The Theory of Evolution

[geauxtohell]

Sorry, but the analogy wasn't talking about metal replicating, and you know it. It was talking about looking at something clearly engineered and concocting a theory about it being created by random accident. And we both know it, so running off down a "metal doesn't replicate" tangent is just cowardly avoidance of the point.

If you don't understand why self replication (and metal's inability to do it) is central to this issue, you are truly lost.

If you don't understand that no one was saying metal replicates, you're a moron. If you do understand it and you're still babbling about it anyway, you're a disingenuous poltroon.

Take your pick.

From the onset of this thread, you've contributed little but name calling and insults, even to those who have tried to discuss the manner reasonably with you.

As I said, I don't mind the debate as long as it's genuine. It's obvious that the issue of evolution makes you an angry person. Obviously, this issue frightens you.

I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse, but I'll spell this out for you one time. Everyone else (even the skeptics) seem to have gotten it. The fact that it is so obvious and you are still denying it leads me to suspect that you will simply reject anything on it's face that has to do with this.

For evolution to work, there needs to be a mechanism to pass on genetic code to offspring. In the process of a life span, genetic code is modified. When two genetically different people produce a child, it is genetically distinct from it's parents. Occasionally there are mutations (i've already listed one mutation that is absolutely devastating for homozygous persons that requires the modification of one base pair) and they are passed on through out history if they aren't too deleterious. The sum of several mutations (microevolution) leads to novel phenotypes (macroevolution) that create distinct and novel species. Underlying all of this is the cells ability to mutate.

Metal is an element. Elements don't have DNA. Elements don't self replicate. So elements don't accumulate mutations and become "new elements".

It's an absurd analogy.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh, Christ. Wikipedia again. This is what education has come to in America. I swear, you are proof that humans are DEVOLVING rather than evolving. Any minute now, your opposable thumbs are going to disappear.

Than embarrassing it must be for you that he was in correct.

You're right, he WAS incorrect, although I have to point out that that is just one word.

Considering we are talking about the emergence of new species here, and the anti-evolution crowd's penchant for playing semantic games, nomenclature is important.

 

[rdean]

that's why i lack patience for their arguments. they are ignorant...ignore all scientific methodology and try to equate theology with biology.

I don't mind the arguement, as long as it's genuine.

However, you rarely find that with people who want to argue against evolution. Usually there is an ulterior motive.

It says a lot to me that people constantly have to crook the facts and data to try and take down evolutionary theories.

Why does one have to assume that Charles Darwin was 100% correct and that people who believe that God or another intelligent being, created life or even the universe have to be 100% incorrect. I have always believed that Charles Darwin was at least partially correct when he presented his theory and that there is room for "expansion" of the theory.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation despite what the church proclaims.

For instance, I find it hard to believe that a dog can become a whale, or was it supposed to be the other way around? But, I can find daily evidence of dogs and cats having been bred into different species; still dogs and cats just not the same breed.

I always struggle with the abiogenesis theory because to me it takes more faith to believe that then to believe that God started all of this, but who says God didn't start it all and set evolution into motion? IF God did create it all, we know he had to include all the other scientific laws such as gravity so why is it so hard to believe that he put evolution into motion as well?

Immie

Note: I'm not stating that you assume such, geauxtohell, just posing the question.

What about lions and tigers being able to breed. Or horses and donkeys. Of course, the offspring isn't quite "right". Because of our understanding of genetics, we can pinpoint when they began to "drift" from the oringinal species which is why the genetics don't line up correctly. Ain't science grand?

 

[geauxtohell]

I love this kind of debate...

I remember my biology teacher debating Darwin´s theory with a, well kind of, christian extremist. She was quite eloquent, but her argument went pretty much down to:
"I do not have to prove my theory, I want you to prove yours and then make holes out of the weak spots.."

And that is my problem with the creationist crowd (which is the bulk of the anti-evolution crowd), they don't propose any viable alternative and just argue the negative.

They then insist you provide them with documentation, which they just ignore.

It's silly. Furthermore, it's not like evolution is an obscure science. They could buy a library card or go to google and spend a year studying it if they really cared too.

It's a silly stall tactic that is annoying. Thus, I don't engage in it when I suspect posters are being hacks.

 

[geauxtohell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

Ooh, YouTube. THAT puts me in my place even better than Wikipedia, you mad scientific genius, you.

