Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 packagedealx3
Joined: 2/4/2006
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Evolution.Page 3 of 96    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
I grew up in Illinois, like in most places, evolution is taught in biology. Don't remember if it was introduced then. Not sure whether my middle schooler has had it in that curriculum but my daughter did in biology and my children are in Texas, one of the places where many people are not happy that sex education is taught in health class or that evolution is presented in biology; and yet it is.

My pastor recently wrote an editorial in a major metropolitan newspaper explaining why evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive and that believing in God does not require that people ignore or reject science.


The funny thing is that neither has to be wrong, they are two different kinds of truth, there is no reason why people should assume they contradict each other. Evolution is the explanation of the vast eons past based on the scraps left for us by mother nature, Creationism is the explanation of spiritual truths left by scraps of paper left for us by churches. Faith and science each produce different kinds of truth with different kinds of uses, plenty of scientists are religious and being religious certainly does not preclude a scientific world view. Unless your a fanatic of either belief paradigm.

Nicely put.
 packagedealx3
Joined: 2/4/2006
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 6:49:00 PM

Why am I not surprised that you're from Texas? Evolution should no longer be referred to as a theory.

I think most people refer to it as evolutionary theory, or the theory of evolution. Evolutionary fact just doesn't have much of a ring to it.
 Andy687
Joined: 6/5/2008
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 6:50:10 PM

Actually the exact same thing could be said in reverse. Evolution can't stand on its own without creationism either.


No, thats completely wrong. If creationism disappeared like a religious fart in the wind. Evolution would still stand.

Creationism is this: "God(christian god) created everything and here are all the flaws with evolution that we think show it"

So remove evolution and you get "god created everything". There is not even a shred of evidence. The best arguement you had was disproven during the Dover case.

The sad part is that this creationism/ID nonsense is making this idiotic jump of what "god did" without proving that god exists.

Infact i could take the entire creationism/ID LIE and replace "god" with "santa" and it is just as valid as before.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:20:21 PM

No, thats completely wrong. If creationism disappeared like a religious fart in the wind. Evolution would still stand.


Uh huh. But where'd the first spec of goo evolve from? Abiotic processes? Okay, but where'd that goo evolve from?
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 55
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:23:17 PM
^^^^^

That's abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is about what happens AFTER life starts.
 Riki19
Joined: 4/25/2009
Msg: 56
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:29:43 PM

I sincerely hope you're just kidding! Is it really that bad in the US?


Yes it is. When the other gentlemen here say that they had "heard" of evolution, they mean only that they heardabout it, or saw a poster. (assuming that they are my age or older and live in the US).

Evolution is not introduced as science until College here. Some scools may be different, but not in Michigan. If you ask people around here whether or not they "believe" (silly, isn't it?) in evolution, an overwhelming majority of people that have never attended college will say "no".

Here in the states, Politicians have learned that the best way to keep evolution from being viewed as the theory (theory: Hypothesis that has not yet been falsified) that it is, teach the debate. By teaching the debate, they instill doubt in the minds of people who are unable to understand the language of science, thereby increasing the number of those that will tell you that evo. is a myth. Our scool boards then vote that they will not allow evo. in the classroom without intelligent design as well.
 Riki19
Joined: 4/25/2009
Msg: 57
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:37:39 PM

creationism is NOT a theory


I agree, but for different reasons. To be considered a theory means that a Hypothesis has been tested and has yielded affirmative results.

Creationism, as a science is doomed, because it can't get past the hypothesis stage. You cannot "test" whether or not something was designed by higher intelligence.

But, guys please, creationism has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution says "how", Creationism says "why".
 Riki19
Joined: 4/25/2009
Msg: 58
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:01:33 PM
Which do I favor?

I can't really answer that... I guess, as a science, evolution. But as something that I would love to know more than anything else... That there is such a thing as the absolute. But, this can't be proven right now. I wish more than anything that I was going to live in eternal bliss, but I a man of no faith. Faith doesn't make sense. If I claimed to have faith that Jesus was my only lord and savior, I would not be true to myself. Questions always rear their heads. Does this make me ademon. NO! It makes me noble and gives my life purpose. I feel that I should be able to unlock the doors to my own universe, maybe not in the lifetime, but I can drag the torch of the search of truth a little bit further up the mountain of knowlege , so that the next generation doesn't have to carry it so far.

