Evolution

slouiscar

slouiscar

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3377001
By the way, you have simplified Darwin's work to the point that it (your objection) is meaningless, and you have ignored 150 years of follow-up science that has failed to discredit Darwin in any major way, and with each scientific breakthrough has only supported his ideas.
Well my post wasn't intended to be part of some detailed dissertation. Complex topics tend to get simplified on message boards.
Anyway, I simply tried to express that Darwin's findings in the Galapagos during the Beagle expedition served as the basis of his theory. Specifically, the micro as defined above, smaller evolutionary changes within a species or population. finches, tortoises, etc. Those observations served as the foundation for the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through the process of natural selection.
I am not ignoring the 150 years of follow up supporting his theory. I was just referring to his process. He observed specialization, derived from natural selection, and theorized that "the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution."
 
slouiscar

slouiscar

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3377001
One idea of Darwin's (if you can call it that) that has been revised by subsequent is the role of mutation. Darwin never proposed genetic mutation as the driver behind evolutionary change. Genetics was a pretty much unknown field, and the very concept of a gene would not become widely recognized for another 30-40 years. Darwin just spoke about change, and how natural selection would work on the diversity that appears in every generation. With the advent of the gene concept much focus was placed on random mutation. We now know that much of generational diversity is the result not of gene mutation, but of genetic rearrangement or duplication, resulting in existing genes acquiring either new functions or new regulatory mechanisms.
I have no objection to the theory and I have no objection to the 150 years of new evidence and advances that add support.
You touch on my point, or on my question I suppose. Darwin never proposed random genetic mutation as the driver. So who drew the line in the sand and asked that people must fall in behind either Darwin or faith in a higher power?
What fact has been uncovered since Darwin's time that suggests that genetic rearrangement, duplication, or mutation must result from random events of chance occurring over expanses of time?
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by slouiscar http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377040
I have no objection to the theory and I have no objection to the 150 years of new evidence and advances that add support.
You touch on my point, or on my question I suppose. Darwin never proposed random genetic mutation as the driver. So who drew the line in the sand and asked that people must fall in behind either Darwin or faith in a higher power?
What fact has been uncovered since Darwin's time that suggests that genetic rearrangement, duplication, or mutation must result from random events of chance occurring over expanses of time?
Darwin was actually well trained in theology, and was a devout Christian. He was very concerned that others would see, in his theory, an argument against the existence of God. Today the line in the sand is primarily drawn by religious conservatives who interpret their Bible as completely inerrant and literally true, ignoring other creation myths of other religions (many of which also insist that theirs is the only "true" explanation of life on this planet). This is manifested in the US by the Creationist movement which has evolved into the Intelligent Design movement in an effort to legitimize their religious views with a pseudo-scientific approach.
As to what suggests that rearrangement, etc. are important drivers of evolution, google evo-devo or the hox gene and you will see how these eipgenetic, non-mutational events, affect form and function.
 
slouiscar

slouiscar

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377309
Darwin was actually well trained in theology, and was a devout Christian. He was very concerned that others would see, in his theory, an argument against the existence of God. Today the line in the sand is primarily drawn by religious conservatives who interpret their Bible as completely inerrant and literally true, ignoring other creation myths of other religions (many of which also insist that theirs is the only "true" explanation of life on this planet). This is manifested in the US by the Creationist movement which has evolved into the Intelligent Design movement in an effort to legitimize their religious views with a pseudo-scientific approach.
As to what suggests that rearrangement, etc. are important drivers of evolution, google evo-devo or the hox gene and you will see how these eipgenetic, non-mutational events, affect form and function.
I don't need to google. I have faith in the expert research and findings as it relates to rearrangement, etc. driving evolution. Those or any other findings, however, do not serve as a proof for atheism.
Extremists who interpret the bible or koran or whatever as literal, ignore reality. I find the use of broad classifications, like religious conservatives, to politicize debate problematic. Suffice it to say that not all people of faith "interpret their Bible as completely inerrant and literally true," oblivious to the laws of science. Theistic science is a pseudo science in that it cannot currently be reliably tested. That in itself does not permit us to simply dismiss it as the occult or astrology.
No scientific finding will ever sway the faith of the religious extremist. Similarly, no matter the breathtaking complexity of the universe, the extreme scientific community will not waiver in their faith in the successes of random events occurring over time. The line in the sand is defended fervently by both sides. Both rely on faith to a degree. That and extensive grants and funding.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Scientists rely on grants and funding. Not religious extremists; who mostly rely on blind faith.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Mutations...
We all have them. Last I read I think it was around 150 per person. Most of these are completely harmless and subtle, some are bad, some are good, and some are deadly. The point is that they are not uncommon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377401
Scientists rely on grants and funding. Not religious extremists; who mostly rely on blind faith.
Some religious extremists rely on pseudoscience and ignorance. They come up with their own "proof" which can almost always be disputed easily. One of my favorites is used to "prove" how dinosaurs fit in with creationism. Now some would argue that the bible refers to dinosaurs (obviously not by name-that wouldn't make any sense considering how the term dinosaur is much much younger than the bible). The bible uses words like behemoth and leviathan (I think that's how you spell that). It isn't too much of a stretch to interpret the bible as referencing dinosaurs, but in my opinion it's even less of a stretch to interpret the bible as referencing elephants or hippos. But for now that really doesn't matter as we're getting into semantics and that is distracting me from what I set out to talk about.
In Genesis you'll read about how people on earth lived extraordinarily long lives. It was only after the flood that their lifespans shortened. In any case you'll read in biology books that lizards never stop growing, at least until they die. The similarity between dinosaurs and lizards is clearly visible (though dinosaurs are not lizards-which we are going to choose to ignore). It stands to reason that if lizards never stopped growing and lived much longer lives, that they would eventually be enormous-ie become dinosaurs. Then after the flood these lizards would simply stop living as long and growing as large. (Please note that while lizards never stop growing, their growth rate does decrease dramatically as they mature and also note that by the time they reached that size, they would collapse in on themselves-but again we're ignoring that).
So the other obvious problem you have with this idea is that humans and dinosaurs never coexisted, but of course there is another idea to counter this fact. During the flood the slowest and weakest animals (dinosaurs) died first because they could not escape the water and the stronger animals such as mammals hung on longer due to being faster. Humans of course survived the longest because we have the intelligence and ability to cling to logs and swim. As such, the animals who died first and were lowest (in the water) were buried first, then the mammals, and then humans. This would explain why no human fossils are found with dinosaur fossils (well sort of). The problem with this is that NO mammals fossils were found with dinosaurs. Which would mean that there were no weak or unlucky mammals. The only way that could happen is via a miracle which we were trying to avoid; that was the whole point in creating an idea that seems scientific.
There are a million of these ideas which look like science if presented with long fancy words and complete confidence. That reminds me of eugenics. If you read some things on eugenics, it appears to fit in with what Darwin said, but it certainly does not. Now I'm bringing up another touchy subject which by this point I should have learned to avoid.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377433
Some religious extremists rely on pseudoscience and ignorance. They come up with their own "proof" which can almost always be disputed easily.
In the face of evolutionary science, faith is challenged (though not shaken) and a counterpoint science that includes Biblical literal creationism is a natural defense against cold hard facts.
As more and more people embrace evolutionary science, those who feel that to accept modern science would be against God must find a counter-science that holds true to their belief.
Truth is, I have a strong feeling, God could care less what we believe about evolution or man coming from dust. In the greatest scheme of things, that's not the important stuff to come away with.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377498
In the face of evolutionary science, faith is challenged (though not shaken) and a counterpoint science that includes Biblical literal creationism is a natural defense against cold hard facts.
As more and more people embrace evolutionary science, those who feel that to accept modern science would be against God must find a counter-science that holds true to their belief.
Truth is, I have a strong feeling, God could care less what we believe about evolution or man coming from dust. In the greatest scheme of things, that's not the important stuff to come away with.
+1
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377498
In the face of evolutionary science, faith is challenged (though not shaken) and a counterpoint science that includes Biblical literal creationism is a natural defense against cold hard facts.
As more and more people embrace evolutionary science, those who feel that to accept modern science would be against God must find a counter-science that holds true to their belief.
Truth is, I have a strong feeling, God could care less what we believe about evolution or man coming from dust. In the greatest scheme of things, that's not the important stuff to come away with.
The "counter-science" isn't science and they should not hold it as being the same thing. Faith is not pseudoscience or ignorance. I wasn't saying that. It's great that people are using their imaginations to explain things, but it doesn't help anything. I've heard people say that ideas like this are factual because they are "true for me." But things can't be true for one person and false for another, that goes against what true means. In science you build up a foundation of observations and facts and then come to a conclusion. These people are fact-fitting. They are making up facts to fit to the word of the bible. This is not science. You can call it whatever you want, but don't call it science. With faith you don't need to do that anyway.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377505
The "counter-science" isn't science and they should not hold it as being the same thing. Faith is not pseudoscience or ignorance. I wasn't saying that. It's great that people are using their imaginations to explain things, but it doesn't help anything. I've heard people say that ideas like this are factual because they are "true for me." But things can't be true for one person and false for another, that goes against what true means. In science you build up a foundation of observations and facts and then come to a conclusion. These people are fact-fitting. They are making up facts to fit to the word of the bible. This is not science. You can call it whatever you want, but don't call it science. With faith you don't need to do that anyway.
Science isn't always exact either. They cannot explain the origin of man, creation of the universe or even why the dinosaurs died out with certainty.
 
monsinour

monsinour

Active Member
Questions for both sides:
Religious
1. If what is written in the bible is true, where did the women come from that Cain and Able married?
2. Where the heck is this huge arse boat that carried all these animals and 4 humans? The wood it would have been made from wouldnt have gone anywhere after what, 4,000 years.
3. Where is the Ark of the Covenant? It would surely seem like this piece would put to rest the arguements completely. Supposedly it is guarded by priests somewhere and no one is allowed in to see it. Why? Put the arguement to rest and let one blind photographer in to snap a picture of it. The photagrapher wont see it and looking at a picture isnt the same thing. Better make it a polaroid camera though.
Scientists
1. What was there before the big bang? Something from nothing goes against energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another.
2. Isnt the universe just a little too organized to be a random act of explosion?
-----
The only thing about creationism that makes sense is the jellyfish. "God" sneezed and wala, the jellyfish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377498
Truth is, I have a strong feeling, God could care less what we believe about evolution or man coming from dust. In the greatest scheme of things, that's not the important stuff to come away with.
Something similar was said in Dogma:
Serendipityhttp:///name/nm0000161/: When are you people going to learn? It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's nailed it yet, and they never will because they're all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains need to wake up.
So, pick a side and believe. It is what "god" wants.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377691
Science isn't always exact either. They cannot explain the origin of man, creation of the universe or even why the dinosaurs died out with certainty.
I don't know how that relates to my last post, but I'll roll with the changes. Science isn't done. Oh no, far from it. At one point we didn't know solar system wasn't geocentric, does that mean that science couldn't explain it? Maybe one day we will find the answers. Maybe one day we will create life from the nonliving. Who knows? But even if we don't, does that discredit what we do know? This debate isn't about the existence of God and evolution certainly does not set out to explain the origin of life. It expanded to the existence of God and that's fine, but don't bash on evolution for not explaining this.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377705
I don't know how that relates to my last post, but I'll roll with the changes. Science isn't done. Oh no, far from it. At one point we didn't know solar system wasn't geocentric, does that mean that science couldn't explain it? Maybe one day we will find the answers. Maybe one day we will create life from the nonliving. Who knows? But even if we don't, does that discredit what we do know? This debate isn't about the existence of God and evolution certainly does not set out to explain the origin of life. It expanded to the existence of God and that's fine, but don't bash on evolution for not explaining this.
As you said "science isn't finished yet". They can't explain the origin of the universe any more than they can explain how humans came into being. They have their theories which is fine but in the grander scheme of things what science knows amounts to a frog fart in a typhoon compared to what they don't know. There are so many unanswered questions that speaking in absolutes on a great many of these issues isn't warranted.
 
slouiscar

slouiscar

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377705
I don't know how that relates to my last post, but I'll roll with the changes. Science isn't done. Oh no, far from it. At one point we didn't know solar system wasn't geocentric, does that mean that science couldn't explain it? Maybe one day we will find the answers. Maybe one day we will create life from the nonliving. Who knows? But even if we don't, does that discredit what we do know? This debate isn't about the existence of God and evolution certainly does not set out to explain the origin of life. It expanded to the existence of God and that's fine, but don't bash on evolution for not explaining this.
I don't think reasonable, objective people "bash on evolution". I think there are extremists, who interpret the bible literally, who try hard to discredit scientific findings. Similarly, I think there are some atheists who attempt to discredit people of faith and support their view, using science as a proof.
I don't want to beat it to death, so I'll try to wrap it up for me... Like many, I trust in findings backed by research and the laws of science as we know them. And we agree, science is always changing. New developments and discoveries occur that give us greater understanding. Again however, no scientific finding to date serves as a proof for atheism. In short, I believe there can be both science and a higher power. I understand and support others who believe that there is only science, randomness, and time.
But the discussion here has evolved. To your original point... I think you need to get out more. 40% of American's would vote to elect Daniel Tosh president. The sample here could have been comprised of religious zealots, uneducated, or reasonable minds who question if the theory is complete. In any poll, both the sample and how was the question is asked, greatly influence the result. Take Baltimore, walk through say Rosemont, and ask ten people how old the earth is. a.) 1,000 years, b.) 10,000 years or c.) 4.5 billion years. I am confident 4 of the ten will answer b). ...and I am also pretty confident they are not people who believe that Adam lived to be 930 years old, or that Jonah lived in a whale's belly for three days.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/200#post_3377722
As you said "science isn't finished yet". They can't explain the origin of the universe any more than they can explain how humans came into being. They have their theories which is fine but in the grander scheme of things what science knows amounts to a frog fart in a typhoon compared to what they don't know. There are so many unanswered questions that speaking in absolutes on a great many of these issues isn't warranted.
Scientists realize that, but this issue isn't one of those issues. We do not need to answer every question to get a pretty clear picture and prove what is happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top