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
 clarence clutterbuck
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Define the Theory of EvolutionPage 3 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
No, it doesn't. To say that "whites evolved OUT of blacks assumes that there's different species", assumes that if one group evolves from another, that they must be different species, which assumes that evolution must equal speciation. So one could not have any evolutionary changes that still did not mean that one had become a fully new species. Just for starters, considering that some definitions of the difference between 2 species is that they cannot even mate together, then if one animal had evolved an evolutionary advantage, then he/she could no longer mate with his/her own species, and unless some other animal of his species developed the same trait, then he/she would have no-one to mate with, and would die without ever being able to reproduce and carry on the genetic trait. According to that, all new evolutionary traits would die out in the same generation they came about and would never be passed on. I cannot state how much such a claim would cause problems for any understanding of evolution that I could possibly find. Frankly, I'm amazed you could state such a thing.


Not sure how an "evolutionary advantage" as you call it takes shape, but I'm guessing its a bit more subtle than your model of sudden appearance in one member of a species followed by a hit or miss result in its reproductive success.

The definition of separate species as being groups of animals that are "unable to mate together" doesn't seem to be a foolproof formula. I've been reading about lions and tigers. Each an identifiably different species of big cat with very different appearance and behaviour, yet they are able to mate together to produce Ligers or Tigons. (The first part of each name denotes the male parent) Each of these species have developed "evolutionary advantages" as you call them, or adaptions to suit their respective lifestyles but can still successfully interbreed.

Another interesting interbreeding anomaly concerns Camels and Llamas. Each of these species have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor many millions of years ago yet can still be interbred to produce Cama's

According to so many evolutionists on POF, evolution does happen in stages, and that is the reason we find transitional fossils.

My limited, laymans understanding of the stage thing that you refer to is that our chromosomes are supplied from both parents, 23 pairs from each in the case of humans, and the genes shuffled with each process of conception. Copying errors and mutations occur with each generation and evolution proceeds inevitably. Our stepping in and identifying "stages of adaptation" is an arbitrary thing, and as previous posters mention, it is fallacious to describe one branch of a species that has diverged as being more evolved than the other. Both evolve genetically, regardless of what we might choose to identify as being an "adaptation."

I'm guessing the modern amoeba that you mention somewhere, probably differed in some way genetically from its ancestors although I can't prove it. I was once under the impression that the Coelacanth species discovered in the 1930's was an unchanged living fossil from 400 million years ago, but after reading up on it, found out that it has continued to evolve over the millennia and is considered a separate species from its fossil ancestors, although sharing identifiable characteristics with them. The lesson I draw from this is that organisms evolve constantly and that every individual should be considered a transitional fossil. There is never a "finished product," except maybe how an organism appears when it becomes extinct.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 84
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/23/2008 9:03:38 PM

It amazes me that you can put down others with statements like this "only the vapid, vacuous and ignorant who still refuse to see the truth and beauty

OK, then how would you do it?


Well I could say the same, how can those ignorant, faithless people not ...That's the truth and beauty as I see it

You come from a different philosophical school than scientists do. You perceive that the universe was in place for you. Science does not allow that type of explanation. Everything must be explained through non-magical or non-supernatural mechanisms. It's a different approach.

However, you are missing something in your argument. Because scientists approach the universe differently does not mean that they don't equally appreciate the "beauty" of the universe as much as you do. I'm biased but I would say that I can appreciate the universe more now than when I was religious because now I understand it better. The universe is really one amazing and spectacular place. There are plenty of religious people who accept science and know exactly what I mean.


Theory of Evolution is just that "Theory" So is the estimate of how old the earth is or how old or even how big the universe is. Its just a guess. I have heard of all the facts but none of those facts prove God does not exist.

Again, you misunderstand science. The word "theory" mean different things in social and scientific contexts. The word "theory" in science means the highest possible acceptance due to the concept (1) explaining all known facts and (2) surviving nearly constant testing. Don't mistake it for a hypothesis which is the scientific word closest to the social meaning of "theory".

Another thing. Science cannot and will not ever prove that any god does or does not exist. Science deals with matter and energy. It measures and predicts. It does not deal in the supernatural. The existence of a god is purely a construct for each individual to choose or opt out. Yes, scientists are mainly atheistic or agnostic but that's due to the philosophy I explained in my second paragraph above.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/24/2008 6:45:21 AM
You also contradict yourself on your post ! "The earth was made out of nothing,......" then you go on to say " it formed from gas and dust." You can't have it BOTH ways !!!
You also state some of this dust was ejected by supernovas much earlier in the history of the universe (before the big bang).


CAN YOU READ SOLOMON AND IF SO WHY CAN'T YOU CORRECTLY CUT AND PASTE WHAT YOU READ? He said "The earth was NOT made out of nothing". In your second quote he never stated (before the big bang) or implied it in his statement, so his statements are compatible with itstoohot statement: "The state of the universe prior to the big bang was a singularity. The physical laws we know don't apply to singularities. Matter before the big bang is believed to have been an inhomogenous mix of photons, electrons and baryions......And, don't forget that time did not exist before the big bang. That's what started time there was no before." The early universe AFTER THE BIG BANG is thought to have contained huge stars, so big that they had very short lives. Many of the heavier elements are thought to have come from these stars as the went supernova, by R & RP nucleosynthesis. So the conflict that you are trying to create between INTOART & itstoohot is BS just like damn near everything else that you post. Unlike your posts their post represent the current wisdom of our day and are supported by data, models, theories(based on observations), physical laws, etc drawn from a variety of disciplines such as cosmology, physics, mathematics, quantum mechanics, & geology.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 88
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/24/2008 9:35:35 PM
Thanks from me also, quietcowboy. Thank you for correcting this "man of science".

(All of a sudden, I need to wash.)
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/25/2008 3:14:24 AM
RE msg 123 by clarence clutterbuck:
Not sure how an "evolutionary advantage" as you call it takes shape, but I'm guessing its a bit more subtle than your model of sudden appearance in one member of a species followed by a hit or miss result in its reproductive success.
Actually, it is exactly the same model. There is no greater subtlety. But perhaps you haven't thought about it.

Consider 2 ants of a certain species mate, and one of their offspring has a favourable inherited trait. Now consider that the new ant mates and all of its offspring also have the same trait, and all of that offspring mate and their offspring mate and all of these offspring all have the same trait, until millions of these ants all have the same trait. If these offspring are considered to be a new species because of this trait, then the original single offspring that first had the trait would also be considered to be of the new species. If the ancestor isn't considered to be a new species because of this one trait, then the offspring, which have the exact same traits as the original, would also not be a new species.

So if whites evolved out of blacks, either the first white human was a new species, or all white humans are not a new species.

If we say that the first white human is not a new species, but that millions of whites, who are no different than the first white human, are a new species, then the only difference I could see between the first white and the millions of whites, is NUMBERS. If that was true, then I would conclude that species are just a question of size, not of traits.

So I concluded that just because whites evolved from blacks doesn't necessarily mean they are different species. White humans could be the same species with a different trait than black humans, and still be the same species, because what differentiates species is their traits, not how many they are.