But back to the ground. Evolution...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 59
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:03:13 PM

Creationism says "why"

No it doesn't. It only says "how" again, but with "God did it" as the answer for all the questions.
To say "why" one would have to know the mind of God and even the theists don't pretend to know that.
 Riki19
Joined: 4/25/2009
Msg: 60
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:20:59 PM
You're right. But, you miss the point. why do you suppose that the word "Creationism" was coined?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:53:56 PM

Intelligent design is a theory,

No, it isn't. This is an "apple and orange" comparison. ToE meets the definition and testing requirements of the specific, defined, scientific term "theory". ID does not - nothing testable, nothing predictable. Based on ToE, one can examine living organisms, fossil organisms, and rock strata, and then predict where to find living organisms or fossils with particular features [eg., Tiktaalik]. ID simply cannot do that.

Having taught both creation science and evolution

Indeed. If you CAN say that with a straight face, then it's no wonder you have problems, since this statement alone shows you're unclear on what science IS. Creationism is not scientific - it's an ad hoc "explanation" which actually explains nothing.

The odds of evolution going from non living matter to current evolutionary level of man would be about the same odds as hitting the lottery three weeks running with the same numbers

Two for the price of one.

First, this is not a "hole" in evolutionary theory. The origin of life is not part of ToE. It's a seriously hard theory to put ANY holes in because it is abjectly simple: Life inherits, inherited features change, and the universe is a harsh place for disadvantageous combinations of features [this is a statistical feature of the theory]. Done. Now find an example of life which contradicts this.

Second, the "odds" are bogus. Chemicals react in specific ways, leading to complex chemistry. Life IS complex chemistry. The liklihood of humans arising [oh how "marvelous"] is post hoc 100%, though we did not arise de novo. We arose from, quite literally, countless preceding genetic experiments. Each life form with its numerous genetic variations has been an experiment in inheritance. Even with a 99% extinction rate for species [not individuals], there are now roughly 1 000 000 beetle species. With sometimes multiple generations per year, and hundreds of offspring. it's actually quite likely that new species arise with some regularity - and that's just among beetles. Provide 500 000 000 years, and diversity will increase. Each new form puts pressures on the environment and the other species, increasing the selection rate.

Biology, like evolution, is just fact

Biology is a field of study, neither fact nor theory. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is theory.

ID is a theory mainly because of the concept of Irreducible Complexity.

Simply, no. Look up the scientific standard for a "theory". ID does not, and cannot meet the standard.

gonna give me the 100, 000 pages of proof answer?

anyone? frogo?

Would there be a point? You don't listen, you don't look. I and others have provided the theory in a nutshell numerous times. It is a working explanation ["theory"] for observed facts. No further "evidence" is required, though there are millions of facts for which evolution is a logical explanation. I have provided numerous examples in many threads of 'evolution in action'. My current favorite being the arisal of a genetically, morphologically, and geographically distinct species, Caridina murrayata, from a known pre-existing species, Caridina multidentata, in under 100 years.

The examples you quote are genetic engineering not artificial selection.

No. Genetic engineering involves selecting particular gene sets. The examples provided are cases of human selective pressures exerted on observable phenotypes. The resulting genotypes arose indirectly - that's artificial selection, which is really no different from natural selection [the only difference is who or what applies the selective pressure].

ID meets the very definition of the word "theory".

Not in science it doesn't, and if it wishes to compete in a scientific arena, it is subject to scientific standards.

Umm, human beings have changed "natural selection" and thrown off evolution

Only in part. Natural selective pressures remain; and really, the fact we CHOOSE to select certain phenotypes is no different from a poison frog choosing to gobble down a particularly convenient ant while ignoring another.

