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
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 165
Define the Theory of EvolutionPage 5 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Well I'm sorry Beutifullady, I thought since you were throwing quotes from the Bible that perhaps you knew the Bible. If you would bother to read Genesis up to 17 you will see that there is no origin for Cain's wife. It was Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, then Cain's wife shows up, hence the joke.

The problem with most Creationist, and I use that term loosely, is that they always assume that anyone buying into evolution, or anyone that is labled as a scientist is automatically an atheist. (As BL did with her Bible quote to me) For most it seems they are so offended by the science of natural selection that they totally ignore the theory all together. It's not surprising really since reading and truly comprehending it can take years, as well as the religion they subscribe to. Most in fact do such a poor job understanding their respective religons that they usually put their own twist on it making it to be something else entirely.

As for evolution most just hear that life evolved from lower organisms, dedice they don't like that idea and move on resenting it believing it is against their own ideas when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Most are surprised that Darwin himself believed in God, and even more are surprised that Einstein did as well. In fact most scientist do believe in a higher being as well as the vast majority of the people on the planet. When it comes right down to it most of us believe in the same thing, we just arrive at it from different perspectives. One of the writtings that moved Darwin into his studies was William Paley who was a Christian philosopher. Plato himself believed in a divine being. Einstien said, "I am trying to find out how God made the universe work."

Religion is suppose to be something that comforts people and helps and supports community. Instead many use it as a way of attacking and belittling when they are faced with things they do not understand. Most will however find that those though out history with such original thougths began with religion or found religion in their studies of science.

In the end it does not matter if you believe in God or not, not believing in him will not be an automatic ticket to hell. In fact if he is the Christian God most believe in he will welcome you with open arms and forgiveness...Any religion that teaches otherwise is not worth the parchment its written on....
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 168
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/1/2008 8:59:46 PM
That is really sad BL, you have a very twisted view on life, not to worry your God will forgive you too. You just really need to learn not to use it against people. Not only is it in poor taste its against the OP's rules of this thread as well as this forum. Yes, you are attacking people, telling people they are going to hell just because they don't believe in what you believe in is in fact attacking.
God help you...
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 170
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/1/2008 9:45:55 PM
I've been biding my time, contemplating the novel I'd need to write to refute this horrendous pile of fallacy...but I'll bite anyway...



Shamefully, many Christians in this country are unaware of creation science

Fortunately, it's also a complete unknown to anyone with a rational mind as well. "Creation science" is an oxymoron. The root cause of this "science" is untestable, inconsistant, undefined, illogical, and non-empirical. It cannot be the basis of any science. This has only been pointed out...oh, countless times already. Everything comes back to some magical creation...by an entity which has no definition and therefore cannot be tested or shown to exist, an entity which may be the root cause of any possible outcome and is therefore completely unaccountable and untestable, and frequently an entity involved in a process which actually contradicts both all available evidence, AND all rational and logical explanations for that evidence.



they are unaware of how evolution undermines the gospel

So what? The gospel undermines the gospel. There's actually basically nothing to support the gospel than a circular argument. Anything in the Bible which is demonstrably true is also mundane and independently corroborated. Big deal. As already mentioned several times, there's no sortage of fiction which contains real world references. Those do not make the fiction more true. Where it's actually important, the Bible fails miserably: nothing in it which is even vaguely divine and supernatural, has any real world evidence. Even if we allow for a few significant personages being real, such as Jesus, there still is no evidence of any single person being responsible for even a shadow of the stories about him. NONE. The two best sources are both biased. One refers to something like 12 different men of the same name. The other was written AFTER his reputed life, AND was probably a forgery. Frankly, the gospel is so ancient, inconsistant, and unreliable, that depending on it for anything is questionable at best anyway.



Christians have no need to attempt to avoid God because God has solved the problem of sin and damnation by sacrificing Himself as atonement for sin for anyone who would believe in Him as their Savior and Lord.

So, basically, you're free to listen to evidence and reason, regardless of your faith, regardless of Biblical unreliability, and regardless of any actual sins? So many sin freely. How do many of the same people have a problem with being logical or rational? I think they actually missed Christ's message, and got lost in the translated words of his apostles and church.



There are some consequences in this life...but nothing compared to the Judgment Day and eternity.

One of those things actually refuted by the Bible. Also something completely unsupported by any real world evidence. The only support for the statement comes from not ONE, but SEVERAL logical fallacies: appeal to numbers, appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, appeal to tradition. Not once do I see "appeal to fact".



Christianity is cool...we get our reward for nothing. Salvation is a free gift of God offered to all of mankind.