I realise that these sort of observations and processes of thinking are rare in our daily life. I met lots of people with degrees and lots of qualifications who don't consider this. So I don't take offence if you haven't. But if you have, and you have not rejected evolution, then presumably you figured out the answer years ago. Perhaps you could tell me your answer.

The definition of separate species as being groups of animals that are "unable to mate together" doesn't seem to be a foolproof formula. I've been reading about lions and tigers. Each an identifiably different species of big cat with very different appearance and behaviour, yet they are able to mate together to produce Ligers or Tigons. (The first part of each name denotes the male parent) Each of these species have developed "evolutionary advantages" as you call them, or adaptions to suit their respective lifestyles but can still successfully interbreed.
I agree that defining species by reproductive ability is not a foolproof answer. But neither is your example. if 2 animals of entirely different species mate, such as Lions and Tigers, then the offspring must belong to either Lions, Tigers, or an entirely new species. One of these Ligers (or Tigons) might be just like plenty of other Lions, in which case, it would have all the same traits as a Lion, and would be a Lion. If the Liger (or Tigon) has the same traits as other Tigers, then it's a Tiger. If it has enough differences between Lions and Tigers, that were we to never know its origin, we would call it a different species, then why would we consider it a new species called Ligers (or Tigons), just because of who its parents are?

Another interesting interbreeding anomaly concerns Camels and Llamas. Each of these species have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor many millions of years ago yet can still be interbred to produce Cama's
Well, that may be. But according to those evolutionary biologists who define different species by their ability to mate, I would expect that if a Camel can mate with a Llama, that would mean that Camels and Llamas are really the same species. From another angle, those evolutionary biologists might claim that if a Camel can mate with a Llama, and produce something that you would call a Camel if you were told that both its parents were Camels, that would mean that Camels and Llamas are really the same species. You see, the problem is that who your parents are doesn't tell us who you are. If 2 Camels that mate and have a duck-billed platypus, that doesn't mean that duck-billed platypii are the same species as Camels.

My limited, laymans understanding of the stage thing that you refer to is that our chromosomes are supplied from both parents, 23 pairs from each in the case of humans, and the genes shuffled with each process of conception. Copying errors and mutations occur with each generation and evolution proceeds inevitably. Our stepping in and identifying "stages of adaptation" is an arbitrary thing, and as previous posters mention, it is fallacious to describe one branch of a species that has diverged as being more evolved than the other. Both evolve genetically, regardless of what we might choose to identify as being an "adaptation."
I have a little trouble with what you state as being arbitrary, and what you call fallacious. I was taught much about arbitrary behaviour in my degree, as it is important in Mathematics to discern the difference between what is arbitrary and what is not. If such a "shuffling" is arbitrary, then it is purely random, and therefore all of those genes can be switched around. Copying errors could not occur, because all of those errors would be arbitrary and therefore part of the shuffling process. So when we talk about copying errors, we are stating that the vast majority of the copying process has rules as to what is and is not an error, and the copying process endeavours to ensure that in the vast majority of cases, those "errors" are never allowed to occur in the first place. So copying errors are very uncommon, and such shuffling is far from arbitrary. The same applies to mutations. So it is fallacious to state that evolution progresses inevitably, because the concept of stating that copying errors and mutations exist, automatically implies that the process of replication doesn't allow such shuffling to occur in such an arbitrary manner to allow progression to continue inevitably in the first place.

It isn't your fault. Modern view of science don't expect scientists to be fully conversant with Mathematics. However, Mathematics concerns itself with looking at this sort of logical inconsistency, and by that analysis, determining the difference between what we guess at and what is actually feasible. That is why Leibnitz stated that no-one could consider himself a philosopher, a searcher for wisdom, without Mathematics, and it was the fact that everyone who looked at science studied Mathematics that led scientists to reject the notion of leeching as a panacea for all ills. Mathematics teaches us how to think critically.

I'm guessing the modern amoeba that you mention somewhere, probably differed in some way genetically from its ancestors although I can't prove it. I was once under the impression that the Coelacanth species discovered in the 1930's was an unchanged living fossil from 400 million years ago, but after reading up on it, found out that it has continued to evolve over the millennia and is considered a separate species from its fossil ancestors, although sharing identifiable characteristics with them. The lesson I draw from this is that organisms evolve constantly and that every individual should be considered a transitional fossil. There is never a "finished product," except maybe how an organism appears when it becomes extinct.
Obviously the theory of evolution doesn't have final-stage organisms. If one such organism ever existed, then it would mean that some organisms could not evolve, which is counter to the basic assumptions of the theory in the first place. If one organism could not evolve, then others could do too, an we couldn't say that any species might have evolved, without proving each and every species was capable of evolution in the first place, by actually observing the evolution of each species in our present day, and AFAIK, this is something that has not been attempted, and that every person I've ever discussed evolution with, believes that this would be unfeasible, because some species took millions of years to evolve.

On the other side, are there species that haven't continued evolving? Well, species like some species of the shark and the crocodile (or is it the alligator?) are apparently unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. AFAIK, we just don't have any proof that every species has kept evolving, only that SOME fossils are different from their seemingly similar descendants. So to suggest that just because SOME fossils are different from their seemingly similar descendants, that ALL species are continually evolving, would be fallacious, as it would be an extremely extraordinary claim, which according to Carl Sagan, would require extremely extraordinary proofs, and would put questions on why living organisms such as the shark exist in the first place in our modern day, and would contradict the concept of a copying error and of a mutation.

I realise that my view goes against the normal view of most people, that everyone who has heard of evolution and is intelligent, has accepted it unequivocably as true. But what I have found is that most people never think about IF something is true, just IF most other people accept it, and accept the majority view, regardless of whether it is true or false. I choose to question as much as possible about science, and to examine it for myself, until I am satisfied that the particular theory is true because of its evidence and reason, not because it has many people behind it.

I am reminded of Nazi Germany. Most Germans weren't against the Jews. It was just the opinon that held sway over the majority, and to deny that Jews were evil was to go against the majority view. To demand proof, was to question people on things they didn't have the answers to in the first place, because they never accepted it was true on proof in the first place. I would like to think that if I lived in Nazi Germany, that I would have questioned their policy on the Jews. But to do that, would mean that I would have to question every opinion held by the majority, and to not accept such opinions without what I consider to be proof.

I accept fully that most people would find that very difficult to do. I believe that most people who even questioned the Nazi regime in public were carted off to the same concentration camps as the Jews were in. So even questioning the Nazi regime in private, could lead to your own death. So it is very difficult to expect others to stand for truth and justice, even at the risk of their own life.

However, I would like to think that I would stand for truth and justice, even at the risk of my own life.

So I will continue to question evolution as much as I am able, until I have proof that satisfies my natural curiosity and tendency to think about things from different angles.