Evolution occurs in different climates and ecosystems

Actually it occurs *where it occurs*, and climate or ecosystem are simply obvious pressures. So are kin, enemies, predators. There is no need to go anywhere or change environments for evolution to take place, nor for significant pressures to be exerted.

Evolution can't stand on its own without creationism either

It already does and always did.

I don't think that's true. The Earth is definitely round

That would not be a theory, but a simple statement of observational fact. A theory should explain, not state the obvious. The crow example could very well be a testable theory. In theory, all crows [I actually know this is NOT true] are black. That all KNOWN crows of a particular species are black is a factual observation. Extending that to an assumption that all crows of the species are black is a theory. It is tested by observing, over and over. It qualifies as a theory because it CAN be tested, and it can in fact fail, the moment a non-black crow is observed.

There is no theory of evolution

See above and many previous posts which explain the differences between the observed facts of evolution, and the theory that evolution explains many other observations which can never actually witness or test as they occur.

Okay, but where'd that goo evolve from?

It did not. It could not evolve until it lived in the first place. Origins of life are a different theory. The 'players' and processes involved are different, so the theories to explain them are separate.
 BumFluff122
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 62
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:07:50 PM
Scientific Theories can not become scientific laws. They are two different things that have as much evidence for them as one another. The difference between the two is that a scientific law explains things that happen in the universe while a scientific theory explains how they happen.
 Riki19
Joined: 4/25/2009
Msg: 63
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:16:26 PM
Scientific Theories can not become scientific laws.


Not true at all. EVERY scientific law was at one stage a theory. This is scientific method 101.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 64
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:23:58 PM

why do you suppose that the word "Creationism" was coined?

To imply that things were created, that they didn't just "happen", because a creation implies a creator, which would ultimately imply God, since by that logic(?) the universe didn't just happen.

Why did the universe come into being? - because God wanted a universe to call His very own and to have some pets to play with.
What's that?...The omnipotent, omniscient creator of all things is above that sort of thing? Then why bother with creating a universe?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 65
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:51:24 PM

EVERY scientific law was at one stage a theory. This is scientific method 101.

That's a dangerous statement to make because it leaves people with the erroneous idea that "proved" theories become scientific laws and that isn't really correct.
Most people think the progression is that an inductive hypothesis that has been supported by evidence gathered becomes the basis of a theory that explains the observations, that over time becomes "proved" and so becomes a law. It isn't quite like that. The theory never gets really proved (except maybe in the courtroom sense - beyond a reasonable doubt) and remains a theory.
There are however facts that never seem to vary no matter how often they are observed. These may become laws.

From Wikipedia: The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.
 Riki19
Joined: 4/25/2009
Msg: 66
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 10:35:36 PM

That's a dangerous statement to make because it leaves people with the erroneous idea that "proved" theories become scientific laws and that isn't really correct.


Science is observation. There is a thing called the scientific method.

1. Intuition
2. State a hypothesis
3. Test the hypothesis
4. The hypothesis becomes a Theory if it is affirmed in observation
5. Theory becames fact or law if, through observation, it is implied by the theory, that the phenomena will occur every time it is observed.

The important thing to understand here is that step three cannot be skipped if we are talking about science. Galileo didn't go from 2. to 5. wen he determined the acceleration due to gravity. It's impossible to skip any of these steps, and it would be illogical to do so.

Notice the word "implied".
 BumFluff122
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 67
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 10:46:52 PM
Many MANY people in here have stated that a scientific theory does not become a scientific law if it continues to be proven through evidence. A scientific law is an observation. A scientific theory is how that observation occurs and it's causes. A scientific theory can not became a law. I don't know where you heard it could but whoever told you that was wrong.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/21/2009 12:00:57 AM
FROGO

is that a shrimp turning into a shrimp?

did it adapt for some reason?

could that have been designed in it?

sorry if I am on the wrong track.




anyways, where does a person start!

there is a bit of stuff in the universe.
and on earth, is there only 1% of stuff left that was already here at one time in the past?
seems to me we are devolving, seriously!

