Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

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  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 895
EvolutionPage 36 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)

Geological evolution cannot provide an explanation for itself with out reverting to fiction's more illogical than the solution (a) God did it.


Can you be a little - or a lot - more specific?
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 896
Evolution
Posted: 3/6/2011 11:33:06 PM
mccullough...what is stored kinetic energy but the fact that I forgot to say I love you, I miss you, I did not mean to say what I did...I forgive you for what you ignored, I never understood your pain. I remembered I cared, when you turned and I saw your face. I wonder why you kept everything a secret and I do not care what math and science say about why I forgot to tell you ...that you were pretty marvelous and unique and well.....life sucks and it has nothing to do with non-existent and spatial dimensions and material bodies. Nothing. Other than some kind of hubris that involves an intellect that imagines that intellect counts. If I could prove that you exist does not matter. What matters is that you did.
 jackfouru
Joined: 9/10/2010
Msg: 897
Evolution
Posted: 3/8/2011 2:04:35 PM
I believe you are confusing Galaxies with Universies. Galaxies DO collide and they do merge together, with one Galaxy gobbling up another, but heck science is just beginning to postulate theories about multiple universes. There are not theories that I know of however where one Universe collides with and gobbles up another. Assuming more than one Universe exists in the same cosmic dimension, no matter how far apart, I would guess it would be possible they might collide some day. But that is a lot of speculation and assumptions, where as the collision of galaxies is a scientific fact.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 899
Evolution
Posted: 3/16/2011 6:54:37 PM

"Evolution isn't a religion, its a cult....


It's neither. It's a scientific theory that currently does the best job of explaining the diversity of species. Anything that takes over is going to have to be even more successful than evolution, not just in explaining the current data but predicting future data.


a dog will always be a dog and always was a dog....


This is an argument from essentialism. That there is an inherent "dogness" to dogs. It's also an argument from incredulity. But not being able to understand something doesn't make it not true.

Understand, the strength of evolution is not just based on the work of Charles Darwin. There is considerable support from a variety of sources including paleontology, molecular biology, etc. It's no longer just "Darwinian" evolution but the New Synthesis.

Good reading includes Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 900
Evolution
Posted: 3/27/2011 5:49:43 AM

THAT is so true. When you think about it. When we look at the sky it is like reading yesterday's news. Geez... by the time the information in the sky reaches us, the actual event could have happened centuries ago if you consider earth time.

Since it's impossible to define ``now'' in ANY universal way, it doesn't matter if you consider ``earth time'' or time in some other frame of reference, so I'm not sure why that matters.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 901
Evolution
Posted: 3/27/2011 10:33:15 AM

"1. the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and especially with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom.
2. the branch of astronomy that deals with the general structure and evolution of the universe.

not evolution


True, however, there is an evolutionary component to cosmology. Specifically, if one looks out far enough, one sees a universe that is quite a bit different to the "modern" universe. Smaller, more disrupted and interactive galaxies, differences in elemental abundances, etc.

So from that standpoint, cosmology does require something of an understanding of evolutionary principles.

Of course, there could be some bias on my part, however....
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 902
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 3/28/2011 4:42:12 PM
dogs from wolfs must have been proven from gene study.

as far as I know, present dogs have lost or shut down DNA information, not gained anything new.

so that wouldn't have anything to do with evolution, adaption maybe.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 903
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 3/28/2011 10:35:21 PM
yes, at this stage with impure DNA it's better to mix lineages.
that's the main reason for not marrying relatives.
the word evolution is used very loosely.

evidence of gaining multiple beneficial base points in DNA would be interesting to read about, that's the kind of evolutionary proof that will be irrefutable and shut the creationists up for good.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 904
Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2011 11:03:55 AM

evidence of gaining multiple beneficial base points in DNA would be interesting to read about, that's the kind of evolutionary proof that will be irrefutable and shut the creationists up for good.


Unlikely. The problem with creatards...um...creationists is that they don't accept anything resembling actual evidence. Their response is to do the verbal equivalent of slapping their hands over the ears and shouting very loudly "LA LA LA ICKY FACTS GO AWAY!"