RE msg 124 by Is too hot:
Again, you misunderstand science. The word "theory" mean different things in social and scientific contexts. The word "theory" in science means the highest possible acceptance due to the concept (1) explaining all known facts and (2) surviving nearly constant testing. Don't mistake it for a hypothesis which is the scientific word closest to the social meaning of "theory".
I'd like to clarify one thing. A hypothesis is very, very different than a theory. A hypothesis is possible truth that can be tested experimentally within the context of an experiment. An example would be that if you drop a weight of 1 kg, from 10 metres above the ground, that it would fall with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, which you can test by the time it takes to reach each metre before it hits the ground. Another example would be that the same is true of all objects, irrespective of their weight.

However, a theory is a general explanation of a particular behaviour of the natural world, like the explanation of how gravity works in free-fall according to Einstein.

Generally, we develop theories to explain phenomena, and then we define hypotheses that are testable by specific experiments, where we predict that if the theory was true, then the hypothesis would also be true. As we can test the hypothesis by conducting the experiment, we can validate if the theory is false.

So a hypothesis can be proved true, by experiment, and a theory can be proved false, by failure of the hypothesis.

However, science, unlike Mathematics, doesn't have a term for "possible theory". For instance, scientists referred to one of Fermat's notes, as Fermat's Last Theorem. Mathematicians rightly called it Fermat's Last Conjecture, because it had not yet been proven. It was only in 1994 that Mathematicians called it Fermat's Last Theorem, because then it had been proven beyond doubt. However, during all this time, scientists called it Fermat's Last Theorem, despite the fact that they KNEW it was unproven, and could have been false.

Also, when Newton published his Theory of Gravitation, it was still only a possibility. He published an introduction which states so very clearly, that it is only "hypothetical". But it was still a theory then, and it is still a theory now.

Scientists don't have a term for an explanation of phenomena that is yet to be definitely proved true. This has led to much confusion, because many scientists have published papers that are theoretical in nature, and have gained much acceptance, even though they were unproved. That had devalued those papers which were proved beyond question.

Another thing. Science cannot and will not ever prove that any god does or does not exist. Science deals with matter and energy. It measures and predicts. It does not deal in the supernatural. The existence of a god is purely a construct for each individual to choose or opt out. Yes, scientists are mainly atheistic or agnostic but that's due to the philosophy I explained in my second paragraph above.
That is a hypothesis that many scientists have posited an unquestionable assumption, rather like Euclid's Fifth Axiom, which Einstein concluded could not be true in our universe, and that simply appears to be true, in the form of an optical illusion, because space is curved, not flat, and we are standing on that curvature, so it appears to be flat, rather like the way that the plains of Montana appear to be flat, even though we all know they are curved, sitting on the curved Earth. However, before we can state whether something is unprovable, we require proof of its unprovability. Merely stating that it is so, is not proof. We could claim that it delves into a subject that science doesn't interest itself in. However, that would be like saying that we cannot know if DNA exists, merely because the subject of inertial mechanics doesn't interest itself in DNA. If we are studying only inertial mechanics, we cannot prove DNA exists. If we are studying all things we wish to understand, then we can prove if DNA exists, and we have. If we are studying science, then we can interest ourselves in political science, the science of politics, then we can prove things about politics.

To state that science is to exclude a certain question, is to state that we are only willing to study certain subjects of science, being those subjects that do not include discussion of our question. However, that means that we are deliberately choosing to ignore at least one part of science, and usually several parts, all at once.

I would prefer to not think of ourselves as saying "Oh, we aren't interested if DNA exists or G-d exists. That's not part of our curriculum."

It's easier to think like you. But I never took the easy road in life. I'm more interested in the truth. Falsehood and lies give me headaches.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/25/2008 2:24:28 PM
Typical coward response.
Not surprising from the three monkeys, all blind deaf and dumb.
Go back and hide under your beds.
When an easy question is asked there is no answer. What will happen when a hard question is asked.
The typical hide head in the sand ostrich response of an evolutionist. Oh I can't answer that one so I'll hide behind mummy's (qc's) apron. I wouldn't want to contradict something I don't know about.
Yes ith, you can stop sweating and have your wash , he's not man enough to give any answer let alone an honest answer.
The theory of evolution should be called the law of delusion, it has NEVER been proved an established fact except to those deluded by it. And it never will be proved an established fact.
Mary Schweitzer (an evolutionist) has shown that T.rex bones 'dated' to 68 million years old have soft tissue in them, including the presence of blood cells, blood vessels and bone tissue (collagen).
Biochemical molecules such as DNA and collagen are very complex and thus rather fragile. They require constant maintenance to keep from breaking down. However, once the organism is dead, they are left to the mercy of the environment and normally decay very rapidly. If the molecules find themselves isolated from other life forms, water, oxygen and excessive heat, they will be able to survive longer, perhaps even thousands of years. Like the conditions found in a storage laboratory.
However they cannot last forever because they are still subject to the second law of thermodynamics, which will eventually break up the molecules purely through random motion of the atoms and background radiation.
The most recent estimates place an upper limit of 125,000 years on the survival of DNA and 2.7 million years on collagen at O degrees C. At only 10 deg C the upper limits are much less, 17,500yrs for DNA and 180,000yrs for collagen.
The presence of origional molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years. Therefore no collagen originally formed in the T.rex bone is expected to survive longer than 1 million yrs.
In 2005 new images showed plainly that the soft tissue was fresh organic tissue. Rigorous research was also conducted that showed that the protein collagen, also a complex biomolecule, had been preserved in the T.rex bones as well.
The obvious implications of the actual evidence are that these finds are only thousands of years old !!!
This obstacle has not been able to be overcome by evolutionary science !!!
Oh what a conundrum for evolutionary scientists, and evolution itself !!!
Got an answer for mr intoart, is too hot and science 'cowboy' ??? I think not.



The implications that I've read say that the T. Rex is related(evolved to) to modern birds, not that they are only a few thousand years old.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html
That sounds like what you implied about it, not what anybody with any real knowledge. DNA much older than a few thousand years have been found before:
http://dml.cmnh.org/1994Sep/msg00133.html
How ever if the DNA found with the T.Rex femur is found to be a few thousand years old, the question whether or not it was T.Rex DNA is probably the better question. There are lots of ways that it might not be the T.Rex's DNA even if it was found in the T.Rex femur. Ask Barry Scheck for more details.
 clarence clutterbuck
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/26/2008 6:41:30 AM
Actually, what differntiates a species is the abillity to interbread and produce viable and fertile offspring.

Differing traits but the abillity to interbreed is considered to be a subsceices, or breed, or a race. (due to polatics and ethical problems, the idea of human races being subspieces is very hotly debated and still not set, but it meets all the scientific criteria)

This is not as clear cut as it may seem though. Dogs for example have difrent breeds, that are capable of interbreading and producing a viable and fertile offspring, but also many breeds that can not. So diferntiating the species from the sunspecies in such cases can be very difficult.


Thanks for posting Bright1Raziel. Its nice to hear a proper scientific definition of a species. Would this make the Scottish wildcat and the domestic cat subspecies of the same parent species? I've read that wildcats can interbreed with feral domestic cats and produce viable offspring capable of breeding, and that this is one of the threats to the future survival of the wildcat as a distinct species.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/26/2008 7:20:25 AM

But only one out 1,000 evolutionists doesn't say much for them does it.
Anyway, I stated the most recent estimates placed an UPPER LIMIT of 125,000yrs for DNA survival at O deg C and 17,500yrs at 10 deg C, upper limit for collagen at 10deg C 180,000yrs.
Repeat, bones contained blood cells, blood vessels, collagen.
The bones are "dated" to be 65 million years old, a very big difference. So if we give a good leverage of 17,500yrs. Where are the millions of years gone ? There are no millions of years, that is what I am implying.


