The Theory of Evolution

[Oddball]

'Cept I'm not a creationist, either...In fact, I'm agnostic.

I take my skepticism seriously.

I never accused you of being one. Just noting that the implications of evolution have always made Christians uncomfortable.

That is why they are concerned with the "why".

Evolutionary theory is not concerned at all with the "why", it doesn't try to explain why it happened, just how it happened.

A lot of evolutionists concern themselves with "why" as well...No denying it.

Still, it remains ensconsed as a theory, with it's share of holes...Albeit not near as many as the 6,000 year old planet fable.

 

[geauxtohell]

Which explains the goofy attempts by the creationists to interject God into the theory via intelligent design.

It takes far, far more "faith" to believe in the theory of evolution.

Than it takes to believe in Intelligent Design

A curious statement, since "intelligent design" utilized evolutionary theory. It's only change was saying a supernatural entity used it as a mechanism to create the species.

Sciences objection was not that God or whomever couldn't have done it, it was that it was outside the scope of the natural sciences to determine that.

 

[jillian]

The theory wasn't just "dreamed up". It was proposed by Darwin in 1859. Now, 150 years later, it remains on of the most supported concepts in science.

Evolution has also never been concerned with the "why". It has always been about the how. Theologists and moralists concern themselves with the "why".

Which explains the goofy attempts by the creationists to interject God into the theory via intelligent design.

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.

i think it's that i've never found it to be a genuine discussion. i've found religious extremists who are no different from those in galileo's day...and people who are so jaded that they believe nothing so equate everything.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I am a child of God and I was created in His image exactly as the Bible says I was. I am certain though that my wife evolved from monkeys!

 

[geauxtohell]

There was a fantastic special on the Evolution trial in Dover that was presented on PBS. Go to the page listed below and click on "Watch Intelligent Design on Trial " right under the picture of court house statue".

The right assumed they had the perfect setup to push their mystical agenda including a sympathetic Republican judge appointed by George Bush. They forgot that their is still a small number of Republicans who have honor and are willing to listen to the facts.

Pay special attention to the part where Behe (yes, that Behe) admits that using the same qualifications that would make astrology and alchemy a science, then, "mystical design" would also be considered a 'science".

They cover "irreducible complexity" and "transitional fossils" as well as all the other Republican canards.

I love the fact that the judge, at the end of the trial, was amazed that this knowledge isn't taught in primary and secondary schools. It was pointed out that schools simply don't have the money to fight the religious right wing and so schools only teach the non controversial. Of course, evolution is only controversial to those whose magical beliefs are threatened. Better to keep kids stupid and submersed in "mysticism".

This special really is way worth seeing. Just for the "science" alone. Of course, watching a Republican judge call out conservatives for "lying" is also a hoot. Facts always seem to have a liberal bias.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

That was a wonderful series. Behe really looked foolish.

Furthermore, "irreducible complexity" is not a compelling scientific arguement. It's basically a negative arguement that introduces no sceintific evidence to counter the claim.

Imagine if a Doctor told someone that their cancer was "too complicated" to attempt to treat.

 

[Sunni Man]

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

Actually, it's the pro evolution people that have to cook the facts and data to try and make sense of their quack theory

 

[geauxtohell]

yes I will be able to breed them into a species that can not procreate with other dogs anymore. Look up the Carrion Crow for a more natural example of one species dividing into two.

Considering that it takes a generation just to pass on genetic code and that the mechanism of evolution takes millions of years, I am always amazed at that lame argument that we haven't observed speciation.

We can look at bacteria, which pass their DNA on in a matter of hours, and readily observe speciation.

I.e. MRSA.

 

[Toronado3800]

Actually, it's the pro evolution people that have to cook the facts and data to try and make sense of their quack theory

Sunni, are you saying its impossible to breed an isolated portion of an animal species until it becomes too genetically different from its relatives to breed successfully?

 

[Toronado3800]

I'll accept as plausible a debate that the good lord got bored watching amoebas after vanquishing the evil angels to hell and then hit the amoebas with a lucky cosmic ray shot that helped evolution along. That's about where I draw the line but it does leave room for a liberally interpreted Genesis.

 

[geauxtohell]

Evolution is like saying:

If a tornado hit a large junkyard and stayed there spinning for a billion years.

When the wind finally died down.

There could easily be a complete 747 jet airplane that had "evolved" from the scrap metal swirling in the air.

Metal doesn't self replicate.

Argument refuted.

It's like we've heard this one before.

 

[manifold]

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

Yeah, just like gravity. ****'n hogwash!

 

[Sunni Man]

Actually, it's the pro evolution people that have to cook the facts and data to try and make sense of their quack theory

Sunni, are you saying its impossible to breed an isolated portion of an animal species until it becomes too genetically different from its relatives to breed successfully?

No, I am not saying that.

Frogs can be too genetically isolated to inner breed. But they still remain frogs.

 

[geauxtohell]

'Cept I'm not a creationist, either...In fact, I'm agnostic.

I take my skepticism seriously.

I never accused you of being one. Just noting that the implications of evolution have always made Christians uncomfortable.

That is why they are concerned with the "why".

Evolutionary theory is not concerned at all with the "why", it doesn't try to explain why it happened, just how it happened.

A lot of evolutionists concern themselves with "why" as well...No denying it.

Still, it remains ensconsed as a theory, with it's share of holes...Albeit not near as many as the 6,000 year old planet fable.

Anyone that tries to apply evolutionary theory to explain the larger issues has stepped outside the scope of the theory. That's not Darwin's fault, nor does it negate the theory. BTW, I think Dawkins is a pretentious asshole.

No evolutionist would deny that there are wholes in the theory. There are holes in most scientific theories. That's what makes science progressive. The evolutionary theory of today, doesn't really resemble Darwin's original theory. It's been changed and corrected throughout the years. Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance (well he did, but it was silly). Ironically, Mendal had already published his work on simple genetics, it just hadn't been noticed by the scientific community.

Darwin also didn't originate the concept of evolution. His major contribution, that fitness drives speciation, is now inherent to the theory.

 

[jillian]

I'll accept as plausible a debate that the good lord got bored watching amoebas after vanquishing the evil angels to hell and then hit the amoebas with a lucky cosmic ray shot that helped evolution along. That's about where I draw the line but it does leave room for a liberally interpreted Genesis.

genesis should be liberally interpreted. it was never meant to be literal.

 

[Oddball]

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

Yeah, just like gravity. ****'n hogwash!

I can quantify and measure the effects gravity, even though I don't know how it works at the molecular level. The same thing cannot be said of sentient-life-out-of-protoplasm evolution theory.

Silly premise refuted.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

Yeah, just like gravity. ****'n hogwash!

I can quantify and measure the effects gravity, even though I don't know how it works at the molecular level. The same thing cannot be said of sentient-life-out-of-protoplasm evolution theory.

Silly premise refuted.

Evolution is observable in the fossil record. It is absolutely a quantifiable science.

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually, it's the pro evolution people that have to cook the facts and data to try and make sense of their quack theory

Sunni, are you saying its impossible to breed an isolated portion of an animal species until it becomes too genetically different from its relatives to breed successfully?

No, I am not saying that.

Frogs can be too genetically isolated to inner breed. But they still remain frogs.

You do realize that man defines species, don't you? It's purely a convention of man.

If we wanted to, we could label birds as different species based on beak width.

Again, the silly nomenclature arguments are silly.

The underlying fact is that we are not all alike, we pass our traits on in DNA, and that mutations cause alterations in traits.

Once you accept that, and a world that is hundreds of millions of years old, it's hard to deny evolution.

 

[Oddball]

Anyone that tries to apply evolutionary theory to explain the larger issues has stepped outside the scope of the theory. That's not Darwin's fault, nor does it negate the theory. BTW, I think Dawkins is a pretentious asshole.

No evolutionist would deny that there are wholes in the theory. There are holes in most scientific theories. That's what makes science progressive. The evolutionary theory of today, doesn't really resemble Darwin's original theory. It's been changed and corrected throughout the years. Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance (well he did, but it was silly). Ironically, Mendal had already published his work on simple genetics, it just hadn't been noticed by the scientific community.

Darwin also didn't originate the concept of evolution. His major contribution, that fitness drives speciation, is now inherent to the theory.

Oh, I agree to all that.

Point being that as long as evolution is properly stipulated as still theory, it can be kept at arms length and we can baypass all the Dawkins and flying spaghetti moster crapola.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk&feature=related[/ame]

 

[manifold]

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

Yeah, just like gravity. ****'n hogwash!

I can quantify and measure the effects gravity, even though I don't know how it works at the molecular level. The same thing cannot be said of sentient-life-out-of-protoplasm evolution theory.

Silly premise refuted.

Whatever you say fraud

 

[Sunni Man]

The underlying fact is that we are not all alike, we pass our traits on in DNA, and that mutations cause alterations in traits.

What you are describing is adaptation.

That is not evolution