Do you even know who tyson is- or who any of the people in the audience are?

SA Distinguished Public Service Medal. His contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos have been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid "13123 Tyson". On the lighter side, Tyson was voted "Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" by People Magazine in 2000.

Tyson is the first occupant of the Frederick P. Rose Directorship of the Hayden Planetarium.

Home | Neil deGrasse Tyson

That's why it's pointless to run cecelle's academic errands. Her best retort towards your grunt work was "that was long and boring", "wikipedia! You moron! (though you were correct and she/he was wrong), and "youtube! how dare you insult me like that!".

Like I said, there are people that will debate this issue honestly and consider the facts.

She just isn't one of them.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't mind the arguement, as long as it's genuine.

However, you rarely find that with people who want to argue against evolution. Usually there is an ulterior motive.

It says a lot to me that people constantly have to crook the facts and data to try and take down evolutionary theories.

Why does one have to assume that Charles Darwin was 100% correct and that people who believe that God or another intelligent being, created life or even the universe have to be 100% incorrect. I have always believed that Charles Darwin was at least partially correct when he presented his theory and that there is room for "expansion" of the theory.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation despite what the church proclaims.

For instance, I find it hard to believe that a dog can become a whale, or was it supposed to be the other way around? But, I can find daily evidence of dogs and cats having been bred into different species; still dogs and cats just not the same breed.

I always struggle with the abiogenesis theory because to me it takes more faith to believe that then to believe that God started all of this, but who says God didn't start it all and set evolution into motion? IF God did create it all, we know he had to include all the other scientific laws such as gravity so why is it so hard to believe that he put evolution into motion as well?

Immie

Note: I'm not stating that you assume such, geauxtohell, just posing the question.

What about lions and tigers being able to breed. Or horses and donkeys. Of course, the offspring isn't quite "right". Because of our understanding of genetics, we can pinpoint when they began to "drift" from the oringinal species which is why the genetics don't line up correctly. Ain't science grand?

Actually, I did not know lions and tigers could be bred together successfully but it doesn't surprise me.

What about it? Lions are big cats... Tigers are big cats. Horses are equine... donkeys are equine?

It is not like lions are cats and tigers are mutts... er sorry dog lovers.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

Why does one have to assume that Charles Darwin was 100% correct and that people who believe that God or another intelligent being, created life or even the universe have to be 100% incorrect. I have always believed that Charles Darwin was at least partially correct when he presented his theory and that there is room for "expansion" of the theory.

In fact, he wasn't 100% correct. Not even close. Having not discovered Mendal's work, his mechanism for inheritance was really silly.

The theory of evolution has constantly been in flux (without being radically changed) in the last 150 years. There are still holes in the theory, their is still plenty of room for improvement.

Furthermore, as I've stated earlier, anyone who takes evolution to address the existance or non-existance of a supernatural entity has automatically stepped outside of the scope of the theory. Science is moot on the existence of the supernatural.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation despite what the church proclaims.

For instance, I find it hard to believe that a dog can become a whale, or was it supposed to be the other way around? But, I can find daily evidence of dogs and cats having been bred into different species; still dogs and cats just not the same breed.

I always struggle with the abiogenesis theory because to me it takes more faith to believe that then to believe that God started all of this, but who says God didn't start it all and set evolution into motion? IF God did create it all, we know he had to include all the other scientific laws such as gravity so why is it so hard to believe that he put evolution into motion as well?

Immie

Note: I'm not stating that you assume such, geauxtohell, just posing the question.

I am not an athiest. I also accept evolution. That means that, logically, I have to accept some form of ID. However, here is where I differ from the ID proponents. I accept that the scientific method makes no provisions for the existence of the unquantifiable (like God), so that question is philosophical and not scientific. It doesn't belong in the science classroom.

 

[geauxtohell]

Accept the fossil record? Accept WHAT about the fossil record? Please point out to me this apocryphal fossil evidence for evolution. So far, all I've seen is you saying, "The fossil record proves it. There, it exists." Your word for it just about constitutes proof that you believe it, in my eyes. It doesn't prove jack in the way of actual truth.

Things change, ergo things change into other things. Is that your idea of "mountains of evidence"?

