If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...
- Thread starter Dr Lou Natic
- Start date
Flores
First you were cute, then you started being annoying, now you are outright unacceptable.
You started out unacceptable and have remained so. In fact, you were so unacceptable that you were banned. I, on the other hand, have been simply annoying to you theists who have yet to make heads or tails of reality.
For you to still be stuck at the imaginary god concept is a great resemblance to my 4 year old…
Perhaps, but I’m sure you are indoctrinating your 4 year old with the fear of imaginary gods and the wrath that comes from thinking for him or her self. Poor kids.
First you were cute, then you started being annoying, now you are outright unacceptable.
You started out unacceptable and have remained so. In fact, you were so unacceptable that you were banned. I, on the other hand, have been simply annoying to you theists who have yet to make heads or tails of reality.
For you to still be stuck at the imaginary god concept is a great resemblance to my 4 year old…
Perhaps, but I’m sure you are indoctrinating your 4 year old with the fear of imaginary gods and the wrath that comes from thinking for him or her self. Poor kids.
So once again I am left to have to requote everything I mentioned before. I often wonder whether you ignore it because you can't answer it, or whether this font is hard to read...
You regard it all as "art". As such I have given this quote:
"However, I hereby give you the opportunity to list some evidence against evolution. I eagerly await your response."
Call it a challenge if you will. Can you rise to the occasion? One would think so, especially considering the lengths you are going to in order to attempt refutation of evolution. By all means use a list format, showing each bit of evidence point by point. If it stands up to credibility, then I'm sure the rest of us will join you in shouting "art" from the rooftops, but you can't expect those who have studied evolution to just accept your claims for the mere sake of it. Do you have something of substance that goes against evolution? Yes or no, Flores- it's as simple as that.
Another point you seemingly missed:
"We then need to ask why you started off in this thread stating evolution as real, and now are trying your hardest to debunk it."
Is there a reason for the sudden reversal? Did you receive a vision?
Come on Flores, it's not too much trouble to ask you to provide something of substance to help refute evolution.
Actually, this analogy fits perfectly but needs correction. You study what happens to water on the Earth, including where it comes from in a local sense but does not concern yourself (in regards to your field) with how Earth came to have water in the first place. Cosmology, astrology, and planetology describe how water was created in the Universe and how 3/4 of the Earth came to be covered with it but this is beyond the scope of your field. It is enough that it does exist and you study how it works within this context. The same thing applies to evolution. It's not that the question is unimportant but that regardless of the answer DNA exists and Evolution does occur.Flores said:
You're making too much of the division. It's not that a biologist or evolutionist is unaware of the questions and theories of Abiogenesis it's that the theories regarding Evolution are not dependent upon the answer to life's origin.
Because the laws of physics and chemistry allow for a wide variety of combinations, some of which can develop into what we call life and the Universe is big enough and old enough for many of those combinations to occur.
Because life forms that do not maintain a balance die off. If you consume your resources more quickly than they are replenished, you die.
By observing life. That's the whole thrust of Evolution. Regardless of how it began, life adapts, it evolves to survive. We see the evidence of this all the time, perhaps most notably when humans disrupt the scenario.
I don't entirely dismiss the possibility. It is possible that some force arranged the conditions of the Universe in order for life to develop. It's also possible that this force tweaked things along the way in order for things to develop as they have. But while it's possible it's not necessary. When we look really closely at ourselves, when we get down to the biological, genetic, and chemical levels we're not really any different than the other animals. Nor are the forces that operate in us any different than anything else we can observe.
There is a critical difference between the evolution of a river and the evolution of life. Life is active; it borrows energy from one place in order to work against the laws of physics in another. Therefore life is not merely confined to the path of least resistance but can overcome a certain amount of resistance. Life adapts.
I do hope you'll reconsider. I think you provide an important point of view and I'd miss your voice here.
What reliability are you looking for? There are areas where it can be found and other areas where it is much looser. This is true for any science; if you examine your own profession you'll know this is true.
Don't make the same mistake that PM keeps making; paleontology is not Evolution and Evolution is not dependent upon paleontological hypotheses but it does make some predictions about paleontology. PM makes this mistake, supposing that it is and that by refuting some paleontological hypotheses he is refuting Evolution. He's not.
The accuracy of the Carbon 14 dating method decreases with age. The older the item being dated is the larger the margin of error. Around 50 or 60,000 years the margin of error becomes greater than the accuracy and the Carbon 14 method is no longer usable. For younger items, particularly archaeological items, Carbon 14 dating is quite accurate.
