and very fertile, there are good chances that you will have a larger offspring than the guy who is very attractive but unfertile and than the unattractive ones.
So, imagine your progeny... some are as attractive as you, some are less attractive, some are more attractive, but they are all different and unique. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 2:50:00 PM |
Have you been paying attention for the last 116 pages of this thread?
Have you? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 5:01:15 PM |
Have you?
Having finally read the OP, I'd have to admit that I haven't.
I thought this was a debate to prove or disprove Evolution but now realize that this isn't what Trewq36 was looking for.
My apologies Trewq36.
 | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 7:25:19 PM | Dizamn! I got left flat-footed at the gate, didn't I? Okay, folks, bear with me while I try to catch up.
Pat Robertson has sent a clear message on the OT: people in Dover town who voted against allowing Intelligent Design to be taught as a theory alongside evolution, these people had better not expect God's help in time of need.
I'm only going to comment on this once. The Christian God, from what I've read, is a God, not only of justice, but of mercy. He would recognise, then, would He not, an underhanded attempt to make an end run around the law of the land, using ideological propaganda disguised (thinly, I might add) as legitimate science, in an attempt to promote a political ideology. Justice. Mercy? I'm sure any God worth worship would still be there for His followers if they were sincere, no matter what the demagogue du jour spouts on his multi-billion-dollar-netting television program.
Third, if they want to teach Creationism in schools, I do not mind, but also please teach them enough maths and Population Genetics too.
Enryk, some really good insights. This one in particular, though, I would recommend you share also on the thread about the ID ruling in PA. I've seen a lot of arguments for including ID in public school, and I can accept that some of them might work. This is certainly a novel point, however, and I think it's a good one to have been made.
I assume you are questioning the validity of the statistics garnered from polls. The link you supplied to another poll seemed to bear out the same statistics within a couple of percentage points. That is good enough for me.
Sorry, Kyro. I didn't mean to make it seem as though I was questioning or attempting to refute the poll's statistics (although I do know a funny joke that illustrates the beauty of statistics). What I was saying was that the 90% figure does not point to a design. As I read the article, that percentage was made up of various groups who either accepted or rejected evolutionary theory, but still believed that a God was the originator of life on Earth. Evolution has nothing to say about that, so I don't view the poll as having argued for a 90% belief in ID vs. a 10% belief in evolution. The two, as defined at the level of exactly what their titles say, are not mutually exclusive.
There is no reason therefore to invalidate a theory that has never been proven to begin with. That is the real "straw man" isn't it?
AAAARRRGGGHHH!! "Scott, you just don't get it. Do you?" -Dr. Evil
The more I research this topic, the more holes I find. Teaching such an incomplete theory to our childeren and trying to convince them it is truth is an incredible diservice to them. When looked at objectively, evolution requires even more "faith" than creation.
1. Yes, there are "holes" and always will be. That's science, that's the way theories work. Scientists find those holes and seek to find answers to the questions that are raised by the gaps in the theory.
2. I would shudder to think that this outlook could come to define policy, since teaching anything to children with an agenda equating to establishing "truth" is dangerous. I agree that more emphasis ought be put on the definitions of "facts" and "interpretations" in classrooms, such that kids get the idea that they're not being taught "the way things are," but "the way things are explained." Beyond that, this view would ultimately invalidate not only this one, incomplete (or "flawed" if you feel it appropriate) theory, but a solid majority of what kids are at present taught in school. Not all of life is understood. Not everything is defined and measured into a neat little box with science. Can one do it with religion? Sure. Again, dangerous.
3. I'm sorry, but it has to be said (and, call it what you'd like, this is by no means an "attack"), from the posts you've made, I certainly do not consider your viewpoint to be objective. If we manage to find someone truly objective, who is aware of all the facts and educated on the subjects, I say we ask them.
The "illogical fanaticism" statement is one that could be applied quite well to Evolutionists imo. Perhaps it is a "human thing" as opposed to a "religious thing".
Out of context. Those to whom I was referring, I addressed as such based, not on their cosmology or view of how life might have developed, but on the shortsighted, ideologically-driven agenda they were attempting to put into practice, counter to the law of the land.
I see, and some of these other evidences would be? In most scientific diciplines a lack of evidence would constitute an invalid theory. The only other dicipline where that wouldn't the case is religion. Interesting huh?
As for the other evidences, I'd refer you back to the rest of the thread. There are ample illustrations pointed out all over the place. An interesting counter would be to ask for the evidences for ID, rather than simply coming up with more against evolution. However, since that's been brought up repeatedly with no substantial evidence mentioned in support of ID, I'll let it go. I'm afraid you are also mistaken regarding the statement that scientific theories are discarded due to lack of evidence. Rather, you are correct in stating that, honestly, however, the argument is not that there is not sufficient evidence for evolutionary theory. Again, genealogy, genetics, embryology, morphology, archaeology, palaeontology, population dynamic studies, the tracking of diseases in population, the observed emergence of modified forms, structures, and behaviours in existing organisms all provide evidence that are encapsulated within and predicted by the theory of evolution. There is a wealth of evidence beyond that which the fossil record provides. And, the fossil record provides a great deal. Many choose to ignore it, others question (and rightly in this case) the validity of the interpretations made regarding it, and still others refuse to accept it whole or in part on the assumption that it should show some specific "missing link" which is, ironically enough, completely undescribed, with a suspiciously apparent intent to be able to refute anything that might come close to fitting that ill-defined nebulous concept.