Microevolution and macroevolution are not two parts of the same thing. They're two totally different things, and if I had seen pennies and merely been told by doofuses on the Internet that dollars exist - doofuses who couldn't give me one shred of a reason to believe them - you're damned right I'd say that I believe in pennies and not in dollars.

You're gonna have to do better than this or stop claiming there are "mountains of evidence". If a mountain exists, you should at least be able to show it to me on a map, if not produce some pictures of you on vacation there.

The fossil record provides an "A to B" map of evolution. You reject it, that's fine. The overwhelming majority of scientists, let alone biologists, disagree with you.

No, it doesn't. Read the quotes I provided. Even evolutionary scientists don't claim that the fossil record provides any such thing. If it did, you'd be able to provide the proof I keep asking for, instead of just saying, "You don't agree, that's fine. But you're wrong." Didn't they ever teach you in school to show, not tell? Stop telling me I'm wrong and SHOW ME that I'm wrong. That, or admit that you can't.

You keep saying "show me this" and "show me that" and when posters actually take the time to cite articles, you flippantly dismiss them. Again, you'll understand if I am not eager to do a fool's errand. I know you already have your mind made up on the matter and are not going to change it.

Yeah, I keep saying it, and you keep saying, "That's a fool's errand. You're just wrong, and that's it."

Cite WHAT articles? Who has cited any articles, or anything at all other than Prole citing Wikipedia and YouTube? Are you seriously telling me that the best evidence you can come up with on the entire Internet to support evolution is WIKIPEDIA? Seriously?

And I love that whole "You won't believe me, so I'm not going to prove it. You're just wrong, and that's it" line. The classic retort of someone who can't prove it. YOU are the reason my mind is made up: because if evolution was true, it would have better defenders than disingenuous twits who run and hide the first time they're challenged.

You lose.

You mean the "quote-mined" quotes you provided?

Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes
Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes

Gee is one of the most oft "quote-mined" scientists that anti-evos use. In fact, when you google the quote, the first link is the laughable "Genesis Park".

Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny in the Fossil Record

Gee accepts the fossil record. He is just arguing the nuance of certain aspects of it.

Furthermore, no one says that the fossil record "proves" evolution. Just that it's strong evidence for it.

At any rate, like Behe, you can find dissident scientists that will argue anything. The more important issue is that the overwhelming majority of scientists do accept the fossil record. Thus, "scientific consensus" trumps any few people you can dredge up to support your point (even if they don't really support it).

 

[Immanuel]

However, here is where I differ from the ID proponents. I accept that the scientific method makes no provisions for the existence of the unquantifiable (like God), so that question is philosophical and not scientific. It doesn't belong in the science classroom.

I differ in one minor point. I believe that it belongs in the science classroom to the extent of explaining what it is and why it does not qualify as "science".

Immie

 

[Ravi]

Maybe that it's still a theory taught as absolute fact.

Not too much unlike the theory of man casued globalclimatecoolerwarmering.

Evolution isn't taught as fact.

 

[geauxtohell]

However, here is where I differ from the ID proponents. I accept that the scientific method makes no provisions for the existence of the unquantifiable (like God), so that question is philosophical and not scientific. It doesn't belong in the science classroom.

I differ in one minor point. I believe that it belongs in the science classroom to the extent of explaining what it is and why it does not qualify as "science".

Immie

Actually, I am in full agreement with that and have stated it before.

This could be used as a wonderful example of what the scientific method is and what it is not.

Of course, the loonies would be screaming that the science classroom was being used to tell kids "God doesn't exist".

Partisans don't do nuance.

 

[Sunni Man]

At any rate, like Behe, you can find dissident scientists that will argue anything. The more important issue is that the overwhelming majority of scientists do accept the fossil record. Thus, "scientific consensus" trumps any few people you can dredge up to support your point (even if they don't really support it).

History has proved over and over again, that "scientific consensus" isn't always correct.

That sometimes the lone dissident scientist is proven right and goes down in history books.

While the believers in the current scientific consensus of the day are basically forgotten.

 

[Toronado3800]

I want it to be something other than a bacteria. A Chihuahua is genetically distinct from a German Shepherd, but it's still a dog.

Is there a non evolutionary reason for the "strange" animals on Australia and what they can no longer breed with from the rest of the world?

For plants I have been reminded Pinus jeffreyi and Pinus ponderosa are North American examples of isolated wind pollinated plants which are losing their ability to pollinate eachother thanks to growing genetic differences. (and keep in mind many plant species like oaks enjoy interspecific hybridisation to the point it makes breeding them through natural sexual means a little difficult) I'll hunt down a source that doesn't want to charge me $10 for a copy if I must.

 

[rdean]

Why does one have to assume that Charles Darwin was 100% correct and that people who believe that God or another intelligent being, created life or even the universe have to be 100% incorrect. I have always believed that Charles Darwin was at least partially correct when he presented his theory and that there is room for "expansion" of the theory.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation despite what the church proclaims.

For instance, I find it hard to believe that a dog can become a whale, or was it supposed to be the other way around? But, I can find daily evidence of dogs and cats having been bred into different species; still dogs and cats just not the same breed.

I always struggle with the abiogenesis theory because to me it takes more faith to believe that then to believe that God started all of this, but who says God didn't start it all and set evolution into motion? IF God did create it all, we know he had to include all the other scientific laws such as gravity so why is it so hard to believe that he put evolution into motion as well?

Immie

Note: I'm not stating that you assume such, geauxtohell, just posing the question.

What about lions and tigers being able to breed. Or horses and donkeys. Of course, the offspring isn't quite "right". Because of our understanding of genetics, we can pinpoint when they began to "drift" from the oringinal species which is why the genetics don't line up correctly. Ain't science grand?

Actually, I did not know lions and tigers could be bred together successfully but it doesn't surprise me.

What about it? Lions are big cats... Tigers are big cats. Horses are equine... donkeys are equine?

It is not like lions are cats and tigers are mutts... er sorry dog lovers.

Immie

Yes, they can breed, but the offspring have "issues" to put it mildly. The offspring of a donkey and a horse isn't called a "mule" for no reason. They are nearly always sterile, among other physical problems.

The offspring of a lion and tiger ALWAYS have problems. One that pops up over again is unchecked growth. The genetics between the two species don't line us correctly because they have "diverged" too far. This is why they are considered two seperate species. The same genus, but seperate species.

These are only two cases of many, many divergent "species". The right tries to get around it calling animals that look similiar the same "kind". But it's another excuse.

The difference between science and mysticism:

Science looks at the data and attemps to come up with the best possible theory that fits the data.

Those with occult beliefs already know what they want to believe. When they think they find evidence that supports those supernatural beliefs, they have an "ah ha" moment. Everything else is ignored or dismissed.

 

[rdean]

At any rate, like Behe, you can find dissident scientists that will argue anything. The more important issue is that the overwhelming majority of scientists do accept the fossil record. Thus, "scientific consensus" trumps any few people you can dredge up to support your point (even if they don't really support it).

History has proved over and over again, that "scientific consensus" isn't always correct.

That sometimes the lone dissident scientist is proven right and goes down in history books.

While the believers in the current scientific consensus of the day are basically forgotten.

Examples?

 

[antagon]

Furthermore, as I've stated earlier, anyone who takes evolution to address the existance or non-existance of a supernatural entity has automatically stepped outside of the scope of the theory. Science is moot on the existence of the supernatural.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation despite what the church proclaims.

I am not an athiest. I also accept evolution. That means that, logically, I have to accept some form of ID. However, here is where I differ from the ID proponents. I accept that the scientific method makes no provisions for the existence of the unquantifiable (like God), so that question is philosophical and not scientific. It doesn't belong in the science classroom.

thats about where im at. after all, i was introduced to evolution at a religious school. the idea that science is directed at trouncing spirituality or religion at banishing intelligence, however, was not on the curicullum. its a fools game, that.

when some folks butcher their science to the extent that can be witnessed on this thread, i could appreciate how some may respond with skepticism about the theory. but i've witnessed that these skeptics arent sincere students either. they say they want to get downtown, but wont be bothered to step in the taxi.

for folks like cecilie who bring up some bare points in the living record of evolution, some bare points in their deductive ability are mutually exposed. again its the absolutes that radicals on either side of the arguement work with which dont function in science or in our regular lives, well, my life.

 

[del]

At any rate, like Behe, you can find dissident scientists that will argue anything. The more important issue is that the overwhelming majority of scientists do accept the fossil record. Thus, "scientific consensus" trumps any few people you can dredge up to support your point (even if they don't really support it).

History has proved over and over again, that "scientific consensus" isn't always correct.

That sometimes the lone dissident scientist is proven right and goes down in history books.

While the believers in the current scientific consensus of the day are basically forgotten.

Examples?

galileo

 

[Immanuel]

What about lions and tigers being able to breed. Or horses and donkeys. Of course, the offspring isn't quite "right". Because of our understanding of genetics, we can pinpoint when they began to "drift" from the oringinal species which is why the genetics don't line up correctly. Ain't science grand?

Actually, I did not know lions and tigers could be bred together successfully but it doesn't surprise me.

What about it? Lions are big cats... Tigers are big cats. Horses are equine... donkeys are equine?

It is not like lions are cats and tigers are mutts... er sorry dog lovers.

Immie

Yes, they can breed, but the offspring have "issues" to put it mildly. The offspring of a donkey and a horse isn't called a "mule" for no reason. They are nearly always sterile, among other physical problems.

The offspring of a lion and tiger ALWAYS have problems. One that pops up over again is unchecked growth. The genetics between the two species don't line us correctly because they have "diverged" too far. This is why they are considered two seperate species. The same genus, but seperate species.

These are only two cases of many, many divergent "species". The right tries to get around it calling animals that look similiar the same "kind". But it's another excuse.

The difference between science and mysticism:

Science looks at the data and attemps to come up with the best possible theory that fits the data.

Those with occult beliefs already know what they want to believe. When they think they find evidence that supports those supernatural beliefs, they have an "ah ha" moment. Everything else is ignored or dismissed.

Well, can you point to me where two cats can breed and come up with something else? Can you show me where two horses can breed and come up with something else?

With the lion/tiger you still have two cats and the product is a cat. With the horse/donkey you still have two horses and the product is a horse.

If you are pointing fingers at me, and I don't think you are, I have never dismissed evolution. I simply think there are still questions to be answered.

Immie

 

[rdean]

Actually, I did not know lions and tigers could be bred together successfully but it doesn't surprise me.

What about it? Lions are big cats... Tigers are big cats. Horses are equine... donkeys are equine?

It is not like lions are cats and tigers are mutts... er sorry dog lovers.

Immie

Yes, they can breed, but the offspring have "issues" to put it mildly. The offspring of a donkey and a horse isn't called a "mule" for no reason. They are nearly always sterile, among other physical problems.

The offspring of a lion and tiger ALWAYS have problems. One that pops up over again is unchecked growth. The genetics between the two species don't line us correctly because they have "diverged" too far. This is why they are considered two seperate species. The same genus, but seperate species.

These are only two cases of many, many divergent "species". The right tries to get around it calling animals that look similiar the same "kind". But it's another excuse.

The difference between science and mysticism:

Science looks at the data and attemps to come up with the best possible theory that fits the data.

Those with occult beliefs already know what they want to believe. When they think they find evidence that supports those supernatural beliefs, they have an "ah ha" moment. Everything else is ignored or dismissed.

Well, can you point to me where two cats can breed and come up with something else? Can you show me where two horses can breed and come up with something else?

With the lion/tiger you still have two cats and the product is a cat. With the horse/donkey you still have two horses and the product is a horse.

If you are pointing fingers at me, and I don't think you are, I have never dismissed evolution. I simply think there are still questions to be answered.

Immie

Evolution isn't about seperate species reproducing with each other.

It's about a single species, population divided and then seperated, by either land or water, and over time, adapting to two seperate environments and evenually, the adaptations become so great, animals from the seperated populations can no longer reproduce with each other.

The lion and the tiger are prime examples of the "transition". Give them another half million years and they probably won't be able to breed at all. The evolving adaptations will have created changes too great in the genetic code for there to be a possibility of successful offspring. That is what evolution is all about.

 

[rdean]

History has proved over and over again, that "scientific consensus" isn't always correct.

That sometimes the lone dissident scientist is proven right and goes down in history books.

While the believers in the current scientific consensus of the day are basically forgotten.

Examples?

galileo

Not a good example. People during the time of Galileo believed that the universe evolved around the sun, not based on data or evidence, but because the church told them that was the way it was (sound familiar?).

Galileo discovered that to NOT be the truth based on DIRECT OBSERVATION. Of course, he plotted the movement of the planets and stars. It's very difficult to sit and watch them move. Kind of like plotting the changes from evolution or plate techtonics. Difficult to sit and watch. Much better to plot over time.