Isn't it great to be unaccountable? :> Might be why Christianity is so popular with pedophile priests, mafiosi, and televangelists. That's another fallacy, on my part, btw ;)



How do you know? By what standard? What's "good" to a materialistic atheist

The same as for virtually every other faith. Abrahamic faiths, contrary to their own opinions, don't even come close to having the key to morality. The same basic rules apply in virtually EVERY society and faith [or lack thereof]. They are basically enlightened self-interest. The main difference is that spiteful and monopolistic passage "thou shalt have no other god..." Yeah, that's right, ME! Worship ME. *I* am your god, so don't be worshiping the gods of Egypt or the gods of Rome, or the gods of Babylon...just me. Who here has forgotten that the Jews actually started off with MORE than one god? No, they did NOT begin as monotheists. They just kinda forgot about any others, and all their offshoots have been functioning under the illusion that there was always just one deity. Nope. And virtually every other culture got on just fine living by the same rules under different deities.



then you will be doomed to Hell (banishment from God's presence and grace) forever, unless you are covered by the sacrifice of the sinless Lamb of God on your behalf, through faith in Him.

I've seen some very solid arguments [ie, based on reason, logic, and evidence] that 1) Christianity involves Hell actually being eliminated (!), and 2) that faith is not required for salvation, since Christ gave himself for all. I won't pretend to know the guts of the arguments myself, but I will say that I found THOSE arguments far more rational and compelling than the usual "hellfire and damnation" arguments based on selected and out-of-context passages.



I was saying that one kind of animal doesn't turn into another kind of animal.

"kind" is excessively vague and highly subject to ad-hoc redefinition to suit the agenda. The premise is also, in essence, false. Few would call a crocodile and a bird the same "kind", but the evidence clearly shows them to be kin. There is no clear boundary between birds and larger therosaurs. There is no clear boundary between therosaurs and archosaurs. Claims to the contrary just mean that 1) you haven't seen the evidence or 2) you choose not to acknowledge it.



Can you accept the merest wisp of a possibility that the science of fallen man is not infallible?

Not relevant. Science is not a dogma, it is a method: evidence plus deduction and logical inference. Creation offers none of that, nor is it suggested by any of it. Whether or not divine creation took place in ANY fashion, all evidence and logic thus far has argued strongly against it, most especially the Young Earth Creationism you imply.



That evolution is the lie?

It simply is not. To repeat [ad nauseum]: The theory of evolution is:
Natural selection [a demonstrable fact] drives evolution [another demonstrable fact]. This is so basic it is essentially unrefutable. Even where the selction is "artificial", the only thing making it "articifical" is the fact that man is the agent of selection and generally acts more quickly and harshly than "natural" means.



Or would that contradict the humanistic dogma you have accepted at face value for many years?

Dogma. Right. The dogma:
Random changes occur in the heritable characteristics of life. True or false?
"True" is the fact of evolution.
The ability to succeed and reproduce is determined by "selection". That is; those who make the easiest prey, are more likely to be eaten. Those most susceptible to disease will get sick and die...or be eaten. Those who are disabled by accident [which may be due to inherited bad judgement] or genetic fault are less likely to reproduce or more likely to be eaten. Those who are sterile, behaviorally odd, etc...are less likely to breed. True or false?
"True" is the fact of natural selection.
Natural selection influences the outcome of evolution. True or false?
"True" is the theory.
This is not dogma. It's inductive logic. There is NO difference of mechanisms between the origin of species and the origin of phyla. The differences are a question of degree. The degree is achieved with time, and the needed time was most certainly available, as the very laws of physics which enable us to establish these ages are the same ones which make all our electrical gadgetry, from MRIs and X-ray machines to laptop computers and digital cameras, work.



I make many mistakes, and even sin against my better judgment for I am a sinner, saved by grace; but I sincerely love my Lord.

This is good, but I would suggest, then, that you would be well-off to focus on his teachings and intent, rather than the often contradictory, anachronistic, chauvinistic, and originally poetic words of the all-too-biased-irrational-and-human writers off the Bible. If you get lost in THEIR words, it won't be long until you're barefoot and back in kitchen, waiting for another beating.



I have no idea why anyone but an atheist would be an evolutionist;

I don't recall even Darwin being an atheist. The only thing that atheism and evolution have in common is that people tend to come to them both as a matter of logic. The theory of evolution is a logical explanation. If religious dogma disagrees...religion be damned - it's not rational anyway.



Truth of God with the lie of evolution

A "truth" unsupported by logic or evidence, and a "lie" supported by both? Interesting twist.



All gods but the Biblical God are false gods.

Prove it. Don't use a circular argument. In fact, prove ANY god is real. Make one up if you have to [that would probably be better actually].

You're also making good use of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.



Most of the first modern major scientists were Christians who wished to discover God's creation.

The irony being, that their discoveries led to, among other things, the theory of evolution. Their methods were good. The book they put their faith in was ancient and rigid and not in any sigificant way connected to the ways in which the universe actually functions. It was inevitable that their use of the scientific method would increasingly contradict their book of faith.



It does matter because, yes, not believing in God is "an automatic ticket to hell."

Apparently not. Madfiddlr and any number of other scholars, Christian and otherwise, have devoted much time and effort in other threads to show that hellfire and damnation should not actually be part of Christianity.


Says who? LOL

Indeed. Given a complete lack of supporting evidence, perhaps someone who wrote long BEFORE Christ would be a better authority, based on the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition? Or someone who wrote long afterwards, assuming a greater basis of knowledge and therefore an appeal to authority fallacy? Where's the appeal to fact? Anyone...?

Theory of Evolution:
Evolution happens.
Selection happens.
Selection drives evolution.

Refute it now please. Try to avoid logical fallacies, especially "no true Scotsman".
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 171
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/1/2008 10:00:40 PM
Good point Frog Eyes, and isn't it funny how those that try so hard to slam evolution do usually end up to be extremists. One of their arguments is that God is perfect and he made all living creatures perfect.

Then I have to ask, why then do people breed animals to be even more perfect as I described in Msg 211? Why do people look for certain traits in others before we procreate with them? If everyone and everything is perfect then there is no need to look, the first person of the opposite sex to come along should do just fine.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 173
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/1/2008 10:42:30 PM


I have many, many times explained to readers of this thread that creationists believe that natural selection (and human directed selection) is true.

You have not explained what magical boundary exists that would prevent speciation once a genus had reached a point of development that precluded breeding with a less developed relative. Suppose I took your half-assed questions and kept breeding the milky cow or fast horse or efficient apple tree. Would I ultimately reach a population that could no longer interbreed with the undeveloped relatives? No? Why not? Yes? That's speciation.


Natural selection is NOT evolution. Horses don't turn into cows. Cats don't turn into dogs. This is magical thinking, not scientific thinking.

Here's someone who believes in supernatural forces running the world calling the rest of us unscientific. Science does not allow supernatural explanations, toots. Sorry, the only one here being unscientific is the one who's coming up with magic answers...you, that is.

No one states that orders change into one another overnight. That's just your ignorance and simplicity talking. Don't blame us for your that. You have to admit that microevolution is true because it's demonstrable. The sole reason it's demosntrable is that you can observe multiple generations occuring within a vert short period of time. If you could scale your timeframe to observe the same thing in longer-lived species, you'd observe the same effects. Your viewpoint is nonsense and it's only your own lack of intelligence that keeps you from seeing this.

Since you're asking questions, let me ask you one. Exactly what is it about the ToE that would falsify your god anyway? From where I stand, I see nothing in any science that disproves a god. Science may contradict your own baseless version of god but that's not anyone's fault but your own.

Grow up. Read science books and stop talking dumb.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 175
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/1/2008 11:30:32 PM

FrogO_Oeyes...I presume you're joking when referring to the above as the theory of evolution?

I can't tell, even when trying to take it in context with the rest of your post. Suffice to say it's a circular arguement itself.

No, and no.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory which uses one observed fact [selection] to explain a second observed fact [evolution]. This is part of the confusion from both sides of the argument. The theory doesn't say "evolution happens". That's a given. What it says is that natural selection drives it. The fact that organisms inherit traits and change over time was ancient history. So was the concept of natural selection. The problem came when the theory presented made it offensively obvious that man wasn't a miraculous special creation.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 178
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/2/2008 5:19:14 AM

I don't believe man was created from dirt. I personally believe every craft has it's craftsmen but we just do not know at this time who it is nor do humans possess the intelligence capability to even imagine and understand to true answer.


Show me the link, data or any other facts that support this idea.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 180
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/2/2008 8:51:28 AM

The bible teaches that god made man out of dirt.

Evolution demostrates that man evolved from less complex lifeforms over hundreds of millions of years through natural selection where the superior specimen wins out over the inferior one.

Very true, Singular Intellect. My point to ms. blinders was that her specific concept of god was too literal. But we see from her replies to other questions that she only takes the Bible literallywhen she finds it convenient. Note how she has made up the number of children Adam and Eve had out of whole cloth. Pretty typical of these people who believe an allegory to be fact but any fact not in the allegory can be made up such that the allegory is no longer factually wrong.

The really funny thing is how many of these ignorami argue against abiogenesis but cling desperately to the man from dust thingie. That's abiogenesis, too, but their thinking (such as it is) doesn't go that far.

So, we have book heavily eidted and redacted through history that these extremists rail that we should all believe beyond provable fact. On the other hand, we have a universe so intricate and large that we've only begun to study but the study has shown the Bible to be a fanciful tale, at best. Even if I believed in a god, it would be eminently logical to me to select the universe as the indicator of the nature of said god, not a badly-written book.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 184
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/2/2008 1:34:14 PM

Singular Intellect asked for "my" definition of the theory of evolution. But I'll take "his" definition!

So you were dissing the ToE without even knowing what it was? You must be a very popular dinner guest. Spouting ignorance travels well in Christian circles, I guess.
 GOGVEN
Joined: 10/1/2007
Msg: 186
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/2/2008 4:52:55 PM
Darwin’s Evolution and The Bible creationism come on people there has to be a middle point here.
Lets start that even the Pope has to agree that The Bible which is consider “the word of God” was not written by God or Jesus, it was written by men and hence prone to flaws. It was written and re-written many times and this is again prone to misinterpretations.

Now nearly 2000 years ago this book had to be written in a way that a mind with less knowledge of your average 3rd grader of today would understand (think Attila).
Could it be possible that God meant to create human kind by the process of evolution but it was a concept too complicated for the average person to understand?
I am not the most religious person in the world, but respect the fact that every person has freedom to believe any religion or just none at all. I will not call you names because of it just respect my view as well (don’t try to convert me).
 clarence clutterbuck
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 187
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/2/2008 5:00:22 PM
Just because different creatures can have certain 'sturctures' in common DOES NOT MEAN they are related, and DOES NOT CLEARLY SHOW them to be kin.
We can look at the scaly skin of lizards snakes etc, then look at the scaly skin of a leg or a chicken or bird. We can also look the same 'looking' skin on a fish with the scales removed. Certainly one could 'assume' that because of this similarity that these things 'could' be related, according to Darwinism. But there is NO ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE proving this claim. So what if crocodiles and birds have certain physical structures in commom. It does not PROVE anything, except to hard line evolutionists that cannot see past a fictional work or words. It may be a bible to some, but to others it is no more than the fiction it is.

What you are saying here is that the relationships that scientists are able to trace by studying ancient and modern animal species do not really exist. I wish you had gone into more detail because you are obviously in possession of some deep scientific knowledge that has escaped the rest of us. I would like to know how you explain the fossils of Archaeopteryx, a toothed, feathered creature that exhibits both bird like and dinosaur like features that make it a classic example of a transitional fossil. To quote a brief extract from Wikepedia:

Because it displays a number of features common to both birds and dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx has often been considered a link between them—possibly the first bird in its change from a land dweller to a bird. In the 1970s, John Ostrom, following T. H. Huxley's lead in 1868, argued that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx was a critical piece of evidence for this argument; it preserves a number of avian features, such as a wishbone, flight feathers, wings and a partially reversed first toe, and a number of dinosaur and theropod features. For instance, it has a long ascending process of the ankle bone, interdental plates, an obturator process of the ischium, and long chevrons in the tail. In particular, Ostrom found that Archaeopteryx was remarkably similar to the theropod family Dromaeosauridae.
The first remains of Archaeopteryx were discovered in 1861; just two years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Archaeopteryx seemed to confirm Darwin's theories and has since become a key piece of evidence in the origin of birds, transitional fossils debate and the confirmation of evolution. Indeed, further research on dinosaurs from the Gobi Desert and China has since provided more evidence of a link between Archaeopteryx and the dinosaurs, such as the Chinese feathered dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is close to the ancestry of modern birds, and it shows most of the features one would expect in an ancestral bird. However, it may not be the direct ancestor of living birds, and it is uncertain how much evolutionary divergence was already present among other birds at the time.

So although Archeopteryx may not be directly ancestral to birds, in the same way that Neanderthal man is not considered a direct human ancestor, it does represent an ancient bird-type animal with distinctly dinosaurian features that point to its reptilian ancestry. Also notable is the fact that birds lay eggs, just like their dinosaur ancestors. I'm not a scientist but this stuff looks like a smoking gun to me.

Evolutionary scientists with their deep knowledge of anatomy, recognise the relationships between species by examining fossils. You state that these observed relationships do not exist. I would like to know what you have to counter their hard earned expertise, beyond an amply demonstrated facility with the caps lock.
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 189
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/2/2008 9:07:59 PM
I see the wisdom of Solomon is back, lol, if you misinterpreted the bible as bad as our posts I can understand why your so confused about things.


The bible teaches that god made man out of dirt.


Dirt, primodial soup, whats the difference?

There are actually many parallels between the Bible and evolution, if you read both you will find them. For example, God created the heavens and the earth before he created light. In big bang theory there was no light for 350,ooo years. Perhaps the profits were smarter then some believe.


the fastest way to make an atheist is to get someone to read the bible.


The problem is that this, as has been said, is being taken to literally. Lets use another example....

Beautifullady said this..

Adam and Eve had many children over the hundreds of years that they lived. Cain's wife was his sister.


So literal in fact that people interject what they wish to fill in the missing pieces. Now if I were a man of the cloth I certainly wouldn’t want to believe that, and guess what, they don’t.
The Bible is a good book, but its not the only book, in fact many books that were once in the Bible are no longer there along with many passages which were removed for reasons of control. For example Genesis is incomplete in the fact that there was another woman before Eve. She was made from the same “Dirt” that Adam came from and she considered herself equal to Adam. Certainly women of today would appreciate that! Beautifullady would rather believe that the Bible indicates incest at this point, to which there is incest in the Bible, but not here. She would also give into the fact that the current version indicates superiority in men rather than the equality that she probably wants. So we can defer at this point, given the missing passages, that Cain’s wife was probably offspring of Lilith, the woman that came before Eve, who was removed from Genesis because in those times women were not considered equal. Not to mention the fact the she was evil herself.
If your going to study history you have to take into consideration the books of the bible, and regardless if your studying history or your an all out Bible believer, you have to consider the missing books as well, just ask any theologian.
The Bible is great in that it represents and records the beginnings of civilization. Before the words were written the stories were past down to each generation though story telling. Individuals were given charge to remember the stories past down from there elders from families to generations. Think about how that must have messed up the stories as they past down the line.
In each story there is myth mixed with fact, we can separate the two with our common sense and with the Bible we can peer back in time over 4000 years and more to the beginnings of recorded modern civilization.
We can even see in the book of Moses how we once recorded things on tablets of stone. Again, there were more than two tablets and more then ten commandments, just imagine what was left out and why...
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 194
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/3/2008 12:04:51 PM

Except the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory is a seperate theory that works within physics, not biology.


Talking about taking things to literally...
Yes you are right Superior Intellect, but you are also wrong. Biology cannot work without the elements that came from this science and these theorys. For your Superior mind I will change my words from the Bible and evolution to the Bible and science, since you need to be so literal.


This is a very old arguement. The bible is being taken to 'literally'. Well then, which parts are literal, and which parts aren't? What critieria is used to determine which passages are literal, and which ones aren't?


Well I suppose the criteria obviously wouldn't come from you, but I am rather sure most can. Unless your willing to believe that trumpets can bring down walls.

I am really surprised you didn't hit all the weak parts of my post, we are all waiting anxiously for your next rant and your attempt to stand on top of the mountain. I smell a hint of megalomania...
 clarence clutterbuck
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 196
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/3/2008 7:58:24 PM
^^^^^^
Humans did not evolve from any modern ape but share an ancient common ancestor with chimpanzees that is believed to have lived between five and seven million years ago. The evolutionary tree has many branches (represented by individual species), most of which are dead ends, (meaning the species has become extinct). Man, Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans happen to be the surviving representatives of the ape branches of the tree.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 198
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/3/2008 10:46:54 PM
^^^ Great post, quitejohn2.

I was holding my breath after Beautifulady accepted that definition of evolution to have all the other ignorami jump in on the obvious flaw. Although carefull crafted by Singular Intellect, it leaft a door open for the ignorant to try to wedge "superior" as somehow selected by a supernatural power over the "inferior". The stressors on a given population determien what is a "superior" trait over an "inferior" trait, nothing else. The "fittest" is not necessarily the strongest or the fastest or the smartest. I like to recall Gary Larson's cartoon of two dinosaurs laughing at a small wooly mammal.

At least Singular Intellect succeeded in getting one of the uneducated to take a fresh look at things. There really is no winning the debate as long as the prejudiced insist on finding a small crack in the semantics. As the saying goes, make a foolproof system and the universe will design a better fool.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 200
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/4/2008 7:47:08 AM
If the universe or should I say evolution will design a better fool, doesn't that contradict evolution ? Seeing that 'evolution' is supposed to make things evolve to a more superior state.


Nothing in the theory of evolution even suggest "things evolving to a superior state". This is a common misconception about the theory of evolution. It merely says that living things seem to adapt to fill a niche. This is why frequently species that aren't native to a confined area can be dangerous to indigenous species - some of them are better adapted for the niche that the indigenous species have carved and other indigenous species haven't had the opportunity to develop ways to feed on the foreign species weakness(or the niche that the foreign species existence provides).

As an abstract example suppose you wanted connect two pieces of wood together. Three methods "evolve" to do it - hammer&nail, screwdriver&screw and glue. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. If the world ran out of screws(and couldn't make anymore) the screwdriver would be useless for this application(thus would go extinct). If nails no longer existed the hammer would have limited use to hammer screws in, but would not compete well with the screwdriver. Glue might require a jig & extra time, but it also is more versatile. If all the screws and nails disappeared, glue would rule the day. So none of the methods are superior globally to the others, but in their niche they do well.

 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 202
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/4/2008 9:11:01 AM
Solomon, you keep missing the point. Entirely.

It's not about what's "more advanced" or what's "superior." It's about what survives better in its environment. If anything, bacteria are the "most advanced" lifeform on the planet, because they've had thousands or millions more generations to hone their survival traits.

Complexity has generally increased at the expense of diversity. But as soon as complexity becomes a liability, we're gone. *shrug*

You ARE at least TRYING to follow this, right?
 clarence clutterbuck
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 203
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/4/2008 10:47:07 AM
I'm sure there are many creatures which have similarities to others including the archaeopteryx. These evolutionary scientists can put together a very good argument about all these findings if you wish to believe their postulations.

I do believe the postulations of evolutionary biologists regarding the relatedness of species. Theirs is a long standing and developed field of science with 150 years of archeological discovery and research. It is no less an advanced field of science than that which has given us computers, TV's modern medicine and men on the moon. To deny the veracity of learned paleontological judgements would be like denying the "assumptions" of forensic science that frequently put criminals in jail nowadays. It would be a wilful refusal to connect A, B and C.

To take my example of archaeopteryx; here we have an animal that comes from rock strata in which no modern birds are found, yet this animal displays both dinosaurian and birdlike features, including teeth, a long lizardy tail, a wishbone (like a bird), and FEATHERS, no less. Now I don't personally have the expertise of a zoologist, but even to my eye, these anatomical features make the case for birds having originated from dinosaurs irrefutable.

Modern techniques of molecular biology add weight to the dinosaur/bird affinity. You mentioned in an earlier post, the findings of Mary Schweitzer, whose examination of soft tissue in a 68 million year old T Rex bone, confirmed the similarity of its proteins to those found in chickens. Here we have modern science corroborating what researchers first deduced when archaeopteryx was unearthed in the 19th century. What's not to believe, I say?

As I've stated, I know there is a certain amount of evolving within species or genera. And working on the logic they use for the evolution idea is a very logical assumption. But still remains an assumption.

Personally I don't have problems with the assumption that 2+2 = 4 and not 5. These are the kind of assumptions we are talking about here, when you review the ever growing mountain of internally consistent evidence.

And those who wish to believe that their ancestors swung from the trees, may believe what they wish.
But there is still too much evidence missing to convincingly argue the case properly.

Tree climbing ability must be a very cool and useful trait to have if you live in a forested environment. Don't knock it!
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 206
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/4/2008 1:24:38 PM
They also claim to be the highest evolved animal, and superior to all other animals because of their intellect.This is what I am led to believe. Evolutionist are claiming this not me.


No one that understands evolution would ever make that statement. I think most religions preach that man is God special creation and therefore is superior to any other creator. From this belief they infer that man must be the most evolved creator, if evolution hold true. Again its a misconception THEY have about evolution.


In other words are you superior to a fish or not and why ?


I'm superior to a fish at riding a bicycle, but I sure wouldn't want to try to out swim one.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 209
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/4/2008 3:29:29 PM
You didn't answer my question about the animals, native vs non.


Let me answer your question with a couple of examples. When the Spanish Conquistador invaded the Aztecs, many feel that even without superior weapons the Spanish Conquistador would have prevailed because they had immunity to many of the diseases that had swept through Europe and they still habored. These diseases(which represent a rapid change the Aztec environment) devastated the Aztecs. Had the Aztecs had sufficient time(many would have died in the process) they also would have developed immunities. They didn't have the time, so they couldn't endure the disease. The Spanish were not more evolved, their bodies just had the time to adapt.

On an island where there aren't reptiles to eat bird eggs, birds might hatch their eggs on the ground. Introduce snakes and/or lizards that love to eat bird eggs, those birds will not have time to adapt and will probably go extinct. Are birds that lay eggs in trees more "evolved"? Nope! Having nest in trees probably has more risks than having nest on the ground, that is unless there are snakes and lizards running around.

My example of joining to pieces of wood was not supposed to be a dissertation on how this can be accomplished, so yes there are more ways to join wood. It was meant to be an example about adaptation, environment and evolution.
 o76923
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 210
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/4/2008 5:55:04 PM

That's easy: If man evolved from Apes, then why are there still Apes?

The same reason there are still Europeans since Americans came from Europe.
 o76923
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 211
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/5/2008 12:42:47 AM
You can actually see a few decent examples over the long term. Honey Bees in the united states are an invasive species. Bunny rabbits are invasive in Australia. And Japanese beetles are an invasive species in the midwest. Right now, 2 out of three are destroying the regions they are in (Australia is so bad they've used a 20k mile wall and a genetically engineered disease to fight them, both have failed). The other one, well we have honey for now anyway.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 212
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/5/2008 6:13:47 AM
RE msg 257 by quietcowboy:
Nothing in the theory of evolution even suggest "things evolving to a superior state". This is a common misconception about the theory of evolution. It merely says that living things seem to adapt to fill a niche. This is why frequently species that aren't native to a confined area can be dangerous to indigenous species - some of them are better adapted for the niche that the indigenous species have carved and other indigenous species haven't had the opportunity to develop ways to feed on the foreign species weakness(or the niche that the foreign species existence provides).
I agree wholeheartedly. However, the problem is NOT with non-evolutionists. The problem is in the theory itself, because the theory describes that favourable inherited characteristics will become more dominant over time, and the concept of favourability is that things evolve into a superior state. As a result, examples of evolution are described by evolutionists in ways that imply superiority to previous species.

It is possible to describe evolution without favourability. However, to do that, we would have to state evolution in such a way that would make it impractical to make proper predictions with our current set of tools.

As an abstract example suppose you wanted connect two pieces of wood together. Three methods "evolve" to do it - hammer&nail, screwdriver&screw and glue. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. If the world ran out of screws(and couldn't make anymore) the screwdriver would be useless for this application(thus would go extinct). If nails no longer existed the hammer would have limited use to hammer screws in, but would not compete well with the screwdriver. Glue might require a jig & extra time, but it also is more versatile. If all the screws and nails disappeared, glue would rule the day. So none of the methods are superior globally to the others, but in their niche they do well.
This is a perfect example. No-one would say that any one of these methods is better than the other. So when we study the development of these 3 methods, we cannot use an evolutionary process to describe them. It won't fit.

RE msg 265 by quietcowboy:
No one that understands evolution would ever make that statement. I think most religions preach that man is God special creation and therefore is superior to any other creator. From this belief they infer that man must be the most evolved creator, if evolution hold true. Again its a misconception THEY have about evolution.
I understand that there are many people who believe that religions preach that man is superior to other species. However, there is nothing at all in religion to imply that. That concept only ever existed because the people who learned about evolution believed that man is superior to other species, and so they simply assumed that such a concept would be part of religion too. It is not.

There is a fundamental belief in our society that what comes later must be an improvement of what came before. If any idea must be debunked, it is that idea, and that if it has a place in our thinking, that it needs to be described accurately. However, then one can no longer say that "primitive civilisations believed in religion, because they didn't know about science", because that implies a superiority as well.

Basically, our basic understanding of evolution and of why we might choose to accept science rather than religion falls apart, the minute we take this assumption out.

RE msg 271 by o76923:

Thanks for the comments on the other thread about evolution. I read the replies to my posts and realised what my answers would be. But I took a few days off and I didn't want to get caught back into the replies and end up not having my days off. When I was thinking of posting my replys, one of the mods (who I think is a cool mod) already closed the thread, and I didn't want to violate forum rules just to post my reply. Just thought you might like to know.


That's easy: If man evolved from Apes, then why are there still Apes?
The same reason there are still Europeans since Americans came from Europe.
So Americans have favourable inherited characteristics? Then I suggest that you look again. Those European characteristics are quickly dying out in our new Global Economy.

It might be better if you state the reason. It might also be better if you show how it applies to the entire chronology of all known species in the evolutionary timescale, as that will answer any possible questions on it. But I know that is a lot. Personally, I would call such an idea a theory all on its own, that needs to be proved for every species that we know of, and that needs to be re-proved for each new species discovered. That seems quite a lot to me.

I agree there could be plenty of reasons for why indigenous species remain in the presence of dominant invasive species. But they need to be properly described, tested, and rejected, until a theory that is reasonably consistent with the data can be described. Since we know of 1.5 million species just in the present day, let alone all the extinct ones, it's a bit unfair to not test it for at least 0.1% of the known species, and that is far more than 15, 000 species. So you can see my problem.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 213
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/5/2008 6:22:03 AM

We do not fully understand the mechanism of evolution which is why it’s still a theory. Why does one animal suddenly develop into another and move from adaptation to evolution.


Animals don't suddenly develop into another animal and please review itstoohot's explanation of what a scientific theory is. We really do understand the mechanism behind evolution.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 214
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/5/2008 11:23:13 AM
RE msg 274 by andyaa:
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Sherlock Holmes, The Blanched Soldier

So if creation is impossible all that remains is evolution, all we need to do is find out the mechanism.
Thanks for the quote. I heard it was from Mr Spock. But that is a much better source. Sherlock Holmes is a hero of mine.

I do like your description of monosomies and trisomies. Nice quotes from Wikipedia. Be even nicer if you quoted your sources, so we can look them up. That way we can rely on the evidence.

However, there are 2 problems with your hypothesis:

1) If creation is impossible, then the rest, one of the theories other than creation, including the billions of theories that have never been discussed, or even thought of, become the truth. So if you can prove beyond doubt that every possible origin theory cannot be true either, including the billions of theories that have never been discussed, or even thought of, other than evolution, and that NONE of the arguments that disprove all of those billions of theories disprove evolution in any way, then we can say that only evolution is left, and so evolution must be true. But we need to say all that, BEFORE we can state that a lack of valid creationism would leave us with evolution.

2) For us to state that creationism is impossible, then we must decduce that there is a 100% proof that makes it impossible for creation to ever occur. Even if we find that the probability of creation is 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, that is still improbable, not impossible, and by your quote, it could still be the truth.

This statement actually shows us that although right now, many people see creationism as unbelievably improbable, and evolution as highly probable, we cannot ignore it, because the highly improbable still often turns out to be the truth, too often for us to ignore.

RE msg 278 by quietjohn2:

No-one would say that any one of these methods is better than the other (referring to attaching pieces of wood)
But one IS superior in specific circumstances, therefore all survive.
The point that quietcowboy made, was that things do NOT evolve to a superior state, because things are NOT superior, just because they are more adapted to fit a particular niche. So nothing is superior in specific circumstances.

Further, just because ANY particular method for attaching pieces of wood happens to be more advantageous than others in a particular set of circumstances, doesn't mean that it will be used in those circumstances anyway. Even if it would, there is no reason to suppose that all the circumstances in which each method will be more advantageous will exist in the first place. That requires proving for each method anyway.

Betamax is an example. It was better than VHS. But it never took hold at all.

Anyway, Darwin said that it wasn't the species that was stronger, or smarter, or fitter, or best adapted to its environment that survives, but it is the species that is the quickest to adapt. The first new product on the block that takes hold, usually dominates everything else. Only if other methods have a large group of diehard fans, do we find that the alternatives continue. Even then, like Betamax, they still might not survive. What we need to realise, is that just like VHS, the first product to take hold, can often be far more flawed than other methods. It might even be so flawed that it can drive our developments to use that method into extinction, and this has happened sometimes in product development, simply because the first method took hold, all the other methods were dropped, and then the first method was just not capable of supporting our needs for that product in the long run, so it was dropped, sometimes in favour of an alternative, sometimes dropped with no alternative.

And all may be present in a single construction, making them each essential and mutually beneficial.
Again, it COULD all be present in a single construction. But invariably it is not. It tends to be very impractical to use multiple different methods in a single product. It gets very, very confusing to use lots of different methods for the same task. Plus, each method requires certain criteria that are often harmful to other methods. So in general, it becomes much more common in practice for ONE method to be used, again and again, even when it is very inefficient for certain tasks, and even when it is the most inefficient method, just because the product started that way, and it was just easier to keep using the same methods, rather than make different parts of the same methods use different methods, which end up being all incompatible and requiring massive workarounds to get them to connect safely. This is why you will often find that programming applications use the same grossly inefficient methods right through an application. The first programmer started with a very bad method, and it was much easier to keep using the same method, because trying to use a new method would make so many problems that you'd need to rewrite the whole application, and that would far cost more time, effort and testing, than each new subsequent development was worth.

It isn't just about one thing in one circumstance, it's also about how everything fits together.
That is the whole point. A bad system, which uses really bad methods, usually fits together much better in reality than good methods, because nothing starts out perfect, and usually with very bad methods, and then you'd have to scratch the whole system and start from scratch, just to use the good methods without causing hosts of problems with the interconnectedness and interdependency of the system.

In an ecological system which has no intelligent designer, there is no memory, so there doesn't appear to be anything to retain the new methods over the old, and so if the old extremely poor methods were used first, there is nothing to stop those methods being used again, or even worse methods.

That is why we need tools to predict chaotic systems. Otherwise, we are just out of luck to determine which methods might be used, and why.


It is possible to describe evolution without favourability. However, to do that, we would have to state evolution in such a way that would make it impractical to make proper predictions with our current set of tools.
I suspect the problem is more related to what happens to the unfavorable - or the distaste of some for the possible ancestors they inherit from the evolutionary idea.
The only distaste that might occur is to people who might be uncomfortable with the idea that their ancestors were other species, which might be similar to monkeys. As humans, monkeys, donkeys, ameoba, and all other species would be G-d's creation to a monotheistic creationist, it is no different saying that your father is a monkey, than your father is a human. They are all G-d's creations and so to G-d, one is not necessarily better than another. So in reality, it is not religion that would find such an idea distasteful. It is a xenophobic idea to find the idea that humans are not descended from other species as distasteful.

However, by the same logic, it would also be a product of the human need to feel they are in control of their own lives to find it distasteful to suggest that we are NOT created by a divine being, but by a process that is unaffected by our actions, because if we are created by a divine being, then we might be able to be un-created similarly, and that means that our continued existence is determined by such a divine being, which means that our lives are dependent on the choice of such a divine being, and not by our own choice, so we would then NOT be in control of our own existence.

What sort of predictions are you talking about?
Any prediction of what we would expect to find given the theory, that would then be testable by evidence. Whether that evidence is found after the predictions are made, such as in Quantum Theory and in Relativity, or that the evidence already existed and was recorded before the predictions were made, such as in Newtonian heliocentrism, is moot. What is vital, is to define the theory, and then to calculate exactly what species we would expect to see, and when, and which species we would expect to find evolved from other species, and which species we expect to have not evolved, based on the theory independent of the evidence, as that would be predictions of the theory. Only once we have such predictions, can we compare it to existing evidence and evidence yet to be found. However, those theories depend on environmental factors, on mutations, and other factors, which would interact in a way that would make such a system to be chaotic in nature. So we are talking about chaotic systems. Currently, we don't have the kind of tools that enable us to make lots of accurate predictions within chaotic systems, and often we don't know how to make any such predictions at all.

That is not the fault of science. But unless we have the tools to make accurate predictions from chaotic systems, we just aren't in a position to develop accurate testable hypotheses. We will have to make assumptions that the theory is true, and then work backwards to work out how the evidence is explained by the theory. That process only works once we've proved the theory and to do that, we need the predictions, independent of the evidence, in the first place.

There has been plenty of experimental/accidental evidence of organisms evolving.
We cannot state that something exists, without first defining what it is. This thread's topic is defining the theory of evolution in the first place. So we cannot state that evolution exists within the context of this thread at all. So stating that evolution is already true, is trying to tie the topic under discussion to your personal definition. That is completely hijacking the thread.

Please remember, I am NOT trying to just prove evolution is worthless. I am just applying critical reasoning to evolution, because it is obvious to me that certain axioms underlying evolution are true, and they can explain our origins and the way our bodies function. However, it occurs to me that if we take those ideas and we combine them in an inconsistent fashion, that appears to be consistent at first glance, but is inconsistent upon examination using critical reasoning, then we will come to seriously incorrect conclusions about both the origins of humanity and about how the body works, which will lead us to apply treatments that also seem to be very successful at first glance, but will equally well cause extremely harmful side-effects later on. These side-effects are not unforeseen. They are simply consequences of not understanding the processes of the body in the first place, because we made incorrect assumptions based on theories that overstepped the boundaries of what we know to be true.

So we need to look at evolution with a fresh eye, as thought we never heard of it, and as though we believe it to be 100% false, and only work with what stands up to the highest scrutiny, that being the scrutiny of those who believe evolution to be false in every way.

In "Quest for Love", which deals with the quantum theory of multiverses, the sceptic is described as the friend of the scientist. I caution that we should not ignore our friends.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >