There are many experiments that support evolutionary theory. It has gone beyond Darwin, BTW. There is even an experiment in speciation where a new species of fruitfly was the result.
A step in the right direction..
- Thread starter SnakeLord
- Start date
Lori said:
Censorship? It isn't about teaching 'censorship,' it's about not putting religious cult nonsense in a science class so that kids can actually get an education.
Lori said:
Evolution is a theory. Its also a fact -it really happened. You can close your eyes, but that doesn't mean that the sun isn't still shining. And it isn't "Darwin's theory," its the current theory of modern science. It is testable and has been tested. With regard to "proof," it has been far more proven than any creation myth.
Lori said:
That's where you are wrong and obviously ignorant. Supernatural means beyond nature. In otherwords, forces that have nothing to do with nature. To date, nothing "supernatural" has been demonstrated to be true. There is no magic, there are no alien abductions, witchcraft is superstition and so is creation mythology. That the god of Abraham created the Earth in 6 days is no more valid than Marduk splitting Tiamat into the heavens and earth.
Lori said:
Comments that continue to betray your ignorance on the subject. Allow me to educate you somewhat: First, "Darwinism" is a label used by the religious zealots who oppose science. Science uses the term "science" and even "evolution." Darwin pioneered the idea of natural selection, but there is sufficiently more evidence and research since his time that it would be simply ignorant to refer to evolution as "Darwinism." Second, ID (assuming you mean 'intelligent' design) is not a theory. It has produced nothing that can be testable and has made no predictions that have been verified. At best, it is a very weak hypothesis -a speculation that does not hold water. Third, science should be taught with regard to what is currently known and testable and should have no regard for the hopes and wishes of religious cults even if that religious cult happens to be the majority.
Lori said:
If he won't, I will. Richard Leakey and his wife went to Africa to look for early hominids because of the work of Darwin and others who postulated that man has a common ancestory with the great apes (as it turns out, we are among the great apes). Since the great apes are present in Africa, the Leakeys predicted it would be there that they would find fossil evidence for early hominids. Tim White has since unearthed the earliest hominid fossil known in modern Sudan, which dates to between 150,000 - 200,000 years ago.
Indeed, Darwin and others postulated that fossil evidence in strata would become increasingly simple the deeper the stratum -this has been demonstrated time and time again without fail. Never has it shown to be otherwise. The two examples I offer are anthropological/geological. I can give more of the same, and even biological examples, but I've a feeling it wouldn't matter. Once the believer gets a notion in their head, there isn't a piece of evidence in the world that would shake their belief.
But here's what I find amazing: that Christians aren't greatly offended by the blasphemy of the creationists that back this 'intelligent' design speculation. Who are they, after all, to assume that their God is so finite that It couldn't have put into motion the mechanisms for natural evolution or even a 'big bang' from the very beginning? Is their god so limited that It could only create in 6 days? That it could not give rise to a universe exactly as science has discovered so far? In this regard, Christianity is self-defeating, and if there is a god, it certainly isn't theirs.
Listen, I'm not arguing validity of any theory here. I'm simply saying that this whole debate is fear-based. It's all about who is right and who is wrong, and who's personal agenda is spoon-fed down whose kids throats. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with what people learn. It has to do with people attaching their egos to a theory.
american public schools recieve money from the government. that ALONE disqualifies them as a valid source of religious teaching. anything else would be a violation of the civil rights of the students.
case closed.
case closed.
That's not what the quotes in my post above suggest, but regardless of what you think you're arguing about, I'm saying -as are many others- that pseudoscience does not deserve to be taught as an alternative to science. That would mean that it is okay to teach to youngsters that 'zero point energy' is valid and proven; or that 'cold fusion' is; or that 'esp' really works.Lori 7 said:
SkinWalker said:
Agreed. That is the danger of teaching the Darwin's origin of species, as well as ID. When science can create life from chemicals, then Darwin's theory has ground to stand on. It is a theory that is based on evolutionary fact. We know species evolve and life adapts, but that does not prove that life adapted into new species. Similarities in bone structure or anything, is not proof. It is speculation without a billion year study. The problem with scientists, is that they assume just because they observe things in a measurable scale, that it must be true when drawn to scale of the problem.