I'm not going to BS you, I don't know if your claims about the UPPER LIMIT of 125,000 yrs is mainstream science or not. What I can say is I've seen the story of T.Rex DNA on PBS and in either Scientific American or Discover(maybe both) and I don't remember reading that ANY of the scientist interviewed EVERY came to the conclusion that the T.Rex must be from 125,000 yrs or less. Any doubt about how the DNA is still somewhat in tact came from those that felt contamination of the DNA must be involved. Dating of the existence of the T.Rex in question was ~65 million years, and it came from more than one source and wasn't questioned by even the women that found the DNA.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/26/2008 8:03:02 AM
Here are some references to your story, the facts are nobody is coming to the conclusion that you are from the data.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=t-rex-protein-sequenced-similar-to-chicken
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/did-t-rex-taste-like-chicken
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/mar05/WebExtra032505.html

Both magazines are somewhat watered down(to make more readable for people outside of the fields reported), but they do the best they can to get story right.
 clarence clutterbuck
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/26/2008 10:03:23 AM
I think it is ethical, because of the wildcats' unique traits that it has developed over millions of years before the introduction of its domesticated relative. I'd like to see the wildcat survive in the same way that I hope that tigers will survive as a species - for their unique beauty that enriches us all. Once they disappear we will no longer be able to see or study them.

The introduction of the domestic moggy is an example of man interfering with the natural order to the detriment of an indigenous species. We see the same thing with the grey squirrel which was brought in from the US and has largely displaced our native red squirrel.

One not too drastic way in which the wildcat can be protected from the threat of genetic dilution is by cat owners having their pet spayed/neutered.

I realise that animal species do naturally become extinct over time but it does seem a shame that us lot are accelerating the process in some cases by our activities.

I'm pondering the "separating whites and blacks" part of your reply and can see the analogy. Your earlier post suggested that races are arguably various subspecies of human but that this conclusion is too politically sensitive to be judged by scientists. Should we be trying to preserve the individual characteristics of the various races? Some people might think so, and in this case I believe they have every right to mate only with others of their own race. I see it as a matter of personal choice.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 101
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/26/2008 4:18:17 PM
Although someone on this thread has been spouting off posts filled with such ignorance that they hardly merit a response, I will quote something of his anyway because it discusses someone who can teach us a valuable lesson.
Mary Schweitzer (an evolutionist) has shown that T.rex bones 'dated' to 68 million years old have soft tissue in them, including the presence of blood cells, blood vessels and bone tissue (collagen).
The bold section (emphasis mine) was written to imply bias - that is, he is suggesting that as an evolutionist she is not impartial in the creation-evolution controversy (not that there is one) and as such may be motivated to give a biased interpretation of the evidence. And he's right, she isn't impartial.

...because she's an evangelical christian.

Imagine finding soft tissue inside a T-rex thighbone, electrifying other members of your congregation with the spark that you may have found irrefutable evidence that these supposed 65 million year+ old fossils can only be a few thousand years old. I can think of no one who could have been more motivated to view the evidence in a certain light in order to support a certain belief. She was hounded by bible literalists to conclude that the tissue was young. She must have sorely wanted to.

But she didn't. She exclaimed that "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data" and instead of seeking out what she wanted to be true, she sought what was true. The tissue was millions of years old like the bones were, and was merely very well preserved.

You should never have to be a liar to maintain your beliefs. Some delicate souls I could mention on this forum need to learn that lesson, imho.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/26/2008 6:29:11 PM
RE msg 138 by Bright1Raziel:
Actually, what differntiates a species is the abillity to interbread and produce viable and fertile offspring.
That's a little difficult for me to accept. I never heard of Darwin trying to mate all the animals he came across and then calling the ones who produced nothing or stillborns as different species, or any other biologist defining species that way. AFAIK, Darwin defined species by their common traits. Of course, it becomes a little difficult to tell if a species is a subspecies or a breed. But that seemed to be the basic criteria. It seems to me that interbreeding is accepted to be unlikely between animals with very different traits, because that is what people found when practising artificial cross-breeding. As Darwin named the process of Natural Selection after a natural form of Artificial Selection (artificial cross-breeding), I would imagine he expected the same principles to be true.

Differing traits but the abillity to interbreed is considered to be a subsceices, or breed, or a race. (due to polatics and ethical problems, the idea of human races being subspieces is very hotly debated and still not set, but it meets all the scientific criteria)
I agree with this notion, although I am willing to accept that 2 groups of organisms might still be able to interbreed yet have differing enough traits that they are a different species.

This is not as clear cut as it may seem though. Dogs for example have difrent breeds, that are capable of interbreading and producing a viable and fertile offspring, but also many breeds that can not. So diferntiating the species from the sunspecies in such cases can be very difficult.

Humans are all of the same species, we can all reproduce, but we are of difrent subspecies, with difrent characteristics within each subspeices. Bantu, Caucasion, Kalash, Malay, Han, Papuan and Maya are the current taxinomical expresion, but this is as liable to change on opinion as it is on traits. Because there are so many difrent traits, and we are capable of interbreeding, subspieces are extreamly dificult to define, and homo-sapiens could fit into one subspieces or thousands depending on how many alels you look at it our makeup.
I can see your point, which is why I've left things a little vague in this regard. Otherwise, I might disagree with the definitions of species according to Linnaean Taxonomy.

The correct definition for a creature of this type, One made from two seperate species, is a chimera. Most chimeras are infertile, but every now and then, they are individuals that are capable of reroducing, but most of these produce offspring with slight variances from the same species as the parent they share the most genes with. there are a very few that produce offspring that are genetically dissimilar from thier parents to produce enough that thier offspring canot interbreed with either of thier parents, but can interbreed with thier brothers and sisters. This is extreamlly, rare and has not yet been directly observed, although we have managed to sumise that a few species have been born this way.
Thanks for the info. I've only ever heard of a Chimera in mythology or in humans with 2 sets of DNA (very rare).


Copying errors could not occur, because all of those errors would be arbitrary and therefore part of the shuffling process. So when we talk about copying errors, we are stating that the vast majority of the copying process has rules as to what is and is not an error, and the copying process endeavours to ensure that in the vast majority of cases, those "errors" are never allowed to occur in the first place.
In genetics, a copying eror refers specifically, to an instance where the genetic code has replicated and the resultant copy is not exactly the same as the original.

The cell has mechanisms that destroy or correct this in most cells, but not in the gametes. In this way, the body achives a high degree of genetic variability during fertalisation, but when growing, ensures that cells are the same (The obvious exception here is cancer, where a gene can become altered or switched on or off due to a copying eror).
This area clearly needs clarification. So I will elucidate the process with an example, the history of CDs and DVDs, which mirrors the process. When CDs first started being produced, it became clear that errors would crop up in the duplication process. So extra codes were introduced, which were redundant, but which could be used to verify that the data was correct. These were known as Hamming codes. They are also used in satellite communications. CD copying mechanisms included coding to check these codes, and to fix any copying errors, by matching the data to the most likely combinations.

When CD copiers became available to the general public, people started copying CDs. When DVD copiers started being sold, the same thing happened. This led to a loss of revenue to manufacturers, including CD games manufacturers and DVD film manufacturers, due to pirate copying by private individuals. So manufacturers started building deliberate errors into their CDs and DVDs. These errors would be automatically corrected by the copiers, so any copies made by ordinary people would be corrected, and would no longer include those errors. Manufacturers also included checking systems which would test for those codes, and would scramble any CDs or DVDs which did not contain those codes. So newer DVD-players and newer game stations wouldn't play the copied CDs and DVDs.

However, normal copiers would remove the codes. So manufacturers couldn't make the CDs and DVDs to play on their new DVD-players and game stations. So they needed to make special copiers for themselves, which wouldn't copy the deliberate errors. Removing the error correction mechanism entirely would just result in unplayable CDs and DVDs. So the professional level system has a 2-tier system: the basic error correction system, and an additional system, which can be programmed to not correct certain codes, and even deliberately write certain errors, but still correct all the other errors. However, this has to be strictly controlled, in order to ensure that it doesn't affect the basic error copying mechanism.

The same would effectively apply in an organism. The base replication mechanism in cells would be the standard error correction mechanism. The replication mechanism in gametes would need to include the standard error correction mechanism, to insure a minimum of mutants who are incapable of survival, the same as the cells do. But the gametes would need an additional system, to not correct certain codes, to allow for combinations due to sexual reproduction and mutation. Those are the "rules" I referred to earlier. Without this method, the number of possible errors would include every possible variation, and so would include the vast majority of combinations that would make any form of life impossible. Offspring would have a likelihood of trillions to one. Even considering the ones that would live, people could birth to actual cabbages (50% of our DNA is the same as a cabbage). But females don't have anywhere near enough eggs to support that number of errors. So the error correction mechanism must be present, with the additional "rules" of when to override it.

These "rules" cannot be arbitrary. It would have the same effect as negating the error correction system itself. So the system or evolution cannot be an arbitrary form of mutations that survive due to Natural Selection or other selective mechanisms. The system of generating such genetic differences must include its own very specific selection mechanism.

Now, this all might seem a bit pedantic. But I did a whole term just on this, and all we covered was the merest introduction to the subject. We weren't educated to the level of depth that this system is used, or anywhere near its capabilities. But it has to be considered with the most stringent detail to the probabilities, because it depends on stochastic processes, which are used heavily in evolutionary theory, and in stochastic processes, it is extremely easy to get something that looks very likely but is in fact unbelievably unlikely. Our lecturer once gave us an example of this, when he showed us that a population which seemed to keep stable, would in fact be guaranteed to become extinct after a few hundred generations. We really cannot get away from the Mathematics here.

But we can demonstrate that modern sharks are not identical to older sharks. The thing that must be rembered is that it is posible to evolve and for a species to change without it changing its form. The form a species takes is an adaption to its enviroment, if its enviroment dose not change then there is no reason for the species form to change. But that sais nothing about the internal processe of a species.
I agree totally with this.

If modern sharks are all the same, and older sharks are all the same, and modern sharks and older sharks are not, but are all of the same species, then this would show that sharks are NOT an example of a species that is no longer evolving. But that is only possible if all sharks of a given era are clones of each other.

We have too look at the wider implications of differences. An example is computer programs. Every installation of a computer program is different, because they will all have configuration options built into the original program, to allow for different computer setups. However, they are all the same program.

A new version means that we have a new change that is not allowed for within the original possibilities of the first program's variations.

In the same way, when we look at sharks, we have to distinguish between new adaptations, and possible variances that exist within the original version of the DNA.

AFAIK, the basic layout of the shark is similar enough that naturalists have stated that sharks are basically the same. So either all the naturalists I've watched are wrong, or you are discussing variables within the original structure. Not true variations.

A good example of this is MrSA. MrSA is identical to SA in form, but has developed an internal change that makes it resistant to Methicillin. MrSA is only a subspecies, but it is subspecies that go on to become a new species (with the exception of extreamly rare examples of chimeras).
MRSA might be a subspecies. But in practical terms, it does show behaviour that makes it very different to SA, in that it is resistant to the standard forms of antibacterial agents that we use. If it was just a problem with Methicillin alone, then I'm sure that we could switch to a variant. Presumably, the problem with MRSA is that coming up with variants that are effective against MRSA, but are just as feasible to produce, is extremely difficult.

so the shark may have the same form as its ancestos, but its genes vary significantly due to adaption to new environs, such as new diseases or increasing levels of salt in the water. it is also important to point out that the fosil record only shows the hard remains of an animal. We have numerous exaples of birds that have identical sceletal structures but difrent feathers and are incapable interbreading. So just because a fosil and a modern animal have identical skeletons, dose not mean they are actually the same species, they could just be closely related.
That is a limitation of evidence in evolutionary biology. It is something that I personally feel makes it difficult to establish the kind of rigour that one needs to confirm such a theory.

I can see that the issue is not quite as clear as it might seem. As I stated earlier, I DON'T think that Africans are any less intelligent than Caucasians. AFAIK, Archimedes was of African descent. However, I CAN understand how Watson can come to this conclusion, because these mechanisms are explained in terms that do not seem to match the patterns formed by the evidence. They are described either too simplistically, or not simplistically enough. Clarity is vital in understanding science. If clarity is not maintained, then you get problems like this.

My question was not intended to attack evolution. It was intended to highlight the lack of clarity in the explanations of evolution. That can lead to false assumptions. Personally, I believe that evolutionary theory would reveal much of our body's behaviour were we to adhere to this clarity. As an old Talmudic saying goes:
If you grabbed much, (often) you grabbed nothing. If you grabbed little, (often) you grabbed something.
So I believe that it is better to stick to only a few conclusions that we can be sure of, rather than a wide-ranging theory that has lots of questions on it, and then to try and answer the questions later. It leads to too many false assumptions and false conclusions. With only a few conclusions that we are sure of, we can build on them with confidence, and we can draw out very useful, practical applications.


Another thing. Science cannot and will not ever prove that any god does or does not exist. Science deals with matter and energy.
Firstly, science dose not deal with anything. Science is a tool used to uncover knowledge, nothing more, nothing less.
I would like to clarify this again.

You are quite right in that science is only a tool. It is very important to understand that while it is an incredibly useful tool, like a hammer, it is still just a hammer, and some things can be done with a chisel. There are plenty of things we can make that we wouldn't use a hammer for.

It is an imperfect tool at that, as it can only deal with the imperical. It deals with the imperical precicly, but it can not mesure or examine things like human experiance or thought. no one could reasonably argue that thought dose not exist, but science can make any judgments on thought as it is outside of its remit, though can not be measured.
Empirical evidence is only one method of discovery. Contrary to modern belief, empirical evidence is actually our least reliable method, and the one that teaches us the least. It is logic and reason that is by far the most useful, because it allows us to look at the evidence that we do have in many different ways, and allows us to combine the different facts in all sorts of combinations, that can produce thousands of useful conclusions. Observation is also just as useful as lab experiments. Heliocentrism is built on observations.

The same can be said of god. god can not be measured, and so is outside of the view of science. That dose not mean god dose not exist, it just means that we have no way of proving the non-existance of god as of yet. that dose not mean that in the future we will not be able to do so, just that we have neither the knowledge or technology to do so at present.
That is my view.

There are certain conjectures in Mathematics, like the Continuum Hypothesis, that have been called "unprovable". However, the only way that we know them to unprovable, is because someone actually proved that they cannot be provable. We cannot say that anything else is unprovable, and we may very well be able to say that it is true, or false. The proofs of something being unprovable are just as rigorous as proving something true or false, and in fact, need to be far more rigorous, because we are stating that something is always going to be vague, from every possibility, whileas saying something is true means that from one angle, it must be true, and that all other angles must be capable of including the same logic, and the same is true of proving something as false.

All we can say is that right now, scientists do not have the ability to prove the existence of G-d as true or false.

What is also not considered, is that many people have information that is not publicly known to most scientists, and that some people in the Scientific Community have formed proofs on the subject, but chose to not make them publicly known, for their own reasons. I know of at least one such proof by a famous Mathematician and philosopher. However, I too choose not to reveal this information, as I can see the potential damage it could do to society, if it is not publicised in the proper context.

What people fail to understand is that saying the easter bunny can not be proven or disproven, dose not mean the easter bunny dose not exist. It simply means that the existance or non-existance of the easter bunny is unknowable to science.
I quite agree. That means that right now, the study of the existence of the Easter Bunny is just not a subject that is likely to give useful information to us, because we lack the basics to prove it exists. We should not dismiss something just because it isn't something we can figure out how to prove right now.

I believe that we are more or less on much more similar ground. Whether we disagree or agree is not an issue to me. Only that we can agree to disagree, and that we can each respect each other's opinion. I hope that we have both established that.

I'd also like to make it clear that if anyone is just trying to knock other people's ideas, rather than try to establish truth on an objective basis, then I am in no way endorsing such a view. I attempt to try to find a way that everyone's view can be accepted by others, but that they don't have to, unless it is obviously true to everyone excepting people who are delusional even on things that we know to be true, such as people who believe that the President is Elvis' father. Neither evolution or creationism are in this category. So I would attempt to establish a common ground and mutual respect for both camps. Once that is achieved, collaboration of data is much easier, and so it becomes much easier to find the truth and for everyone to agree to it.

RE msg 143 by Bright1Raziel:
I have to ask though, and I shall keep my views on this quite untill later, is the disapearance of the wildcat due to interbreeding a problem? Surelly seperating wildcats from domestic and preventing them from breeding is equvilant of seperating whites from blacks? Is this really ethical?
This depends on the consequences. We have to consider the consequences on the ecology. It can have little effect on the environment. It can cause a polarisation of the species, leading to a more extreme version of the wildcat, and that wildcat might be a more effective predator. Too effective a predator, and it might eat too much of its prey. That can lead to the extinction of the prey species and the wildcat. That can in turn lead to a general extinction of much of the ecology. Nature might survive that. But we might find it much, much harder to thrive in such a changed environment.

It can also lead to the domestic cat becoming far more populous, and if there are too many domestic cats, they become strays. Those strays can end up eating much of the food supply of the wildcat, leading to a strong possibility of the extinction of the wildcat.

My faith bans nearly all cross-breeding, although it does allow us to use new species that have already resulted from cross-breeding, once they have become a species in their own right. But I don't impose that on others.

The ethics of segregation depends on the situation. Most animals appear to be not too bothered who they mate with, as long as they do. As long as animals are not forced to mate, then I cannot see the disadvantage. But if a person's pet cat falls in love with a wildcat, as long as they are of the same species, then I believe that it would be cruel to deny an animal the object of its love.

The same would hold true of humanity. If a white human and a black human fall in love, it would be cruel to separate them. But if a person is not bothered about who to mate with, and has an equal chance of mating with either, then I can see nothing wrong with suggesting to mate with the same subspecies. It can make a relationship much easier to form. However, it must always be made clear that even if whites only mate with whites and blacks with blacks, that whites and blacks are equally deserving of respect and it is their right to demand that they are given genuine respect. If respect is not present, then we get issues of discrimination, of whites against blacks, and blacks against whites, and this discrimination happens today on both sides, even when mating is not an issue at all.
 ishaun
Joined: 6/20/2008
Msg: 103
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/27/2008 2:51:01 AM
I view evolution as: The progressive change in a species over many generations.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 108
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/27/2008 10:03:55 PM

"goo to you" evolution (a.k.a. macroevolution) is nonsense and does not exist. It contradicts laws of science such as the second law of thermodynamics, it assumes millions of additions of DNA information from nowhere, geology and C-14 dating refutes it, there's a lack of evidence in the fossil record, microbiology discoveries of the irreducible complexity of cell systems are also refuting evolution.

This is absolute nonsense. Please get an education before posting. Do you even know that the second law of thermo states? I don't think so. All the other stuff you quote is baloney.

Let me remind you that the only reason scientists ever went looking for DNA was because of the Theory of Evolution.


Also, "goo to you" evolution contradicts the Bible; you can't be a consistent Christian and believe in macroevolution at the same time. You might be able to believe in "a creator" but not the Creator God of the Bible.

Ah, there we have it. Science starts with a question and seeks an answer. Religion is the exact reverse. Creationists begin with the absurdity that religion is reality and the facts must, therefore, fall in line. So they wind up making evidence up. Frankly, most of reality contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's just the fact.

If you wnat to live in a fool's paradise, go ahead. Just leave science alone. It's done more for us than you Bible.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/27/2008 10:46:02 PM

The evolutionist through a materialist, nature-as-a-closed-system worldview.
Nature is a closed system? And here I thought the sun actually existed.
"goo to you" evolution (a.k.a. macroevolution)
Only people too ignorant to differentiate abiogenesis from evolution use this term.
It contradicts laws of science such as the second law of thermodynamics
Yeah because apparently the sun doesn't exist, lol.
irreducible complexity of cell systems are...
...exactly what we expect after billions of years of evolution.
you can't be a consistent Christian and believe in macroevolution at the same time.
That's why Catholics don't exist, lol.
Natural selection (a.k.a. microevolution)
That's like saying Apples (a.k.a. oranges)
It involves speciation
You just admitted to accepting speciation, without realizing that it is macroevolution. I love your post, seriously.
and the loss of genetic information
Mutations may result in increased genetic information as well.
birth defects or mutations
Is that what you think mutations are - birth defects? You have 100+ mutations in you - how many defects do you have?
Some other 'birth defects' caused by mutations result in high tolerance to cholesterol (making you virtually immune to heart attacks), tolerance to extreme altitudes, resistance/immunity to HIV, the ability to see the ultraviolet spectrum, increased muscle and reduced fat, hyper-dense nearly unbreakable bones, improved memory, greater flexibility, and heightened senses.
In fact, there are no transitory form fossils between kinds of animals
Aside from the thousands that have been found.
and this has evolutionists very worried
lol, the theory of evolution grows stronger every day. Every new piece of evidence supports it.
blind random chance
If evolution was chance, survival of the 'luckiest' would allow unhealthy critters survive just as well as healthy ones, weak ones as strong ones, etc, and we wouldn't evolve at all.