There is a great video of Richard Dawkins attempting to discuss the subject with Wendy Wright of Concerned Women of America. It's amazing he didn't throttle her. She continually asked him for "evidence" (as if he was carrying around the entirety of evolutionary science in his pocket) and then, whenever he presented her with an option - including going to a natural history museum - her response was to slough that off and continue demanding "evidence."

Of course, even if evolution turned out to be wrong, that doesn't mean "godidit" is going to be the default option, which is something else creationists seem to lack the sophistication to understand. Whatever alternative to evolution you offer is going to have to do a lot better at explaining the diversity of species and it's going to have to be observable and confirmable. Simply saying God, Zeus or magic pink unicorns did it just ain't going to cut it.

As for the effectiveness of mutations in DNA for creating new opportunities for organisms to thrive, see the Lenski experiment.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 905
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2011 5:32:44 PM
well as far as what I have comprehended in the last two years, any changes are within species and with available already existing DNA, no new beneficial information.

that is adapting, not evolving.
you can call it whatever you want, but its nothing to to do with the type of evolving that we are talking about, simple life to man.
.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 906
Evolution
Posted: 3/29/2011 5:36:28 PM

well as far as what I have comprehended in the last two years, any changes are within species and with available already existing DNA, no new beneficial information


That's been explained to you time and again so your continued denial is only indicative of your own intellectual dishonesty.


that is adapting, not evolving.


Same thing.


but its nothing to to do with the type of evolving that we are talking about, simple life to man.


Ah yes, the "goo to zoo to you" bullshyte.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 907
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 7:31:07 PM
In the US, questioning the theory of evolution is a right protected by the 1st & 14th amendments to the Constitution. Not only that, controversy is part of, rather than outside of, science itself. Nowhere but in Parochial school is the theory of evolution not presented. Operative words being "theory" and "presented", as opposed to "fact" & "taught". Science at it's best, and by definition. What's the problem, really?

I quite agree with buzweaver, and I suspect that the original question here is "Why isn't evolution taught as the fact?" Because it is what it is; theory, rather than proven fact. Again, what's the problem?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 908
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 8:13:08 PM

I quite agree with buzweaver, and I suspect that the original question here is "Why isn't evolution taught as the fact?" Because it is what it is; theory, rather than proven fact. Again, what's the problem?


Well, let's start with the whole growing anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment. Then there is the continuing effort to invade science classrooms and inject religious dogma into the curriculum.

There's also the constant misrepresentation and dishonesty amongst creationists to portray evolution as having some sort of "controversy." there is none, except what is manufactured by the organized creationist propaganda machine.

And again, there is the whole "it's only a theory" statement. No. Evolution is a theory. It's also a fact. It is observed and observable science. It is confirmable. And, so far, there has been nothing that has come along that comes anywhere close to its robustness in explaining species diversity.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 909
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 8:19:44 PM
Why does that statement raise the question you pose? How does mythology differ from theory, really? In any case, theology is not presented as scientific theory, and is not presented thusly in public schools, where religion is not taught at all. If only proven facts are to be taught in public schools (thereby funded by the taxpayer) one might suggest that science be eliminated from the curriculum entirely, no? What is your point?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 910
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 8:34:40 PM
be careful when you enter the world of internet darwinists-a more vicious bunch is hard to imagine.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 911
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 8:46:24 PM
How does mythology differ from theory, really?


Quite a bit, actually, and the fact that you even ask the question is quite telling to your level of knowledge of science.


In any case, theology is not presented as scientific theory, and is not presented thusly in public schools, where religion is not taught at all.


Really? Have you been following the news at all? Aside from the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, there continues to be efforts to introduce legislation to "teach the (nonexistent) controversy" in science as it pertains to evolution, climate change and global warming, etc. For instance:

http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bills-tennessee-advance-006589


Tennessee's House Bill 368 was passed by the House Education Committee on March 29, 2011, and referred to the House Calendar and Rules Committee, while its counterpart, Senate Bill 893, is scheduled to be discussed by the Senate Education Committee on March 30, 2011. These bills, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."


I'm guessing gravity theory, germ theory, etc., is not being "critiqued and analyzed."