Darwin's theory of the origin of species is just as likely as aliens dropping different variations of life at different times of Earth's development in such a manner as to create the exact evolutionary tree as what we have today. We just don't know because we haven't been around for a billion years. Sure, we don't have evidence of aliens, so they don't exist. So, how does that make the theory of the origin of species a fact? The only way it is fact is if science observes the origin of species.
Like it or not, athiests are in the minority in the world. That doesn't make them wrong, but that doesn't mean the minority is always right either...usually it is the opposite. If there was sufficient proof that all species are the result of evolutionary changes, any objective mind must agree. Here we are in debate, so there must not be sufficient proof. Cover ups? Zealots? Sure, theists have a stake in the matter, but so do atheists. The person who answers this question will control the world.
So, we basically have the minority walking all over the majority and teaching our children beliefs that we don't believe. The minority says we can't teach ID, but can teach Darwin. Teach evolution and life's ability to adapt, anything else is psuedoscience at this point. All this science is only a few hundred years old, and we arrogantly rave that we know what happened a billion years ago. Poppycock!
Besides, if science proves that the origin of species is fact, they still have the creation of life. Not, cells....but, self-adapting, reproducing life, from chemicals. Good luck.
I'm tempted to say you're stupid as hell, but I'll refrain. You've done nothing but spout pure ignorance in that post, however. Science doesn't teach "Darwin's theory of the origin of species." It teaches evolution. Modern understanding of evolution. What we know about evolution today far surpasses what Darwin understood in the 19th century. Sure, science classes give introduction to Darwin, just as they give introduction to Pasteur, Galileo, Newton, etc with regard to the fields they pioneered.
The problem that creation nutters have with evolution is fundamental: they're afraid that it will disprove their superstitions and beliefs. You comment that "atheists are minorities in the world." Who cares? This isn't about atheists dominating the world. Its about teaching what we really know about how life came to be.
You go on and on about how the minority doesn't want to teach 'intelligent' design, but want's to teach Darwin. Pure ignorance. Possibly stupidity. Science wants to teach science. Darwin will get taught as a historical figure, but it is the current understanding of evolution that will get taught when the question arises of how did the wooley mammouth find its way to North America. It originated from the Asian continent and not the European one as evidenced by DNA sequencing.
It is evolutionary theory that will explain the origin of New World monkeys, which indicates that Platyrrhines originated from Africa due to the cranial and sub-cranial morphologies present in fossil remains that match those of African species in the same era.
Its evolutionary theory that demonstrates the progression of hominid species from Australopithicines to Homo erectus to H. sapiens.
All of the data uncovered from the fossil and DNA records avail to date has born out the hypothesis of gradual changes over time.
Other explanations, supernatural ones, simply aren't testable and the myths of creation among the many human societies are not testable. They are therefore discarded from science and left to their respective religions.
Evolution is a fact. It really happened. Deal with it. Scienctific theory isn't something that is voted on. It either has evidence or it doesn't. The 'scientific establishment' isn't out to dominate religion. It really could not give a rat's ass about religion as long as it doesn't try to subject itself on science and education.
The problem that creation nutters have with evolution is fundamental: they're afraid that it will disprove their superstitions and beliefs. You comment that "atheists are minorities in the world." Who cares? This isn't about atheists dominating the world. Its about teaching what we really know about how life came to be.
You go on and on about how the minority doesn't want to teach 'intelligent' design, but want's to teach Darwin. Pure ignorance. Possibly stupidity. Science wants to teach science. Darwin will get taught as a historical figure, but it is the current understanding of evolution that will get taught when the question arises of how did the wooley mammouth find its way to North America. It originated from the Asian continent and not the European one as evidenced by DNA sequencing.
It is evolutionary theory that will explain the origin of New World monkeys, which indicates that Platyrrhines originated from Africa due to the cranial and sub-cranial morphologies present in fossil remains that match those of African species in the same era.
Its evolutionary theory that demonstrates the progression of hominid species from Australopithicines to Homo erectus to H. sapiens.
All of the data uncovered from the fossil and DNA records avail to date has born out the hypothesis of gradual changes over time.
Other explanations, supernatural ones, simply aren't testable and the myths of creation among the many human societies are not testable. They are therefore discarded from science and left to their respective religions.
Evolution is a fact. It really happened. Deal with it. Scienctific theory isn't something that is voted on. It either has evidence or it doesn't. The 'scientific establishment' isn't out to dominate religion. It really could not give a rat's ass about religion as long as it doesn't try to subject itself on science and education.
I think it's more about the ego of religious people that are jealous that science explains more than their religion does. The list of things that religion is an authority on is shrinking, and has been ever since Galileo.Lori_7 said:
i am a believer in intelligent design, but i believe that it INCLUDES evolution and everything we know from centuries of study. the problem i have is when folks completely ignore the laws of the universe. the law of conservation of mass says specifically that "no matter or energy can ever be created or destroyed."
science says this, so i ask "where does this energy and matter come from?"
science says this, so i ask "where does this energy and matter come from?"
SkinWalker said:
I'm talking about biology class teaching Darwin's theory, not science. Yes, we know more about evolution. Evolution is not what I question. It is Darwin's theory that evolution is the device that created all species of life that I question.
SkinWalker said:
Sure, they do have a stake. I'm sure there are those who are theists afraid, just like i'm sure there are atheists who are afraid that Darwin's theory of the origin of species is false. Both sides have a stake in the question, but today there is no answers and only debate and controversy. We don't know how life came to be, we can only speculate that evolution played a part because we have evidence. But, we lack evidence of the process. It is like seeing water in two forms and saying that the cold temperature froze the water without first taking measurements. It is a premature conclusion to say that all species are the result of evolutionary changes.
SkinWalker said:
Walked, aliens, boats, continental shift, stowed, etc. No one was around, no one can say for sure.
SkinWalker said:
So you are saying that the New World monkeys are evolved from a common ancestor. Micro evolution is observed. Macro evolution cannot be, we only have fossils. The evolutionary tree could have resulted from a combination of both microevolutionary changes and the introduction of new species by a designer. If not, why not? Why is it necessary that nature is responsible for macro changes? What proof says that it is the only solution? The only proof is if it is simulated without the aid of external influences, which would take a billion years. Good luck.
SkinWalker said:
Looks like a human, so it must be a human, eh? Besides, that still does not disprove an external entity from performing these macro changes. You are speculating.
SkinWalker said:
Good. Science would not be science if it did not discard all speculation, including a biased view that all species are the result from evolutionary changes.
SkinWalker said:
Yes, it is a fact. But just because we can predict the weather pattern, doesn't mean it will rain. The hypothesis must be tested, and it can't, so we are left with having faith that evolution is the means of all species of life because of the lack of any other evidence.
SkinWalker, we have evidence of evolution. We have fossils which look like all species have a common ancestor. We can draw a tree that connects the dots. Does that mean that, in fact, each species was the result of naturally occuring evoltuionary changes? No, that's speculation without observing the process. Yes, we can draw the conclusion that it naturally occured because of the evidence. Does that make it true? Well, it's the most probable solution that science has to offer, but it is still unproven.
The Devil Inside said:
Well, matter can be converted to energy by destroying it with anti-protons. Only energy is conserved. But, I agree with you. Energy did come from somewhere, it did not always exist. If it did, we would not be alone in the universe. I'm not saying we are alone, but we lack any other evidence to suggest that we are not alone, so an infinite number of possibilities has an equal chance of being true. Also, I'd like to see science perform a project genesis of sorts. Create evolutionary life from chemicals and I would definitely take a second look at the existence of God. Unfortunately, that would take a billion years, at least, to observe the process and I don't have the time to wait.
jayleew said:
The only debate and controversy comes from fundies who hold genesis in higher regard to that of the work carried out by hundreds of years of research by some of the worlds smartest people.
Note the progression, from the older more hunched over Hominid, and funnily enough, over time, begins to get taller, and walk more upright. As the years pass, becoming more and more human. Wether or not you call it 'human', it is quite clearly "evolution". But you are correct in a way, that it may well be a law of nature which was programmed by some sort of intelligence, if you want to believe in that sort of thing... there is no proof either way, but proof of evolution.
Correct. We lack any evidence of any other theories including intelligent design. Therefor evolution is how it happened, until we find evidence of anything else.
I think you might even understand this now. You must understand that genetics, biology, chemistry, physics, geology etc are studied by millions of really smart people. Amongst all those lines of science and all those people who study it, there is very little controversey. So the only controversey comes from those who say "God did it". I'm sure many scientists are even open-minded to the possability that "God did it" and I'm sure they would persue any evidence of it if it so existed.
In fact many scientists do think "God did it" and persue science as a way to understand his means, many of those embrace all the facts and evidence of bilology and evolution.
jayleew said:
Science classes teach biology, geology, physics, chemistry, etc. When the subject of evolution arises, it isn't "Darwin's theory" that gets taught, it is the current understandings of evolution. Darwin gets made out to be the bad guy by anti-science nutjobs that need one, but evolution that is taught in science classes today goes far and beyond what Darwin understood. He pinned the foundations for natural selection, but this is but one of the evolutionary forces. The rhetoric of anti-science nutters doesn't hold up here.
jayleew said:
Thats where you are completely wrong. We have a preponderance of evidence from many fields of science which all converge on a common idea: that life on this planet evolved over millions of years due to gradual changes over time as species adapted to take advantage of their environments. The evidence is there. Anti-science nutters simply refuse to look at it.
jayleew said:
Not when the evidence is there to support the conclusion. Not when predictions that were made based on available evidence actually resulted in those discoveries that were consistent with the predictions.
jayleew said:
Bullshit. That's a cop-out response. The forensic evidence of species migration and continental drift are conclusive. One doesn't need to have been present to be able to use the evidence available to piece together what happened. Unless the laws of physics were different several millions of years ago, we have a very good understanding of what happened millions of years ago with regard to stratagraphic deposition, continental drift, tectonic activity, climate, etc. Just because you lack the education in the subject doesn't mean that others do. Its beginning to look like it isn't an argument between theists and atheists at all: its a conflict between the educated and the un-educated. It would appear that the under-educated fear that others will become smarter than they.
jayleew said:
Poppycock. More evidence of your lack of education. If you persist in debating evolution, you really should educate yourself. Macro/micro -evolution are creationist rhetoric. Its either evolution or it isn't. Evolution is easily observed in the fossil record. Just because you are't educated enough to see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
jayleew said:
It may have. There just isn't any evidence to support that speculation. There is, however, a preponderance of evidence that supports the fact of evolution. Miniature pink elephants might exist in my refridgerator when the door is shut, disappearing the second it is opened. Its possible, but there is no evidence to support that either.
jayleew said:
More superstitious, belief influenced poppycock. Fundamentalist, anti-science types like to use the word "proof" when it comes to science because it becomes a strawman argument for them. They wouldn't dare use such jargon in their religious studies, not in any meaningful way. The evidence is there. Is it the only solution to say that life on this planet is the result of gradual changes over time? It would appear so. No other explanation has provided any testable results or offered any verifiable predictions. Only the ignorant, undereducated, and the theistic fanatics maintain that the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists demonstrating the veracity of evolutionary theory isn't there. As demonstrated by your posts.
jayleew said:
More evidence of your overwhelming ignorance, under-education, or theistic indoctrination. I didn't say 'human,' I said 'hominid.' Why introduce an "external entity" when one does not appear to be needed? I don't discount that some deity may have created the universe. But I don't see the evidence that one has nor do I see the evidence that one is needed.
The theory of evolution has been proven. Far and beyond what is needed to say that it is factual, that it really happened. Its a shame that there are those that refuse to educate themselves or tear themselves away from the indoctrinations of theistic fanatics. Evolution in no way threatens religion or religious beliefs. I'm an atheist, but even I don't discount entirely the possibility of some deity that created the universe. If some deity does exist, then surely Its power is infinite enough that it could have put into motion the events exactly as science has thus far described. A religion threatened by the discoveries of science is a weak religion, indeed. And one not worthy to be followed.
jayleew said:
Now that's a shame. You don't deserve whatever religion you belong to if such an experiment would cause you to question the existence of your god. Who are you to second-guess or assume that god's limitations or boundaries? What if that god made the universe able to create life in such a manner?
SkinWalker said:
Under-educated fear that others will become smarter than they? What does that have to do with anything we are talking about. You are muddling the issue.
You overvalue education. Knowledge is useless without perception. You should learn to be more skeptical, and you will learn how the smartest man becomes the dumbest.
Back to the issue...so you are saying that if you see a cup of water, and two minutes later a cup of ice, it is safe to say that the temperature of the water dropped and froze? That is what we have. We don't have what caused the formation of the ice. Are we to believe that it just got cold on its own?
SkinWalker said:
If you had an ounce of perception, you would read my posts with more thought instead of hastily writing a response. Show some respect, because i'm not even debating evolution. All along, i'm saying evolution is a fact because we have evidence. That is not in question. Life evolves, but was that the cause of speciation? We don't have the conclusive data. Sure, we have data to speculate with and logically, it is the only solution so it is safe to assume, scientifically. But, the theory is still untested because we can't test it. So, we are left we choosing faith in science or something else.
SkinWalker said:
Very well. That is all I am contesting. So, if what we agree on above is true and energy is constant and always was, then we are not alone in the universe because if it happened once here, it surely happened out there long ago.
But, since we lack evidence of life on other planets just like we do a god, does that mean that energy and matter was at one point non-existent? Or is it better to assume that life is on other planets?
I have read this is the subject of current experimentation. It would not necessarily take a billion years.
I don't understand why this would make any difference in your experience of God. I think a pantheistic viewpoint could include evolution. God Himself must have evolved from a less complex form.
Laymen: Scientists 'see new species born'Lori_7 said:
Scientific: Early events in speciation: Polymorphism for hybrid male sterility in Drosophila
Well I guess that answered that. Evolution can be used to predict speciation and is useful for explaining the processes that underlie macroevolution.
That was your intellect – you should have continued to heed it.jayleew said:
Just kidding
Beleive however makes you feel good about your life. It doesn't matter at all if you believe in evolution. Think to yourself: "So what?" If going to the Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Temple/Shrine makes you happy then continue do that.
All scientists agree that evolution occurs, it’s the mechanisms of evolution that are controversial.jayleew said:
Also, note that evolution is a process that occurs from one generation of living things to the next.
Perhaps you are thinking about Abiogenesis? The origin of life.
Well that’s easy: In the beginning were the kami (gods, mana, occult force). Two of these primeval kami or deities were Izanagi (male-who-invites) and Izanami (female who-invites). After giving birth to the land of Japan they produced many other kami. Izanami died after giving birth to the kami of fire. Izanagi journeyed to Hades to find her. Finding her decayed body crawling with maggots he fled in horror back to the land of the living. To purify himself he entered a body of water and when he washed his left eye there came into existence the Sun Goddess, the Great Kami Amaterasu; and when he washed his right eye Tsukiyom the Moon Kami, emerged. After years of struggle the Japanese people were waring against each other and the Sun Goddess sent her grandson, Ninigi, to become the first emperor of Japan. Shinto is unique among the religions of the world in representing the Supreme Being as feminine in gender.
As a gaijin jayleew, your origin is from a gaijin Kami, a patriarchal God that hates women, but ironically also hates gays, - he's the Middle Eastern tetragrammaton YHWH also known as YHWH-the-closet-boy. YHWH formed a naked MAN out of earth ("adama"), and set him in the Garden of Eden, to watch over it while YHWH watched over him. Adam is allowed prance around and eat of all the fruit within it, except that of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." YHWH then brings all the animals to Adam, to serve as company for him. Adam gives names to all the animals, but finds no comfort in his loneliness. God then puts him into a deep sleep, takes a rib from his side, and from it forms a woman (called later "Eve"), to be a companion. Eve is convinced by another of Gods creatures - a talking serpent *giggle* to eat of the forbidden fruit, which is kind of funny as Eve didn’t know the disobedience was bad or wrong or evil (as back in those pre-fruit days these concepts were unknown), but nevertheless takes the fall and is blamed for cursing mankind. Eve later meets a Kami visiting from Japan. This Kami slices and dices YHWA (Samurai style) and together with Eve they ride a winged unicorn to Mars where Eve gives birth to an invisible race of beings called the Zoorgburg (they can take visible form – such as on the show Futurama). The Zoorburg are what directs evolution here on Earth…. …. and this is how you jayleew came to be.