Evolution - True Or False

[spuriousmonkey]

John

I don't know that many evolutionary biologists who are religious. Whether scientists are religious or not doesn't discredit the theory of evolution. Last time I checked discrediting a theory was done in peer-reviewed articles based on actual data.

Interestingly, the vatican believes in evolution and they are...not scientists.

Your logic would dictate that the vatican consists out of atheists.

Iceageciv
You feel to see that interbreeding doesn't disprove evolution. Most examples you mentioned are interbreeding events guided by humans. And you can't make a yak by interbreeding anything in your inventory. That leaves you only evolution as your only explanation for diversity. Once you accept evolution the concept of synablobs becomes pointless.

Moreover actual genomic data shows that synablobs never existed. Otherwise all species would have gone through a genetic bottleneck. That factual data alone already kills your synagoo theory.

Then there is the little problem that there never was a global flood. That also kills your theory.

Then there is the little problem that you have failed so far to propose an alternative theory. A one-liner remark is not a theory.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

mod statement:
Thank you IAC for confirming synablobs is pseudoscience. I will make an appropriate thread for you and dump your ramblings there.

Let us return to the topic of the thread: Theory of evolution: true or false?


happy posting!

your friendly biology & genetics subforum moderator.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist, please specify why Evolution theory fails.

Anti-bacterial and anti-viral medications are heavily dependant on the understanding of heredity and mutation that Evolution Theory provides us. Same with nearly the entire field of biotechnology, plant and animal cloning, the very existance of corn, silk, and the variety of rice that we enjoy; all are the result of humans utilizing the ability of nature to evolve.

So in what areas, exactly has science been stalled by it?

edit:
just saw your second post.
exactly

huh? what are you hoping for in "Progress in Evolution"? Are you hoping for similar progress in Newtownian Physics?

You behave as though the Laws of Motions are still theories having to be proved in a labortory as evolution isn't accomplishing.

To begin with tommorow I'll post some experts in the fields and other fields that find evolution dubious or haphazord so that a scientific view will be not just hearsay but substaniated.

These people are among the smartest people in the world and in there fields, well established from Germany, Nasa-here in Houston TX, I have direct quotes.

If you disagree with them then it really is you vs the Rocket Science. ha ha...okay...

They'll be direct quotes and although I haven't tried you might be able to google some of them...the Last is well known. Michael Behe...he's been the spot light of this contention for while now giving voice to what is a few in the scientificly restrained comunity.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You behave as though the Laws of Motions are still theories having to be proved in a labortory as evolution isn't accomplishing.

To begin with tommorow I'll post some experts in the fields and other fields that find evolution dubious or haphazord so that a scientific view will be not just hearsay but substaniated.

These people are among the smartest people in the world and in there fields, well established from Germany, Nasa-here in Houston TX, I have direct quotes.

If you disagree with them then it really is you vs the Rocket Science. ha ha...okay...

They'll be direct quotes and although I haven't tried you might be able to google some of them...the Last is well known. Michael Behe...he's been the spot light of this contention for while now giving voice to what is a few in the scientificly restrained comunity.

The smartest people I know work on evolution. They are from all over the place. Nobel prize winners. If you disagree with them it is really you versus the nobel prize winners..

wiki

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including his own department, the Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University.[2] Likewise, his claims about intelligent design have been characterized as pseudoscience.[3][4][5][6]

A more extensive analysis of Behe can be found here:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

 

[John99]

We're talking periods of tens of thousands of years here. It wasn't like people walked from Africa to China in a few weeks, then settled down and never had any contact with any other people ever again.

I already told you that no environmental pressures are needed in this case, although they might possible have played a part. Climate variation is one possible environmental pressure. Siberia has a different climate to northern Africa, for example - I'm sure you've noticed that.

Do you understand genetic drift from my previous explanation, or do you have further questions on that?

People are still evolving. Evolution hasn't stopped.

That's right. It did take generations. Why? Many reasons. Overcrowding at home. Lack of sufficient food for the existing population. Changes in climate. Many reasons.

I have trouble believing you don't know any reasons why humans have tended to migrate from place to place. How much history have you read?

Doctors and scientists are people, same as everybody else. Some of them are religious, some are not. What's the relevance of that?

By the way, there's no problem at all with being religious and accepting the findings of modern science, including the modern evolutionary synthesis.

This sounds like a rant. What is the relevance?

Im only asking questions for purposes of debate, none of my posts take into consideration or assume any kind of religious thought process. Furthermore, i cannot understand why this discussion cannot take place without religious hyperbole.

As a matter of fact i undersood the concept of "genetic drift" when i was 12 years old, my uncle is a scientist who's work with DNA and genetics revelutionized the field, the methodologies he took part of are in use on a daily basis and he is well known throughout the world.

I never once explicitly intimated that the "theory of evolution" was false or the discoveries it has uncovered are without merit, my only contention is that ALL aspects need to be considered and the people who do hold these beliefs should be respected.

And no thyat was not a rant, this is............dont tell me i am ranting.

Interestingly, the vatican believes in evolution and they are...not scientists.

thats nice.

 

[Saquist]

Great. Newton was a creationist. Big deal. He isn't famous for his theories of a six thousand year old universe, he is famous for his theory of gravity, which is wonderfully accurate and logically consistent. His writings on biblical history, however, are anything but.

We sound sore about that little fact.
He's famous...oh he's famous. Ever think about how much you personally owe to his discovery...his intellect..

I'm sure you would agree he helped shaped the modern worlds understanding of physics.

So guess what...Einstein too was a catastrophist (creationist)

Only if you believe in a God that doesn't obey the laws of physics. Then all bets are off.

Huh...I don't understand.

