Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter darknes
- Start date
jerthunter
Active Member
I still do not understand how many people insist that microevolution is different than macroevolution. Sure they are different in magnitude but the steps of microevolution build on each other to give us macroevolution.
I just don't understand how someone can agree that small heritable chages happen over a small amount of time yet claim that large heritable changes cannot occur over large periods of time.
I just don't understand how someone can agree that small heritable chages happen over a small amount of time yet claim that large heritable changes cannot occur over large periods of time.
ophiura
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I still do not understand how many people insist that microevolution is different than macroevolution. Sure they are different in magnitude but the steps of microevolution build on each other to give us macroevolution.
I just don't understand how someone can agree that small heritable chages happen over a small amount of time yet claim that large heritable changes cannot occur over large periods of time.
I agree. It is especially strange when you consider that we don't agree on what a species is to begin with...so I could see a bunch of small differences and, as a taxonomist, decide they are different species.
BTW, before everyone starts throwing out their high school biology definition of a "species" be assured that it is no where near as clear cut as that. I think we, as a society, are burdened by the oversimplification of our teaching of science (if done at all).
Case in point "its just a scientific theory, prove it...."
I still do not understand how many people insist that microevolution is different than macroevolution. Sure they are different in magnitude but the steps of microevolution build on each other to give us macroevolution.
I just don't understand how someone can agree that small heritable chages happen over a small amount of time yet claim that large heritable changes cannot occur over large periods of time.
I agree. It is especially strange when you consider that we don't agree on what a species is to begin with...so I could see a bunch of small differences and, as a taxonomist, decide they are different species.
BTW, before everyone starts throwing out their high school biology definition of a "species" be assured that it is no where near as clear cut as that. I think we, as a society, are burdened by the oversimplification of our teaching of science (if done at all).
Case in point "its just a scientific theory, prove it...."
garnet13aj
Active Member
I absolutely believe in evolution. All the facts point towards its occurence. itom37 made a number of really good points that people don't seem to be taking in. Every argument against evolution so far on this page has been clouded by ignorance and a misunderstanding of what evoution is and how scientific inquiry comes about.
In the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins he recounts the story of a scientist, Bryan Wise, who struggled w/the dilema between evolution and religion. Wise took a Bible and cut "out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world-view were true." At the end, the Bible would not even stay together when he picked it up. Wise went on to write "try as I might...I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture...With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science" Later he wrote "...if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
If you don't believe in evolution because of religious reasons, don't bring up weak arguments against evolution, just say I don't believe in the scientific process and what is observable here on earth. At least you won't be lying to yourself.
For all of you out there trying to debunk evolution, have you ever read any arguments for evolution or just the ones against it? I've read many on the arguments against evolution and none of them have held up.
I'm sure this doesn't make any difference, but I've only read the first page of this thread so far...
In the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins he recounts the story of a scientist, Bryan Wise, who struggled w/the dilema between evolution and religion. Wise took a Bible and cut "out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world-view were true." At the end, the Bible would not even stay together when he picked it up. Wise went on to write "try as I might...I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture...With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science" Later he wrote "...if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
If you don't believe in evolution because of religious reasons, don't bring up weak arguments against evolution, just say I don't believe in the scientific process and what is observable here on earth. At least you won't be lying to yourself.
For all of you out there trying to debunk evolution, have you ever read any arguments for evolution or just the ones against it? I've read many on the arguments against evolution and none of them have held up.
I'm sure this doesn't make any difference, but I've only read the first page of this thread so far...
jerthunter
Active Member
It is funny how people ask for evidence but then when it is presented they ignore it and ask for it again. It is very amusing but not very helpful to the discussion.
clown boy
Active Member
Originally Posted by garnet13aj
If you don't believe in evolution because of religious reasons, don't bring up weak arguments against evolution, just say I don't believe in the scientific process and what is observable here on earth. At least you won't be lying to yourself.
The Scientific Process? Here is the Webster's definition of Science:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
None of those definitions fit Evolution. The Evolutionary Theory is just that: A theory.
Observable here on earth? The only thing that is truly observable here on earth is Entropy.
If you don't believe in evolution because of religious reasons, don't bring up weak arguments against evolution, just say I don't believe in the scientific process and what is observable here on earth. At least you won't be lying to yourself.
The Scientific Process? Here is the Webster's definition of Science:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
None of those definitions fit Evolution. The Evolutionary Theory is just that: A theory.
Observable here on earth? The only thing that is truly observable here on earth is Entropy.
clown boy
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
It is funny how people ask for evidence but then when it is presented they ignore it and ask for it again. It is very amusing but not very helpful to the discussion.