Any other examples from the "millions available"?
I'll look up the link. AiG is fun, and has some good info. BTW, who said "millions?" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 7:28:41 PM |
The Intelligent Designer gave the birds the ability to adapt to their environment but in a lot shorter time than the thousand generations you are stating as has been poven and depending of course on the degree of adaptation required.
It would seem to me that this ability proves an ID much more than by random chance. You being a Molecular Biologist would realize that to a much greater degree than i would, I'm sure.
Sorry for the double-post, but I almost didn't catch this one. Other than looking like circular logic, I can't even make sense of what is being said here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:02:37 PM |
I can't even make sense of what is being said here.
Feral....some of us have had that thought since page 2 of this thread... | |
|
| Creation Vs. Evolution
Posted: 12/30/2005 1:01:46 AM | There are no dieties or supernatural forces at work in the theory of evolution, because it isn't religious. there are self proclaimed dieties in every walk of life. many take on the will power of others. in their minds they believe the other(s) are their diety. your world in the theory of evolution cannot resist this power as those who work in the theory of evolution have egos probably quite large. they are no different than you or myself except for their large egos. I say that with a grain of salt as i am humble and far from being a diety myself.
| |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2871 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/30/2005 1:21:38 AM | Oh rubbish! I had a third post up there but they deleted it and it was a good one!
Let me try to finish what I was saying, going back to the progeny example.
mmm... so you have a large progeny of individuals some are as attractive as you, some are less some are more attractive, some are fertile, some are sterile, but all different and unique.
However, I am sorry to tell you that a predator came around and killed a few, another fell into a volcano, the other one died of food poisoning and the saddest part was when most of the siblings died during the last famine and also during the flu epidemic... sorry.
Oh the strongest ones went to a Holy War and died too... (this is an example of something called Mullet's Ratchet, a really interesting concept, in which the fittest individuals get eliminated from the population, so the second best become the "best" and propagate, even if they are a bit "defective", as competition gets reduced)
Looking at that scenario, some authors say that Natural Selection occurs by "chance" and by "need", understanding "need" as fitness or adaptation.
Another example... imagine that you live in a very remote area and need to travel far away to get resources, so those individuals capable of surviving the journey have more chances of survival, however, from time to time there are floods or landslides on your way and you might get caught in them...
If all those individuals died BEFORE HAVING PROGENY, then you can say that were eliminated by natural selection.
So, the survivors are those "fit" enough and "lucky" enough to get to HAVE PROGENY, which at the end of the day, it is one of the main things in population dynamics, to pass on your genes (R. Dawkins commonly takes this idea to the extreme).
Hope it makes sense.
Now, adaptation (the process of getting traits that increase fitness) is always a SHORTSIGHTED process, there is no ABSOLUTE trait which would help you survive wherever, whatever (you can always argue "intelligence" but thats a different phylosophical debate altogether).
I have no children yet, so I am still under natural selection 
| |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2872 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/30/2005 1:25:23 AM | Ego? what does big ego has to do with this?
Listen, modern humans appeared say 100 000 years ago, meanwhile evolution has been happening for the last 3500 000 000 years. I have no idea what Human EGO had to do with it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/30/2005 5:46:30 PM | | See, that I think is one of the catch-phrases that allows laypersons to lead themselves into a sense of understanding the theory, when they've only got a partial understanding, if any. The capacity to have survived and bred is what determines an individual's "fitness." Which, in turn, affects the gene frequencies of the population. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/31/2005 12:21:59 AM | greetings and felicitations to all. i've missed the debate. gratefully my three week hiatus has only resulted in 6 pages to review. great picture feral.
from earthchangestv.com
"A planet forming disk located about 375 light-years from Earth has been found to contain some of the building blocks of life: acetylene and hydrogen cyanide. The chemicals were discovered around "IRS 46" using NASA's infrared Spitzer Space Telescope. When mixed with water in a laboratory, these chemicals create a soup of organic compounds, including amino acids and a DNA base called adenine."
Dec 30, 2005, 07:51
just trying to inject new info into the debate. opinions?
oh, by the way, regarding the recent supreme court decision. really surprised me. hard to believe that decision was reached during the bush administration. good to see the courts arent completely compromised, and good to see that intelligence (ha ha) does prevail. i believe in the decision handed down the justice used words such as "insanity" on the part of the dover board of ed. | |
|
|
| Page 115 of 156
|
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 |
|
Home
login 