In no way can I accept this conclusion. Uniformitarianism (?) is what christianity is all about.

Uniformitarianism: Is the belief that the process currently governing the Earth have always been in place with no discernable differents over millions of years.

ie...Evolution, Plates Tectonic, Ice Age...

The "norm" in America certainly isn't athiesm.

Very true but religion...or organized religion is on a steady decline in America and Western Europe.

 

[river-wind]

You behave as though the Laws of Motions are still theories having to be proved in a labortory as evolution isn't accomplishing.

I can't read this sentence as English.
I'm acting as if "Laws of Motion" are still theories - I do, since you can never fully *know* anything. But I don't consider them to be "just a theory", but Scientific Theories - those ideas supported by evidence, multiple studies, and the review of other minds in the field. For instance - why are the Voyager spacecraft moving faster than expected? Because our expectations were not 100% accurate. We need to observe, figure out a couple good explanations for what we are seeing, test them all, and then adjust our models of motion and gravity to account for this new data, and the best fit explanation.
"in a laboratory as evolution isn't" - you've lost me. what?

To begin with tommorow I'll post some experts in the fields and other fields that find evolution dubious or haphazard so that a scientific view will be not just hearsay but substaniated.

These people are among the smartest people in the world and in there fields, well established from Germany, Nasa-here in Houston TX, I have direct quotes.

If you disagree with them then it really is you vs the Rocket Science. ha ha...okay...

This is called a "Appeal to authority", and is widely decried as a poor method for debate or discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Don't honor the person, honor to knowledge. Explain it to me yourself. Use properly attributed quotes if they are succinct and useful, but try and avoid saying "This guy's really smart, you should believe everything he says!"

"An appeal to authority or argument by authority is...a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source." - from the wikipedia link

 

[valich]

Uniformitarianism: Is the belief that the process currently governing the Earth have always been in place with no discernable differents over millions of years.

ie...Evolution, Plates Tectonic, Ice Age...

You are more correct by implying that they are constant over millions of years, but fundamental uniformitarianism states that "the laws of the universe are constant over time and throughout space." Plate tectonics didn't exist till a few million years after the Earth was formed, probably around 4 Ga, give over take a mil. Evolution didn't start untill ~3.8 Ga. with cyanobacteria. When was the first Ice Age? I dunno.

You behave as though the Laws of Motions are still theories having to be proved in a labortory as evolution isn't accomplishing.

What does evolution "accomplish"? Does it accomplish anything outside of our own interpretations? It is not progressive.

"'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975). http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml.

 

[Saquist]

The smartest people I know work on evolution. They are from all over the place. Nobel prize winners. If you disagree with them it is really you versus the nobel prize winners..

wiki


A more extensive analysis of Behe can be found here:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

You mean what's popular determins what's right?
How bout prestige...Does prestige prove a thoery?

Has it?

Well I told you I'd post what others have said about this very famous theory.

Unfathomable Complexities of Life

Meet Mr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig. He's a bit famous too.

"Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding REsearch, in Cologne, Germany.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiologoy and morphology bring be face to face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities or life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Well, he's just a crazy creationist, like Kurt Wise, Russel Humphreys, and John Baumgardner.

 

[spidergoat]

Argument from incredulity. Many innanimate things are also complex, like ice.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You mean what's popular determins what's right?
How bout prestige...Does prestige prove a thoery?

No, you used the authority argument and I just replied by replacing the authority in favour of evolution. To show how stupid your argument was and now you admit it was.

Meet Mr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig. He's a bit famous too.

Shame he isn't a famous scientist, but only known as an ID promotor in Europe.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Animate things are complex, inanimate things are complex, so what's your point?

 

[Saquist]

Well, he's just a crazy creationist, like Kurt Wise, Russel Humphreys, and John Baumgardner.

I could slander you in the same way...and what would I know...

Argument from incredulity. Many innanimate things are also complex, like ice.

Ice is complex only in mathemathical construct. Biology goes further than a simple and predictable latice work. Ice it's self is evidence of a creator. The math that we take for granted surrounds us and controls us...

No, you used the authority argument and I just replied by replacing the authority in favour of evolution. To show how stupid your argument was and now you admit it was.

I'm sure your feel strongly about that too. However I believe in discussions of merrit aside from the facts. and facts aside from merrit.
I will not attack you for your perspective on the thread. It's unproductive and unchristian.

Since it is my definition to edure such abuse you may feel free to continue your assualt.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

I am a young earth creationist, Saquist.

 

[spidergoat]

Animate things are complex, inanimate things are complex, so what's your point?

Complexity is not evidence for a complex creator, since science has revealed how complexity can accumulate through an evolutionary process. It even works for non-living things like computer programs.

 

[Saquist]

Then I'm guessing that was a sort of Sarcasm?

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

It was sarcasm, Wise, Humphreys, and Baumgardner are well respected in their fields, and just happen to be young earth creationists.

 

[Saquist]

Complexity is not evidence for a complex creator, since science has revealed how complexity can accumulate through an evolutionary process. It even works for non-living things like computer programs.

And yet computer programs don't do so in a realm of chaos and chance nor do they happen on their own.

Complexity is an ear mark of contstruction. Perhaps in contradiction evolutionist continue to admire the Earth , the solar system, the Human body, life, the universe,...as "Marvels in construction", "A remarkable design," describing how well DNA replicates one scientist called it "inhumanly perfect" He wasn't talking about God...he was talking evolution.

His words betrayed him and others.

 

[Saquist]

Heres another:

A guy here in Houston, Texas

Bryon Leon Meadows

I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administation in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientificly reasonable to accept that God is the orignal cause of all things in nature. The Laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.