I seriously haven't seen any real scientific fact proving it yet. I watch the Science news, and I haven't heard of anything...
It is funny how people ask for evidence but then when it is presented they ignore it and ask for it again. It is very amusing but not very helpful to the discussion.
I seriously haven't seen any real scientific fact proving it yet. I watch the Science news, and I haven't heard of anything...
geridoc
Well-Known Member
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
Seems like this part of the definition pretty well includes the scientific theory of evolution.
Seems like this part of the definition pretty well includes the scientific theory of evolution.
clown boy
Active Member
from Yahoo dictonary:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
# Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
# An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
# Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
# Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
# An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
# Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
I seriously haven't seen any real scientific fact proving it yet. I watch the Science news, and I haven't heard of anything...
As I have said before, you won't see "proof" of evolution. Science doesn't work that way. You can only disprove, not prove, a theory. Instead, you find evidence that supports a theory, or disproves it, but never proves it. The supporting evidence for evolution comes from biology, physics, chemistry, paleontology and many other scientific disciplines, while the only contradata comes form a 2000 year old text written by pre-scientific people that, in many respects contradicts other sacred texts written by other pre-scientific people.
I seriously haven't seen any real scientific fact proving it yet. I watch the Science news, and I haven't heard of anything...
As I have said before, you won't see "proof" of evolution. Science doesn't work that way. You can only disprove, not prove, a theory. Instead, you find evidence that supports a theory, or disproves it, but never proves it. The supporting evidence for evolution comes from biology, physics, chemistry, paleontology and many other scientific disciplines, while the only contradata comes form a 2000 year old text written by pre-scientific people that, in many respects contradicts other sacred texts written by other pre-scientific people.
clown boy
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Seems like this part of the definition pretty well includes the scientific theory of evolution.
It says:
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
How can this fit evolution?
Seems like this part of the definition pretty well includes the scientific theory of evolution.
It says:
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
How can this fit evolution?
clown boy
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
the only contradata comes form a 2000 year old text written by pre-scientific people that, in many respects contradicts other sacred texts written by other pre-scientific people.
Here is some modern scientific data: Entropy.
There is a lot of contra-data. Evidence points to the fact that the earth is young, and evolution could never happen.
the only contradata comes form a 2000 year old text written by pre-scientific people that, in many respects contradicts other sacred texts written by other pre-scientific people.
Here is some modern scientific data: Entropy.
There is a lot of contra-data. Evidence points to the fact that the earth is young, and evolution could never happen.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
It says:
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
How can this fit evolution?
Because evolution is a description of a general truth (whether it is accepted or not, it describes what is seen as a general truth) operating through generalized laws (survival of the fittest) obtained and tested through the scientific method, and it concerns knowledge of the physical world. I don't see how it could be more clear. You may choose to reject the theory, but that doesn't make it any less a scientific theory.
It says:
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
How can this fit evolution?
Because evolution is a description of a general truth (whether it is accepted or not, it describes what is seen as a general truth) operating through generalized laws (survival of the fittest) obtained and tested through the scientific method, and it concerns knowledge of the physical world. I don't see how it could be more clear. You may choose to reject the theory, but that doesn't make it any less a scientific theory.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Here is some modern scientific data: Entropy.
There is a lot of contra-data. Evidence points to the fact that the earth is young, and evolution could never happen.
The earth is young, only if you accept that about 4.5 billion years is young. That is the age that all of the scientific evidence points to. Whatever evidence you refer to, probably coming out of the Young Earth Creationist movement, should refer to the quotation by St. Augustine that I referenced several messages ago. As for entropy, I assume you are implying that entropy makes it impossible for evolution to occur. The same could be said of life, except that it is an example of what St. Augustine is talking about. Take a course in thermodynamics, and you will see that the earth is a not a closed system, so arguments about entropy are nonsense, and only weaken the entire creationist argument by being easily disproven.
Here is some modern scientific data: Entropy.
There is a lot of contra-data. Evidence points to the fact that the earth is young, and evolution could never happen.
The earth is young, only if you accept that about 4.5 billion years is young. That is the age that all of the scientific evidence points to. Whatever evidence you refer to, probably coming out of the Young Earth Creationist movement, should refer to the quotation by St. Augustine that I referenced several messages ago. As for entropy, I assume you are implying that entropy makes it impossible for evolution to occur. The same could be said of life, except that it is an example of what St. Augustine is talking about. Take a course in thermodynamics, and you will see that the earth is a not a closed system, so arguments about entropy are nonsense, and only weaken the entire creationist argument by being easily disproven.
clown boy
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Because evolution is a description of a general truth (whether it is accepted or not, it describes what is seen as a general truth)
What truth?
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
operating through generalized laws (survival of the fittest)
That's not a generalized law...
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
obtained and tested through the scientific method,
When? Where?
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
it concerns knowledge of the physical world.
Such as...
Because evolution is a description of a general truth (whether it is accepted or not, it describes what is seen as a general truth)
What truth?
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
operating through generalized laws (survival of the fittest)
That's not a generalized law...
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
obtained and tested through the scientific method,
When? Where?
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
it concerns knowledge of the physical world.
Such as...
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
What truth?That's not a generalized law...When? Where?Such as...
Closed minds are the closest thing to perfect entropy, and yours is as closed as I can imagine. I don't see the purpose of continuing this part of the discussion. I didn't claim that evolution was the truth, only that it fit the definition of science. If you keep a closed mind, entropy will win, in your mind, at least. Bad news.
I am adding a subsequent post in response to Clown Boy's questions not to influence his "thinking", but so that others with a more open attitude can see where he goes wrong, and how science works.
What truth?That's not a generalized law...When? Where?Such as...
Closed minds are the closest thing to perfect entropy, and yours is as closed as I can imagine. I don't see the purpose of continuing this part of the discussion. I didn't claim that evolution was the truth, only that it fit the definition of science. If you keep a closed mind, entropy will win, in your mind, at least. Bad news.
I am adding a subsequent post in response to Clown Boy's questions not to influence his "thinking", but so that others with a more open attitude can see where he goes wrong, and how science works.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Because evolution is a description of a general truth (whether it is accepted or not, it describes what is seen as a general truth)
What truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
operating through generalized laws (survival of the fittest)
That's not a generalized law...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
obtained and tested through the scientific method,
When? Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
it concerns knowledge of the physical world.
Such as...
Reply With Quote
"What truth"? The requirement is not that you accept an explanation as a general truth, only that it try to be general in nature. So far, evolution and the Christian bible are 1 and 1.
"Generalized law"? Survival of the fittest, whether you accept it or not, isw a generalized law that describes how organisms change and compete in their environments.
"Obtained through the scientific method"? I hardly know where to begin. Should we discuss radioactive decay to assess the age of the earth, or the fossil finds, or the observed changes in allelic frequency and subsequent speciation of drosophila melanogaster. The list is too long, nad comes from too many disciplines to enumerate them here.
"Knowledge of the physical world"? What do you think we are talking about? It is only the bible that claims to have knowledge of the non-physical world. The theory of evolution certainly makes explanations about the physical world.
So, to take a page from Augustine, take your responses back to something resembling a rational basis. These errant shots you have taken have no merit, and do a disservice to your cause.
Because evolution is a description of a general truth (whether it is accepted or not, it describes what is seen as a general truth)
What truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
operating through generalized laws (survival of the fittest)
That's not a generalized law...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
obtained and tested through the scientific method,
When? Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
it concerns knowledge of the physical world.
Such as...
Reply With Quote
"What truth"? The requirement is not that you accept an explanation as a general truth, only that it try to be general in nature. So far, evolution and the Christian bible are 1 and 1.
"Generalized law"? Survival of the fittest, whether you accept it or not, isw a generalized law that describes how organisms change and compete in their environments.
"Obtained through the scientific method"? I hardly know where to begin. Should we discuss radioactive decay to assess the age of the earth, or the fossil finds, or the observed changes in allelic frequency and subsequent speciation of drosophila melanogaster. The list is too long, nad comes from too many disciplines to enumerate them here.
"Knowledge of the physical world"? What do you think we are talking about? It is only the bible that claims to have knowledge of the non-physical world. The theory of evolution certainly makes explanations about the physical world.
So, to take a page from Augustine, take your responses back to something resembling a rational basis. These errant shots you have taken have no merit, and do a disservice to your cause.
xdave
Active Member
There is proof of evolution. Read some statistics on humans. If the physical characteristics of people have changed over the years, that is evolution. The ratio of blondes to brunettes, or the length of fingers compared to height for example.
I have an organ called the appendix. Presently it has no function, so why is it there? Did it used to have a purpose? If yes then that is evolution.
For those who support creationism be careful about using "there is no proof" to deny evolution, as there is no proof for you theory either.
I have an organ called the appendix. Presently it has no function, so why is it there? Did it used to have a purpose? If yes then that is evolution.
For those who support creationism be careful about using "there is no proof" to deny evolution, as there is no proof for you theory either.