I can't imagine anything more damaging to creationism than to have someone like you defend it.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/27/2008 11:20:05 PM
Actually, my education (and doctoral research) was in molecular genetics, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that several methods of INCREASING genetic information exist and it happens every day. I can't expect everyone here to go out and invest 10-14 years of their life educating themselves on the topic, though. Guess I have to be happy with canned responses from extremely biased websites, instead of actual, earned, and understood education and knowledge.

Oh, and I actually worked with Tom Cech, whose work may very well lead to an understanding of abiogenesis. You should read up on it.
 transcend
Joined: 1/13/2007
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 12:56:12 AM
Isn't the Bible that carefully screened collections of writings that were chosen by men out of a larger pool of writings , ignoring (in the case of the New Testament) writings attributed to the best friends ,male and female, of Jesus? Im just curious how someone with a genuinely open mind could assume that faith in what man has written can ever approach the level of proof that experimentation and duplication of results can generate. No one can say that those driven by self interest are the ones most likely to preach faith over fact but doesnt it bother you that several conflicting views were edited out not by a diety but by those whose interest in a stronger church was served?
Even to the point of making it heresy with a death sentence to even possess the books?

Somehow the idea that Catholics ,with their pagan borrowing and polytheistic menage of miracle workers,were qualified to pick and choose the contents of the Bible is a bit suspect and makes all that followed fruit of the same tree.

While I agree that we should "name and know the birds in the sky and the fishes of the sea" I must have missed the part that defined how it all came about from the point of view of maker and made.. I will do my best to keep open to the possibilities..
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 5:12:11 AM

The second law of thermodynamics: the entropy (disorder, or decay) of the universe increases over time. The other stuff I quote is not baloney.


If evolution violates the 2nd law(I don't think it does) why doesn't conception violate the 2nd law? Most living things start as a single cell and become something far more complex.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 6:52:43 AM



The second law of thermodynamics: the entropy (disorder, or decay) of the universe increases over time. The other stuff I quote is not baloney.

If evolution violates the 2nd law(I don't think it does) why doesn't conception violate the 2nd law? Most living things start as a single cell and become something far more complex.


Of course a evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, any more than living, breathing, learning, writing books, or creating cars, or computers do. To create a computer from silicon, oil, and some metal ores is CLEARLY reducing entropy in the local environment... it doesn't violate the 2nd law because it CREATES far more entropy through fuel use, waste products, human food consumption while making, planning, etc... than the entropy it reverses by existing.

All the reverse entropy that occurs on the surface of the Earth, called Life, is driven by the much, much larger increase in entropy that occurred in the explosion of the stars whose used fuel became our planet and that continues to occur from the cooling of our planet and the burning of fuel in our local star.

As quietcowboy states, conception is CLEARLY a violation of the 2nd law... but it's only a LOCAL violation, powered by the vastly greater OVERALL increase in entropy in our sun, generating light to grow our crops, which end up feeding that conceived being, allowing it to overcome the 2nd law for a few decades at best.

It doesn't require a mystical being to explain this... so why insert one unnecessarily? William of Ockham, a Franciscan monk, would NOT approve. (Ever heard of Occam's Razor?)

"Hope" also does not require a mystical being. Simple evolution pretty much REQUIRES hope, as our lives always have hard, difficult periods, and without hope, we would quit. Give up. Not pass our genes on to our progeny. Our "lack of hope" gene wouldn't make it into the next generation... or at least not very far down the line. Again, why add unnecessary complexity to a system that works without it? Creationists always talk about irreducible complexity... you're ADDING complexity that doesn't need to be there; no wonder you're so fascinated by it.

That brings up a good point: Could someone do me a favor and provide an example that you consider a good "case" for irreducible complexity? I'd go with the human eye, but that one's been done to death.
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 121
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 9:44:31 AM
I think I'm going to have to lighten up this thread a little bit, but first the disclaimer...

The following is meant to be humorous and is in no way meant to harm anyone or cause a dispute. This also does not mean that I do or don't agree with Darwin, just a little something I heard a creationist say one day.

"If we were descendant from apes, why are they still here?"

"If we were descendant from apes, why do we use pig parts in a transplant operation? Why not use ape parts?"

"If we were desendant from apes, why do we grow replacement parts on the backs of mice?"

"Which is it, Apes, Pigs or Mice?

 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 9:45:38 AM
RE msg 155 by Is too hot:
Let me remind you that the only reason scientists ever went looking for DNA was because of the Theory of Evolution.
I only heard that scientists ever went looking for DNA was in the process of understanding how cells work, and that they were trying to understand how cells work because they were trying to understand how the body works, and they were trying to understand how the body works, in order to heal people. My faith has had healers for thousands of years, and they all were trying to look for more info on medicine.

This might help, though:
History of DNA research

DNA was first isolated by the Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher who, in 1869, discovered a microscopic substance in the pus of discarded surgical bandages. As it resided in the nuclei of cells, he called it "nuclein".[118] In 1919 this discovery was followed by Phoebus Levene's identification of the base, sugar and phosphate nucleotide unit.[119] Levene suggested that DNA consisted of a string of nucleotide units linked together through the phosphate groups. However, Levene thought the chain was short and the bases repeated in a fixed order. In 1937 William Astbury produced the first X-ray diffraction patterns that showed that DNA had a regular structure.[120]

In 1928, Frederick Griffith discovered that traits of the "smooth" form of the Pneumococcus could be transferred to the "rough" form of the same bacteria by mixing killed "smooth" bacteria with the live "rough" form.[121] This system provided the first clear suggestion that DNA carried genetic information, when Oswald Avery, along with coworkers Colin MacLeod and Maclyn McCarty, identified DNA as the transforming principle in 1943.[122] DNA's role in heredity was confirmed in 1952, when Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase in the Hershey-Chase experiment showed that DNA is the genetic material of the T2 phage.[123]

In 1953, based on X-ray diffraction images[124] taken by Rosalind Franklin and the information that the bases were paired, James D. Watson and Francis Crick suggested[124] what is now accepted as the first accurate model of DNA structure in the journal Nature.[5] Experimental evidence for Watson and Crick's model were published in a series of five articles in the same issue of Nature.[125] Of these, Franklin and Raymond Gosling's paper was the first publication of X-ray diffraction data that supported the Watson and Crick model,[126][127] this issue also contained an article on DNA structure by Maurice Wilkins and his colleagues.[128] In 1962, after Franklin's death, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins jointly received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.[129] However, debate continues on who should receive credit for the discovery.[130]

In an influential presentation in 1957, Crick laid out the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology, which foretold the relationship between DNA, RNA, and proteins, and articulated the "adaptor hypothesis".[131] Final confirmation of the replication mechanism that was implied by the double-helical structure followed in 1958 through the Meselson-Stahl experiment.[132] Further work by Crick and coworkers showed that the genetic code was based on non-overlapping triplets of bases, called codons, allowing Har Gobind Khorana, Robert W. Holley and Marshall Warren Nirenberg to decipher the genetic code.[133] These findings represent the birth of molecular biology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research

As you can see, it was a Swiss physician who first discovered DNA.