if you guys can sit there in front of your little computor screens, and nod your heads up and down in unison, agreeing that that it all happened basically by itself, when there are more combinations for the ingredients of life to go through for the creation of a simple form of life then there are electrons in the universe, well, I don't know what to say next!
 CChauncey
Joined: 5/22/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/21/2009 8:44:11 AM
Reading People's History of the United States, I'm more concerned about how we're not being taught history in our classrooms. Not that we all need to feel terrible about being an American, but simply because the truth should matter.
if you guys can sit there in front of your little computor screens, and nod your heads up and down in unison, agreeing that that it all happened basically by itself, when there are more combinations for the ingredients of life to go through for the creation of a simple form of life then there are electrons in the universe, well, I don't know what to say next!
Something Richard Feynman once said: "You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"

Lawrence Krauss also talks about this in Physics of Star Trek, about how the "impossible" happens continuously in our daily lives. If you think about the odds of you sitting there reading this right now wearing exactly what you're wearing now with every strand of your hair exactly where it is and the blades of grass outside bending or twisting the way they are creating distinct shadows not to mention the chair you're sitting on and the materials it's made of and where and when those raw materials were first extracted or created and by who and you would end up owning this chair and the dust in the air hanging exactly where it is at this moment... every second of your life, if you choose to sit their and itemize every detail and their probability, what are the odds that it would be this way? Who could have predicted?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/21/2009 9:14:01 AM
I know what you mean, but we are talking about all of the "coincidences" to make that one thing, life.

could only happen one way.

eg.
correct earth size.
correct sun size.
correct atmosphere.
correct moon.
correct spin
correct electromagnetic force.
correct rate of expansion of the universe, believe it or not
[If the universe expanded slower, I don't think it would, faster, and it would be over]
correct a billion other things, without one of which there would no life. you know, life!
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/24/2009 10:11:42 AM
starting to see how you guys are thinking.

its like somehow, of course, everything was there, now, try and stop life from forming!
what? IT WAS THERE! you know, there.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/24/2009 7:22:22 PM

could only happen one way.

eg.
correct earth size.
correct sun size.
correct atmosphere.
correct moon.
correct spin
correct electromagnetic force.
correct rate of expansion of the universe, believe it or not
[If the universe expanded slower, I don't think it would, faster, and it would be over]
correct a billion other things, without one of which there would no life. you know, life!

Tell that to all the people on all the countless lifeless worlds in the universe.

The only reason you can contemplate the question in the first place is because you happen to be on one of the apparently rare worlds hospitable to life. People elsewhere never question it ;) It's a question which is essentially egotistic.


its like somehow, of course, everything was there, now, try and stop life from forming!

That's essentially so.

what? IT WAS THERE! you know, there

That's not.

The chemical building blocks of life form quite readily, all on their own, even in space. They react all on their own to form new compounds, which repeat the situation. Where there is energy available, as from sunlight, other radiation, heat, exothermic chemical reactions, etc, additional reactions take place.

Given energy [stars and geothermy] and a solution to facilitate it [mainly liquid water], complex chemistry is inevitable. Life is just self-sustaining complex chemistry. If you consider the amount of energy, raw materials, and water available, and the time periods, it's hard not to see life as more or less inevitable.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/24/2009 9:03:15 PM
The materials and mechanisms exist, period. We don't have hundreds of millions of years and a lifeless watery planet to play with. Why don't you show us ONE divine creator? Just one? Any one? no?

Objective evidence for actual materials and mechanisms: 1
Objective evidence for deities: 0
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 74
Evolution.
Posted: 7/24/2009 9:52:48 PM
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=814372
hmm.. Apparently RNA (similar to DNA) Can form spontaneously in labs?!? You don't say!


A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/24/2009 9:58:38 PM
First claim false.

Second claim more or less true.

However, refutation of a workable theory requires either a disproof [which is lacking], or a superior alternative [which is lacking]. The only alternative offered is divine creation, for which there is zero evidence, and flawed logic. Since divine creation is the only alternative thus far, falsifying that alternative is relevant. Chemistry works. Life is chemistry. The building blocks of life exist without requiring life beforehand. Ergo, the materials and mechanisms exist. Bury your head in the sand all you want.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.