Fossils, by definition, contain no bone. During the process of fossilization all organic material is leeched out and replaced with minerals. Additionally, since carbon 14 dating is good only to about 50,000 years (see above) the method would be no good on dinosaur fossils which are 65 million years old and older. Yhe carbon 14 dating method is worthless for dating dinosaurs. Fossils are dated with other radiological methods. If the age of dinosaur fossils are in question all other geologic dating methods are also suspect (this would likely include your field of knowledge).
Not at all. Different dating methods have varying periods of accuracy that are dependent upon the half-life of various elements. When one dating method shows that a sample is 'off the scale' of that method another method for which the time scale is more appropriate is used. This all conforms to facts well demonstrated by physics it is not random or capricious but quite logical.
Let's say you are looking at an object in the sky but cannot see it clearly. You would then likely assume that it is too far away to see well and might get out a high power telescope to look at it. But now your view is too close up, all you get is a blurry image that fills your field of vision. You then pull out your binoculars and are able to see the object clearly as a high flying plane. The binoculars work best because they are most accurate for the range of the object; it's too far away for your eyes and too close for the high-powered telescope. Radiometric dating works similarly.
This is not Evolution. This is Paleontology. As you should know, the historical sciences are largely 'best guess' scenarios. Observing the erosion caused by a river over a million years you can put an educated guess as to the river's history but can you give an absolute and exact history of that river for every year of its existence? Selecting one rock from the river bed you might guess where it originated from but can you tell me exactly where it came from and precisely how it got downstream? Paleontology is the same.
~Raithere
Flores, hello
I would say that I think the term “evolution” has entered mainstream usage and does not represent the “scientific” word meaning when used out of context.
Used in the scientific sense evolution explains change in pre-existing life.
No one here would argue that adding anti-biotic to a jar of bacteria will eventually cause the selection of anti-biotic resistance bacteria. That is evolution. And most everyone agrees with it.
However, for those who like to NOT believe in god and still need some sort of faith they say evolution explains how life began. And it doesn’t. So people who like to think it did – tough luck you’ll have to live on faith that “somehow” life began.
Regardless, evolution does offer an explanation on how humans came into being from an earlier form of primate. And yes if you follow the line back in time genetically we can compare ourselves and see that many of the same proteins in our cells are also in bacteria. The electron transport for example has highly conserved forms of protein. Now to me that is a strong indication that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor. And if there were a god, of which there may very well be many, it/they did a good job of setting the humans up to appear as if they evolved from an earlier life form. When I bring this to the attention of my Christian and Muslim friends they just answer. It’s another test. Which may be true – albeit a test only for the biologically informed, and it’d be a tricky one.
Evolution as a predictive model or classification?
Well, let’s look at the bacteria example. I predictic that if I take some bacteria and put some antibiotic in their media that it will kill almost all of the bacteria leaving a few behind, most of these will be genetically and physically slightly different than the initial population (as a whole) and when they multiply the new population that will develop will carry their genetic make up. As I repeat this over and over, there’re be a bacteria population that will all carry a slightly different genetic makeup than was the general case in the initial population. And maybe, a new type of protein will arise as mutations in the DNA lead to the formation of a protein that is highly resistant to the antibiotic. What is "new" protein? That's a term of classification that we'd have to agree on. We'll say "antibiotic resistant protein A1" for a form of the protien who's new structure is resistant to the antibiotic. This DNA will eventually be contained in all the Bugs in the population - That’s a lot of prediction I’ve just done (and some classification but only after the fact – I’ll call these bugs resistance-A1 bacteria). So I’d say evolution is mainly predictive. And powerfully so.
Agree?
I would say that I think the term “evolution” has entered mainstream usage and does not represent the “scientific” word meaning when used out of context.
Used in the scientific sense evolution explains change in pre-existing life.
No one here would argue that adding anti-biotic to a jar of bacteria will eventually cause the selection of anti-biotic resistance bacteria. That is evolution. And most everyone agrees with it.
However, for those who like to NOT believe in god and still need some sort of faith they say evolution explains how life began. And it doesn’t. So people who like to think it did – tough luck you’ll have to live on faith that “somehow” life began.
Regardless, evolution does offer an explanation on how humans came into being from an earlier form of primate. And yes if you follow the line back in time genetically we can compare ourselves and see that many of the same proteins in our cells are also in bacteria. The electron transport for example has highly conserved forms of protein. Now to me that is a strong indication that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor. And if there were a god, of which there may very well be many, it/they did a good job of setting the humans up to appear as if they evolved from an earlier life form. When I bring this to the attention of my Christian and Muslim friends they just answer. It’s another test. Which may be true – albeit a test only for the biologically informed, and it’d be a tricky one.
Evolution as a predictive model or classification?
Well, let’s look at the bacteria example. I predictic that if I take some bacteria and put some antibiotic in their media that it will kill almost all of the bacteria leaving a few behind, most of these will be genetically and physically slightly different than the initial population (as a whole) and when they multiply the new population that will develop will carry their genetic make up. As I repeat this over and over, there’re be a bacteria population that will all carry a slightly different genetic makeup than was the general case in the initial population. And maybe, a new type of protein will arise as mutations in the DNA lead to the formation of a protein that is highly resistant to the antibiotic. What is "new" protein? That's a term of classification that we'd have to agree on. We'll say "antibiotic resistant protein A1" for a form of the protien who's new structure is resistant to the antibiotic. This DNA will eventually be contained in all the Bugs in the population - That’s a lot of prediction I’ve just done (and some classification but only after the fact – I’ll call these bugs resistance-A1 bacteria). So I’d say evolution is mainly predictive. And powerfully so.
Agree?
Bells
Staff member
Less is more Flores and I tried to keep it simple for a number of reasons and my stating those reasons could be construed as being rude.Flores said:
Now as to my position in regards to evolution in a simplified format. I am sure I do not need to explain it to you as you are more than capable of picking up a biology book and reading it yourself. I believe that we are all descendant of a common ancestor. Over time, mutations or changes take place which results in the diversification and this in turn gives rise to new species, leading up to what we see today. If memory serves me correct, this is termed as 'descent with/and modification'.
We can still see the connection with other species indicating that we have a common ancestor when we look at the human hand and then compare it with the wing of a bat and the flipper dolphin as an example. This connection is even more evident when one looks at the embryo of a human and compare it with other animals and then see the similarities in the development of the embryo. Flores, for me, we share a common ancestor and mutations over millions of years have led to diverse species all related to each other one way or the other however minute such a relation may be. We all share dna, some more than others, our bodies consist of cells, just like all life forms on this planet, etc.
For example to explain my position on evolution, take a family tree. Over the space of 300 years we will see small amounts of changes with the inheritance of each subsequent child born. But over the space of 300 million years and those small changes in inheritance have the capacity to be massive and diverse. But my position of evolution (in a nutshell) Flores is that through constant mutations and change, there has been the diversification and ultimately the development of new species which has continued to mutate and change through generations and the cycle is constant, ultimately leading us to what we see today.
Flores by that statement it appears that you understand little. I have never joined any 'bandwagon' for fear of retribution. If Snakelord or James and Co took to terrorising me, they'd go on ignore (after telling them to f*ck off). As for fearing that they'd make fun of me for my beliefs, so what? I make fun right back. I speak my mind and leave it at that. If people get offended then they are more than capable of either telling me or putting me on ignore. If I agree with Snakelord and James and Co in this thread, it does not mean that I will agree with them in other threads, it doesn't mean that I've hopped on the so called 'bandwagon'. I believe, if memory serves me right, that I've disagreed with James at least in the past and I did so without caring or fear of being terrorised or made fun of. This isn't primary school Flores where people try and get in line with the 'cool group'. There is no cool group or crowd. I have again stated my belief in regards to how I view evolution at your having asked me to, if James, Snakelord and Co disagree with how I view it, I'm sure they will say so, just as I would state my disagreement with anything they might say.
Last edited:
What proof do you have the anyone DOES believe that evolution doesn't exist? And what if it's "god" or "goddess" or whatever that simply makes people alike their parents and so-forth?
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
First, what is an "evolutionists" exactly? I am beginning to see why so many times someone comes up with the ridiculous in an attempt to make a point.
I ask this, by evolution, are we assuming here that all evolution is "Darwin's theory of evolution?" If so, why would a theory be called Darwin's theory, and if it is still a theory how come it is called fact? Just wondering. Evolution is, and hardly requires belief to be, but Darwin? Great guy, but some of his stuff has been "proven" wrong, at least until someone else proves those wrong, right? PMT
I ask this, by evolution, are we assuming here that all evolution is "Darwin's theory of evolution?" If so, why would a theory be called Darwin's theory, and if it is still a theory how come it is called fact? Just wondering. Evolution is, and hardly requires belief to be, but Darwin? Great guy, but some of his stuff has been "proven" wrong, at least until someone else proves those wrong, right? PMT
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Raithere said:
Hiya Raithere,
As far as I can see, primate evolution for example is dependant on these 'best guess' scenarios, so Paleontology is important in this context.
Is this correct?
Thanks
Dave
Michael said:
There is probably more work out on this subject than people think. In my own field there is for instance this work in which they have a mathematical model which generates tooth shapes through distribution of inhibitors and activators of growth. This model predicts existing tooth shapes and the intermediary forms by small changes in the parameters. Gosh you might say, it is just a model. No, it predicts patterns of these activators and inhibitors of growth. And these predicted patterns are identical to real gene expression patterns in different kind of teeth.
This is just one example.
I think that most people make the mistake by concentrating on matters such as human evolution. Well, the views on human evolution change quite a lot, because there isn't really that much data and new data is discovered all the time. That is the nature of science. Get a grip...it is only one incomplete dataset. There is so much science ot there on evolution that it is just plain silly to think that you could refute evolution as a process. What happens is that the views on evolution are dynamic. Details change with new insights. That is not a refutation of evolution. Evolution has never left the building (unlike Elvis) since Darwin published his book. It certainly has changed in detail. But that is not refutation people.
Science is not about facts. It is about data and interpretation. And re-interpretation if necessary.
But if you really want to refute evolution you should come up with an alternative theory. Or do you believe scientists will give up a productive theory (it has given an incredible impetus to biology) because some members of the public or scientific community can't 'believe' evolution is true?
You are almost right. Evolution is different from 'evolutionism' (or the 'logical belief' held by those who would like to be called 'evolutionists' ).P. M. Thorne said:
But no one is sure about what is an "evolutionists" exactly. Generally, evolutionists hold a view that humans and apes have common ancestor. This elusive common ancestor was a missing link between us and apes. This would remain a missing link in near future because even if that ancestor's fossils found they would argue in 2 opposing groups. One group, say 'lumper-ists', would argue that the fossil belongs to early Human. And the rival group, lets call them 'Bushy tree-ists' would assert that it belongs to different species other than humans & apes. These 2 groups would take the battle to the end till no more fossil is left out under the earth. Then they would dig out graves to find skeletons and indulge in arguing again. That time, most probably, the skeletons of a pigmy and a 7feet tall basket ball player, would be the centre of controversy. One group would say they belong to homo-sapiens but negligibly different sub-species. The other group would argue that they found 2 new species that somewhat resemble but not belong the humans of that time as per their classifications.
'Anti-evolutionists' believe that it is the apes that devolved from humans.(!) Some mutations caused some of the homo members to be more fond of trees and devolved further into apes. These folks would often check their back whether they start growing tail for fear of joining the tree dwellers.
'Creationists' believe that species were created by God as they are now. Some of them don't even like the term 'evolution' for fear of God's wrath. Some modern creationists would grant evolution some space and say micro evolution might take place within species. But ape2human or human2ape transformation over the period is an illusion and so on.
Some 'Alien-ists' would argue that humans were indeed a mix-up of aliens and apes of the earth or something similar to that.. They often look up the sky to find out whether their ancestors' race make appearance that day.
/end of
Bells said:
The similarties that you see support the argument of a common creator more than it does a common blind deaf unconscious anscestor. You argument support the notion that our universe was created by the same artist.
Evolution rests on the following assumptions:
1- life is based on trial and error.
2- Life is not intelligent.
2- Nature necessitates it; Nature makes it."
These assumptions are absurd. There are millions of cells in a human body and a single cell contains about one million proteins. The possibility of a protein occurring by chance is infinitesimally small. Without One who has the power of choice to prefer its existence and the absolute power to create, it who has an absolute, all-comprehensive knowledge to pre-arrange its relations with other proteins, with the cell and all parts of the body and place it just where it must be, the existence of a single protein is not possible.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
It might benifit you to read up on gene mutation, protein transcription and protein folding.
It also might be helpful to learn about organic chemistry, and understand why molecules bond how they do, form the shapes that they do, etc. While God may have had a hand in designing the whole system, as it currently exists, it can work fine without him.
I find this comment a bit worrysome. You are aware that much of the embryonic "evidence" which shows similarities between different types of animals was forged? the woodcuts that many of the high-school bio textbooks to show the supposed gills on human embryos, the similar look to chicken, human, etc embryos were altered by the original researcher (Ernst Haeckel) to help support evolution? They have long been known to be fakes, but are still published in national textbooks.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/fairytales/emb.html
http://www.cornerstonechurchonline.com/biblestudies/haeckel.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_010423.htm
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000029.html
http://faculty.uca.edu/~benw/biol4415/lecture8b/sld001.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
it is an embarrasment of the Biological education community.
Last edited:
Michael said:
You are again missing the point. You are assuming way too much and taking too much for granted. How could you miss the miracle signature of creation in the tiniest of creatures. The human body is a miracle of symmetry, as well as of asymmetry. Scientists know how an embryo develops in the womb to form this symmetry and asymmetry, but they are completely ignorant of how the particles, that reach the embryo through the mother and function as building blocks in the formation of the body, can distinguish between right and left??? how they are able to determine the place of each organ?? how each goes and inserts itself in the exact place of a certain organ?? and how they understand the extremely complicated relations among cells and organs and their requirements?? This is so complicated a process that if a single particle which should be placed in, for example, the pupil of the right eye, were to go to the ear, it could lead to malfunction or even death..
It's time that Atheists decide which position do they rather support:
Either each particle possesses almost infinite knowledge, will and power or One who has such knowledge, power and will creates and administers each particle???
Evolution does not put forward any assumption for the basis of life. Evolution does assume a selective force which has influence on a population of "building blocks". May they be individuals of a species combating for survival, or molecules combining to a larger molecule.Flores said:
Why do you think evolution needs this assumption?
What exactly do you mean by nature necessitates it? I wouldn't claim that nature "makes" evolution. I am not sure whether to see evolution as a part of nature, or as a principle to which nature is subject. I find the term "nature" to be very hard to define.
Yes, they are.
This argument is not valid. You seem to be assuming that a protein was put together in one go. However, an evolutionary process works in a different way. Let's think of a protein as a giant puzzle, and its atoms as pieces of the puzzle. An evolutionary process does not try to solve this puzzle in one attempt. Rather, it picks a few pieces and see if they fit. If they happen to do, they enter the next round, if they do not, the combination is disolved. The factor of chance is only involved in combining those pieces that were already there, or were formed by the evolutionary process in a previous round, into a large piece. Certainly it does not produce the entire protein at once. Perhaps, after thousands, if not millions, of such rounds amino acids would appear. And, after thousands, if not millions, of rounds later, proteins could be floating around. Now, obviously this takes time. A lot of time. Hundreds of thousands of years even. But this is not really an issue if the lifespan of the Earth is measured in billions of years.
Last edited:
mouse said:
Life is not a puzzle. Science is a puzzle though. Think about it for a second and tell me how do we make puzzles? First, we must have a pre-arranged, pre-designed piece, second, we take the bits and pieces apart, then we challenge our minds by putting it back together. Are we intelligent enough to realize that we are only playing a game, that we didn't really create the piece? That this piece was created by an artist before it was cut up and given to us to play with?
Can you call shakespearean art a puzzle?, the monalisa a puzzle? Mozart concerto a puzzle? Behind life is a unique choosing powerfull force that has has created life from nothing at all...
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
let's say that I want to build a bridge. The desing and construction of the bridge is a exersize in puzzle-making. But the bridge didn't exist beforehand, and I'm not simply re-creating it. I envision it, and within the confines of the limits of physics and chemistry, I use natural reasources, created the needed shapes, and built a bridge.
The shape and design of the peices were determined by a combination of my mental design and what physical forces the bridge would need to withstand. The bridge was created around pre-existing factors, but not by a pre-defined, omnipotent set of instructions.
The shape and design of the peices were determined by a combination of my mental design and what physical forces the bridge would need to withstand. The bridge was created around pre-existing factors, but not by a pre-defined, omnipotent set of instructions.
ok, I don't personally see that, but that's fine. it's what you believe. But that has nothing to do with evolution.
river-wind said:
The key word here is "I". Can you speak similarly for the atoms?
Do bridges build themselves by accumulating the right size blocks, steel, bolts, ect??
river-wind said:
The key here as well, is YOUR DESIGN. Again, the bridge didn't build itself, because concrete, steel, water, ect....are blind, unconscious. They may interact together unfavorable if left to fall on top of each other without a pre-arranged design.