Ah, there we have it. Science starts with a question and seeks an answer. Religion is the exact reverse.
Actually, my religion always starts with a question, and then seeks an answer. That is just the fact.

If you wnat to live in a fool's paradise, go ahead. Just leave science alone. It's done more for us than you Bible.
I agree. Science has done more for you than the Bible ever did. But my people are smarter. Science is just another topic to them. It's easy.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 124
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 3:12:32 PM

"If we were descendant from apes, why are they still here?"


Humans are apes. Or rather, a kind of ape. Cretonists are the only ones who are confused on this issue.


"If we were descendant from apes, why do we use pig parts in a transplant operation? Why not use ape parts?"


We're related to pigs too! Pigs happen to be the right size and can be bred in large numbers which makes them pretty close to ideal.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 125
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 3:25:07 PM
"goo to you" evolution (a.k.a. macroevolution) is nonsense and does not exist. It contradicts laws of science such as the second law of thermodynamics


Evolution, both micro and macro, has been directly observed. The 2nd Law states that entropy tends to increase in a closed system. Evolution does not violate the 2nd Law. Cretonism, however, violates the 1st Law (i.e. conservation of energy). Before pointing out non-existent motes in our eyes, you should first remove the beam from yours.


it assumes millions of additions of DNA information from nowhere


Out of nowhere? No, that's the purview of Cretonism.


geology and C-14 dating refutes it


C-14 dating has little to do with evolution since it's only useful to about 50,000 years back (though that's enough to disprove 6 day Cretonism). Other dating methods are much more useful because they can go back millions, or even billions, of years. They all support evolution. Geology also supports evolution.


there's a lack of evidence in the fossil record


The fossil record abounds in support for evolution. In fact no fossil contradicts it. The fossil record is filled with transitional forms that support evolution and disprove Cretonism. It's not just the forms found but also when there found. You can disprove evolution by finding a rabbit in the Cambrian. Evolution also makes predictions about what we won't see in the fossil record. A mermaid skeleton would also nicely disprove evolution. Speaking of mythical creatures, the Bible says that giants, unicorns, and cud-chewing rabbits exist. Get back to me when you find one.


microbiology discoveries of the irreducible complexity of cell systems are also refuting evolution


No irreducibly complex system has been found. IDiots claim that the bacterium flagelum is an irreducibly complex system, but a similar structure exists with a few proteins missing. It's fully functional.

Cretonism is a study in FAILure.
 AtomicGogol
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 3:25:09 PM
Ah, where would we be without these hotbed debates.... I am sure that the many forums of the web would be either dull or replicas of 4chan.

Speaking as a devil's advocate, I don't see why we can't accept the possibility of both, ya know? Abiogenesis requires a cause to bring about the effect, and that effect may indeed be described in scientific terms at some point. However, it keeps leading further back in time to the beginning of reality, which would logically require a cause as well. Is this cause God? Perhaps. Is it a natural phenomena repeated many times throughout the history of the multiverse? Also possible. I doubt that science will ever succeed in attaining such a knowledge of the origin of it all, and so religion can obviously never be completely refuted. As they say, faith is the basis for a belief in a god, and faith does not require objective proof. I believe that the religious folk who try to find that proof are silly, and the secular folk who try to use it to disprove God to be equally silly.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 127
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 3:43:15 PM
RE msg 170 by casuallycurious:
No offense scorpio, but if your religion starts with a question, and actually seeks answers based on facts to explain things from there, it is the only such religion I have ever heard of.
Well, I'm not like most people. Most people I know, would just sit in class and listen to what they were told, and just accepted it. I was one of those annoying kids who had to know why, and would go up to the teacher and ask why. Then I'd hear the teacher's answer, think about it when I went home. Then if it didn't make sense to me, and it often didn't, I would go back to the teacher and say "But, sir,..." I did this time and again. It probably annoyed my teachers a lot. I just wouldn't give up on something until I really understood it. I would never accept something on face value.

Maybe because of this approach, I found that when I would talk to religious people, they would always ask me questions, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, all types. They would ask me if I believed in their beliefs, and why not, and what my beliefs were. They would even ask me about the way my faith did things, just to understand me better. They were usually polite.

However, I found that when I talked to scientific professionals, they would take the opposite approach. They would TELL me what to believe, and when I asked them why, and questions that would aid my understanding, they would get very irritated. It often made me feel that they didn't want me to ask why. It was like they just wanted me to accept what they said, because it was science, and that was enough. I often felt like I was committing heresy, just for asking a question.

I talked to people I was friendly with about it. They just accepted that science was right, and religion was wrong, and got pretty annoyed when I questioned them on it. Some people eventually were open about it. They didn't know about either very much. They just went with what they were told: that science was always right, and that religion was always wrong.

So you see, I can understand why you've never heard of this. I can understand it, if you're someone who just accepts what they are told. But I cannot understand it, if you dig and dig for the truth, until you get there, and you are willing to keep questioning others until you do.

Religious beliefs involving God presuppose a creator. Presupposition without empirical proof is starting with an answer, and trying to make the facts fit, often making things up in order to substantiate.
I can understand your presupposition. But from my discussions, religious beliefs involving God presuppose a desire to find out WHY those religious beliefs are based on a G-d in the first place, and to understand the basics of the proofs of the existence of a Creator. It's like learning about calculus from a Mathematician without knowing algebra. You need to know algebra to study calculus. For a mathematician who has been doing calculus for 10 years, it's a given that you know algebra. You wouldn't ask him about calculus if you didn't know algebra. He assumes that if you don't know about algebra you'll ask about it first, then understand algebra, and THEN ask about calculus.

There is an old saying: Don't put the cart before the horse.

Maybe I am missing something here. Your profile says you are non-religious, so what am I missing...?
I'm not religious. I don't keep my faith enough that I would be called religious. I am also open to listen to anyone about any subject, including evolution and atheism. I'm open to all views.

RE msg 171 by INTOART:

Frankly, most of reality contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's just the facts.
Well put. When science and religion come into conflict, science is always right.
The quote said that "a literal interpretation of the Bible" is contradicted by reality. Not religion. Not science. If I was using my brain, I would conclude that religion cannot follow a string literal interpretation of the Bible, because that would contradict the reality that everyone can see, including those people who've never learned a bit of science in their whole life. How could you miss that?

I just cannot accept such a conclusion, that could NEVER be derived from that quote. So I have to question if you truly understand that from your own conclusions, or it was just something that you were told, that sounded right to you, and you just accepted it, without ever really examining if it was true.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >