Evolution and Science

[editec]

Here's everything you need to defend the concept of evolution


3D Game of Life

 

[Unkotare]

On the Origin of Species : Charles Darwin | Paperback | 9781402789595 | Bookish.com

Ernst Mayr - Alibris Marketplace

Amazon.com: Stephen Jay Gould: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle



Arguements for.


Your arguements against?

Who are you asking?

 

[Vikrant]

On the Origin of Species, I will highly recommend this book to anyone. It does not matter whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, it is worth a read.

 

[Unkotare]

On the Origin of Species, I will highly recommend this book to anyone. It does not matter whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, it is worth a read.

Interesting, but not exactly a page-turner.

 

[westwall]

It is hard sometimes to understand the modern arguments against science, ...

Are arguments against specific theories and conclusions "arguments against science" or are they scientific arguments?

By what seems to be your standard, most scientists throughout history have been "against science" at one point or in one way or another.

Scientific arguements use science, not pseudo-science.

That's true. So why do climatologists refuse to give measurable predictions? Why do they take both sides of every argument? Why is everything they say untestable? Climatology as it stands now is the very essence of a pseudo-science.

 

[westwall]

On the Origin of Species, I will highly recommend this book to anyone. It does not matter whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, it is worth a read.

As Unkotare says, interesting but not a page turner. I prefer the works by Wallace...

"The Malay Archipelago" and "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection" plus "The Geographical Distribution of Animals" and "Tropical Nature, and Other Essays" are must reads.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are arguments against specific theories and conclusions "arguments against science" or are they scientific arguments?

By what seems to be your standard, most scientists throughout history have been "against science" at one point or in one way or another.

Scientific arguements use science, not pseudo-science.

That's true. So why do climatologists refuse to give measurable predictions? Why do they take both sides of every argument? Why is everything they say untestable? Climatology as it stands now is the very essence of a pseudo-science.

So why do you continue to lie?

 

[westwall]

Scientific arguements use science, not pseudo-science.

That's true. So why do climatologists refuse to give measurable predictions? Why do they take both sides of every argument? Why is everything they say untestable? Climatology as it stands now is the very essence of a pseudo-science.

So why do you continue to lie?

Show me one statement I made that's a lie oltrakartrollingblunderifitzmepmzabraham3fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I guess you guys read the books noted above on evolution over the weekend. Of course you didn't, ignorance of science today is as American as apple pie, it is the reason our technology is made in other countries and even China has a more advanced rail system. Odd that communists now make your technology toys and even advanced tools.

Once one is infected with the Progressive virus, and is willing to accept a definition of 'science' as 'consensus,' 'science' is no more than some incantation to support ideology, and silence critics of fashionable assumptions.

Progressive science is what gave us eugenics.....

Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, writing in "Hereditary Genius," concluded that particular families produced an inordinate number of high achievers. Similar reasoning was applied to races. It was Galton who coined the term "eugenics," which promotes a consideration of the survival of different races.

Galton wrote "there exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race."
Haller, "Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought," p. 11.




Take off the blinders, middy.

 

[midcan5]

As E.O. Wilson says in the talk linked below, 'science is not conducted by polls.' This is an excellent piece if you have time. I listened to around minute 50 where the question session begins. For a profound thought listen between min 30 and 50. Group versus individual (kin) is a idea that has finally run its course and one has won - per Wilson. Min 44-46 may whet your curiosity.

Edward O. Wilson “The Social Conquest of Earth”

Edward O. Wilson 'The Social Conquest of Earth' - FORA.tv

While evolution removes uniqueness from the human species, it provides the only means to understand life and for medical science to understand how life works. Some will always deny it but science moves forward and argument is useless.

The thinking of some in America who doubt all science is well covered in the book noted below. It details the 'doubt market,' a market paid well by corporations.

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' by Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway

 

[Vikrant]

In the first edition of "The Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.

The idea didn''t go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.

Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal: instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamuses.

The story of the origin of whales is one of evolution's most fascinating tales and one of the best examples scientists have of natural selection.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence | LiveScience

 

[Vikrant]

Even though scientists could predict what early whales should look like, they lacked the fossil evidence to back up their claim. Creationists took this absence as proof that evolution didn't occur. They mocked the idea that there could have ever been such a thing as a walking whale. But since the early 1990s, that's exactly what scientists have been finding.

The smoking gun came in 1994, when paleontologists found the fossilized remains of Ambulocetus natans, an animal whose name literally means "swimming-walking whale." Its forelimbs had fingers and small hooves but its hind feet were enormous given its size. It was clearly adapted for swimming but it was also capable of moving clumsily on land, much like a seal.

When it swam, the ancient creature moved like an otter, pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its spine and tail.

Modern whales propel themselves through the water with powerful beats of their horizontal tail flukes but Ambulocetus still had a whip-like tail and had to use its legs to provide most of the propulsive force needed to move through water.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence | LiveScience

 

[Unkotare]

Even though scientists could predict what early whales should look like, they lacked the fossil evidence to back up their claim. Creationists took this absence as proof that evolution didn't occur. They mocked the idea that there could have ever been such a thing as a walking whale. But since the early 1990s, that's exactly what scientists have been finding.

The smoking gun came in 1994, when paleontologists found the fossilized remains of Ambulocetus natans, an animal whose name literally means "swimming-walking whale." Its forelimbs had fingers and small hooves but its hind feet were enormous given its size. It was clearly adapted for swimming but it was also capable of moving clumsily on land, much like a seal.

When it swam, the ancient creature moved like an otter, pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its spine and tail.

Modern whales propel themselves through the water with powerful beats of their horizontal tail flukes but Ambulocetus still had a whip-like tail and had to use its legs to provide most of the propulsive force needed to move through water.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence | LiveScience

And sometimes they come on to shore, tell people their name is Michael Moore, and make BS propaganda 'documentaries.'

 

[Unkotare]

Actually, whales are pretty amazing.




And delicious.

 

[Vikrant]

Even a very simple design (intellient) takes into the consideration interoperability of various parts that make up a system. Keeping that in mind, I ask, why do we have multiple blood types which actually restricts blood transfusion to and from certain types? An intelligent design would have made sure that we have only one blood type. This is just one of many examples that can be used to challenge the theory of intelligent design. The fact is that the design of bio machine that we are is far from perfect and unless you want to imply that God is a lousy engineer, I think it is better not to get carried away with this intelligent design thing.

Once we start getting into the idea of creator who created this universe then a question can be asked who created the creator of the universe? The only answer is that the creator was always here. Well in that case, we can also say that the universe was always here. It did not need a creator.

I almost never allow myself to get bogged down in this debate of Creation vs Evolution. The best answer is that we do not know why we are here. We are working on digging the mystery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even though scientists could predict what early whales should look like, they lacked the fossil evidence to back up their claim. Creationists took this absence as proof that evolution didn't occur. They mocked the idea that there could have ever been such a thing as a walking whale. But since the early 1990s, that's exactly what scientists have been finding.

The smoking gun came in 1994, when paleontologists found the fossilized remains of Ambulocetus natans, an animal whose name literally means "swimming-walking whale." Its forelimbs had fingers and small hooves but its hind feet were enormous given its size. It was clearly adapted for swimming but it was also capable of moving clumsily on land, much like a seal.

When it swam, the ancient creature moved like an otter, pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its spine and tail.

Modern whales propel themselves through the water with powerful beats of their horizontal tail flukes but Ambulocetus still had a whip-like tail and had to use its legs to provide most of the propulsive force needed to move through water.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence | LiveScience

"There was no straight-line march of terrestrial mammals leading up to fully aquatic whales,....

Studies coming out of the field of molecular biology conflicted with the conclusion of the paleontologists that whales had evolved from mesonychids, however. When the genes and amino acid sequences of living whales were compared with those of other mammals, the results often showed that whales were most closely related to artiodactyls—even-toed ungulates like antelope, pigs, and deer. Even more surprising was that comparisons of these proteins used to determine evolutionary relationships often placed whales within the Artiodactyla as the closest living relatives to hippos."
How Did Whales Evolve? | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

 

[rdean]

Wow, the things these right wingers say about science. It's truly blows my mind. Where did they get this stuff. I love reading the posts just for the entertainment value and the belly laughs.

 

[Vikrant]

I think the point quite a few people seem to miss is that theory of evolution is a work in progress. In the very beginning of his book, Darwin mentions that this is an abstract work. It requires significant amount of work to fix the errors and patch the remaining holes.

The vigor with which some people dismiss evolution is quite disturbing. When we oppress knowledge because it does not fit into our religious views then we venture into the world of darkness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think the point quite a few people seem to miss is that theory of evolution is a work in progress. In the very beginning of his book, Darwin mentions that this is an abstract work. It requires significant amount of work to fix the errors and patch the remaining holes.

The vigor with which some people dismiss evolution is quite disturbing. When we oppress knowledge because it does not fit into our religious views then we venture into the world of darkness.

1. "The vigor with which some people dismiss evolution is quite disturbing."


Actually, you have it completely reversed.

No one......none, that I am aware of.....dismiss evolution.

What is being revealed is the hate, the inordinate emotion evinced by those who have dismissed anything but a material explanation for the world, the universe.


They become vituperative in a way that religious folks do not, if one questions any aspect of their dogma.




2. "I think the point quite a few people seem to miss is that theory of evolution is a work in progress."

This is a reasonable approach, and one which ends the debate.


Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God.

Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith.

Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).

And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.



3. The anger at those who disagree, or do not fall in line, can only be compared to other materialist doctrines, such as Marxism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow, the things these right wingers say about science. It's truly blows my mind. Where did they get this stuff. I love reading the posts just for the entertainment value and the belly laughs.

"Wow, the things these right wingers say about science."

Were you referring to science, or to evolution?