Then there's http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-new-mexico-dies-006587


New Mexico's House Bill 302 died in committee on March 19, 2011, when the legislative session ended. The bill had been tabled by the Education Commitee of the House of Representatives on a 5-4 vote on February 18, 2011. A version of the currently popular "academic freedom" antievolution strategy, HB 302, if enacted, would have required teachers to be allowed to inform students "about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses" pertaining to "controversial" scientific topics and would protect teachers from "reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so." Its sponsor, Thomas A. Anderson (R-District 29), claimed that the bill was his own, but a detailed comparison provided by New Mexicans for Science and Reason revealed the similarity of HB 302 to model bills drafted by the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design Network New Mexico.


Creationists lying for Jebus.

And the list goes on.


If only proven facts are to be taught in public schools (thereby funded by the taxpayer) one might suggest that science be eliminated from the curriculum entirely, no? What is your point?


Ah, that old "science can't prove anything for sure" chestnut! Please! Can't creationists come up with anything new?

Edit:


be careful when you enter the world of internet darwinists-a more vicious bunch is hard to imagine


Read: "LA LA LA LA!! ICKY FACTS, GO AWAY!"
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 912
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 9:13:50 PM
evolution is stupid. google it. bet you won't read it. all of it. bet you won't get it either.

http://evolutionisstupid.com/
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 913
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 9:19:39 PM

evolution is stupid. google it. bet you won't read it


Seen it. Read it. Anything that starts "evolution is stupid" is hardly expecting to be taken seriously as any kind of scholarly treatise on a scientific statement...is it? It's a little like that posting in which someone said "DNA....the A stands for 'acid.' Well, we all know that things dissolve in acid. So DNA is stupid. Evolution doesn't work."
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 914
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 9:27:39 PM
I don't think either have a place in secular schools, for different reasons.

evolution and religion.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 915
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 9:39:14 PM

I don't think either have a place in secular schools, for different reasons.


And you would be wrong on both counts. Religion taught in a social studies class as a comparative of cultural influences is perfectly acceptable. And, as outlined, evolution is science. So they have their place.

But I'll no more burst into your sunday school class to teach evolution if you keep your creationism out of my science class. mmmkay?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 916
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 10:23:30 PM
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.20
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If
they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."21 Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."22 The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".23
As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

dogs from dogs by use of existing dna is quite a different thing then the theory of evolution.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 917
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/29/2011 10:45:39 PM
doesn't matter what I believe in, evolution looks hopeless on it's own.

go where the evidence leads you.
you need an open mind though.

ok, all the miths are true, evolution still doesn't cut it.

and I have not been given any proof in the past, it's a way to try to discredit me.

why do you believe in evolution, be specific?

Bacteria undergo mutation at a rate of between about 1:1,000,000 to 1:1000,000,000 per cell generation. This mutation rate can be increased by subjecting bacteria to certain chemicals or to irradiation. However, many of these mutations will actually harm the bacteria in some way. Even if they do gain resistance to some chemical substance, it will often be at a cost to the general well-being of the bacteria (Saunders, 1984). It should be noted that bacteria (and other living organisms) can only undergo limited mutation. Extensive disruption of the complex genetic code of any living organism will lead to either a horribly miss-formed organism or to a non-viable organism. Whilst genetic engineering is able to introduce genes from one organism to another, this is a complex process done under carefully controlled conditions and is not the result of chance mutations
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 918
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 4:43:49 AM

and I have not been given any proof in the past, it's a way to try to discredit me.


Okay, what is it with creationists and their over-inflated sense of persecution.

Second, what is your evidence for creation that doesn't start with "evolution doesn't...?"


go where the evidence leads you.
you need an open mind though.


What evidence?


why do you believe in evolution, be specific?


Evidence for "creation?" Be specific.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 919
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 7:11:16 PM
so I guess you don't have any evidence for evolution then.

I'm not pushing creation.
that would be off topic.

give me one little shread, I promise I will read it.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 920
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 7:24:32 PM

so I guess you don't have any evidence for evolution then.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

Jerry Coyne on why evolution is true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig

Lenski e coli experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Whale evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >