Charles Darwin
Forum
Ahhh, I see Hume Ungus has beat me to the keyboard. I’ll go ahead and post my thoughts anyway, even though there will be some overlap in what he just said and what I am posting………
<<You take light hearted phrases and imply "holier than thou ".??? Third Hume wrote me an apology privately, that was my accepting of it...>>
As I said, perhaps I misinterpreted. If that’s the case, then I whole-heartedly apologize.
Having said that, I stand by my statement regarding misconceptions. Here are a few of them:
<<The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a dirty little secret among paleontologist.>>
Extreme rarity? Hardly. There are many documented cases of transitional forms in the fossil record. Look up Rhizosolenia, Gryphaea, Phacops, titanotheres, and G. trilobus and O. universa, just to name a few.
<<Computer Scientist David Foster, calculated the immprobabilty of hemoglobin as a chance event. The staggering odds against a chance event are 10 to the 650th power!!!>>
This assumes that hemoglobin actually arose by chance. Nobody is suggesting that. See Hume Ungus’ post above. Did Foster include the force of natural selection in his calculations?
Furthermore, docjay asked a valid question which you did not answer: is this number the odds of a single event? If so, then this ignores the fact that there were countless hemoglobin predecessor candidates all simultaneously experiencing the same opportunities at the same time. Again, Hume Ungus’ post describes this process in far greater detail than I am willing to delve. I’m grateful that he spared me the effort.
<<The fossil record demonstrates that man and dinosaurs co exsisted on the earth>>
Are you referring to Moab Man and/or Malachite Man? My understanding is that both Moab and Malachite man were determined to be intrusive specimens (ie, they did not originate from the same sediments in which they were found). If you have other examples, I’d be happy to hear them.
<<Mutation is the exception and not the rule, therefore discrediting evolution.>>
I admit I didn’t know the frequency of spontaneous mutation until I looked it up online. I found one paper that puts the rate between 0.1 to 100 per genome per sexual generation for eukaryotes (“Rates of Spontaneous Mutation” Drake et al, 1998.). Apparently this rate varies for different groups (eg, viruses, microbes, etc), and I didn’t have enough time to track down how mutation rates have changed over time (no reason to think that rates can’t change over time just like everything else). But I was surprised nonetheless. I didn’t think it could be as high as 100 mutations per generation. That rate, to me, seems quite capable of providing a healthy amount of variation upon which selection can occur. In my opinion, no discrediting of evolution here.
<<The persistance of life is contrary to what one would expect from the evolution model.>>
Statements like this show a lack of understanding of evolution. The evolutionary model doesn’t dictate that change MUST occur, only that it can. If a species is particularly adept at surviving and/or its environment hasn’t changed enough to stress the population, then there is no reason why the species can’t continue to exist as is. Hume Ungus comments on this as well, I see.
<<How does chance design??? How does chance create set function and laws>>
Once again, evolution does not come about because of random chance. It comes about because a selective force or agent favors certain traits within a population, thereby resulting in an increase of those favorable alleles within the gene pool. Natural selection, sexual selection, and artificial selection are three forces that could result in these changes within the gene pool.
This goes back to my original comment about keeping an open mind…… Here’s where I was going with that: I think there is room for a person to both believe in a God AND in evolution. I don’t see them as being mutually exclusive. Indeed many devout Christians live quite happily believing in both. The impression I get from your previous posts, however, suggests that you cannot reconcile them. I’m not quite sure where that comes from because science has no say when it comes to religion. More to the point, evolution does not say that God cannot exist. This is yet another misconception that many people have. Personally, I don’t see any reason why God couldn’t be one of the selective forces listed above, or use them to his liking.
>>By Majorette (Tuesday, 26 Apr 2005 03:11)
Im glad you made mention of all three important selective forces...natural, sexual, and artificial. Also, putting concepts in genetic terms is very important because it is afterall the fundamental unit of natural selection. If anyone here wants a good book on this, check out "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins. This is one of the most descriptive and informative pieces on gene theory i have come across yet. It includes several chapters on gene strategy which uses 'game theory' logic.
I think Majorette makes a good point when she says that "science has no say when it comes to religion." That is to say that science does not make claims about the metaphysical or moral problems that we continually try to solve. A world view based on scientific conceptions still allows for metaphysical and moral opinions that cannot stand the scrutiny of scientific inquiry. That doesn't mean that they don't have a truth value, but rather, that the nature of investigation is different. Part of this discussion is beyond what we can reconcile for this reason. If we choose our standard to be scientific scrutiny, then we should suspend our claims of divinity, as they cannot be substantiated. If we are using purely rational standards, we don't need empirical verification. In both cases I feel like something or someone is left out. This is a deep conflict that may or may not be resolved, but which can be managed with respect for both one another and our ideas.
>>By Hume Ungus (Tuesday, 26 Apr 2005 13:30)
First I wish to say I am sorry to any and all who may have felt my comments were arrogant. I do not wish to present myself as an arrogant creationist. I do however affirm that my point of view is neither misinformed or unsubstantiated, it is just different then yours. I feel it is an evolutionists arrogance that only one view is acceptable & all others misinformed. Having said this, I remain a firm believer in Intelligent Design with a single creator God. As far as being open minded, to what end? For you to convince me I am in error? To assist me in becoming an evolutionist? Are you any more inclined to become a creationist by keeping an open mind? So far I have seen no evidense of willingness to be open minded. Hume you are a gentleman and a peace maker, and I thank you for being so...I can't agree with you concept of science and religion tho...science has become a religion in itself... just as the "doctriine" of evolution to has become a religion. I am guilty of being unable to separate God from his magnificent creation...to me it is one in the same. If we can accept this about me, then I will continue to post. If it is a bone of contention, I will remove myself from this board with no hard feelings.
A strong theme of Evolution is the concept of "time to evolve". In this model, millions if not billions of years are required to acheive the "evolution of the species" as adhered to by most Evolutionsists. A noted scholar, Thomas Barnes, former dean of the ICR Grad. School & Emritus Professor of Physics at the Univ. of Texas, El Paso has demonstated scientifically that the earth is young. His work deals with the decay of the earth's magnetic field (The Origin & Destiny of of Earth's Magnetic field: Thomas Barnes) The field has been measured as losing enegy and intensity at an exponential rate. When projected back in time, the intensity of this field fifteen thousand years ago would have been so great that many of the molecules necessary for life could not have held together. With these considerations the outer limits of earth history fall within 10,000 years. This work has been confirmed and extended by Sandia National Laboratory physicist D. Russell Humphreys.
It would seem to disqualify an evolutionary time line....
The science of population statistics also offers a major obstacle to ancient earth. According to evoluton theory, Dawn man & his mate appeared around 2 1/2 million years ago. Experts in the field of population statistics have run calculations to determine whether this is possible. Over an extended period of time population growth has averaged less than 2% per year. About every 80 years up to 1/3 of the population is wiped out by wars, disease and disasters. The population begins anew with 2/3 of the previous number and begins to increase at a little less than 2% per year. This average has been constant and true for all recorded history. Young earth models include a Noah's flood, where population began anew with 8 peple less than 4,500 years ago. Using population statistics, this would give us slightly over 5 billion people on earth today. Using the same conservative values, long-age evolution hits a brick wall. The population after only 4,500 years would be 2 x 10th89. Put simply there is not enough room to pack this number of bodies in the entire known universe. The problem is evident, too much time too many people...
Botanist and evolutionist N.Heribert Nilsson quote " My attempts to demonstate evolution by experiment carried on for more than 45 years have completely failed...It may be firmly maintainedthat it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil aterial is now so complete, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to any scarcity of material. The deficencies are real, they will never be filled." H.S. Ladd, Univeristy of California at Berkelely Another evolutionary Paleontologist speaking about the missing link admitts " Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link, for it is in reality about 9/10ths of the chain of life: The first 9/10ths."
would like to write more however I have patients that require my attention and I must get myself to work!!!
Regards
>>By beanieweenie (Tuesday, 26 Apr 2005 18:07)
dunno i turn my back and you kids go arguing without me!
Faaaaarrrrr to much has happened for me to comment on all of it so I`ll try and keep it simple.
Beanie.
My last comment
<In the bacteria example...I didn`t say they had evolved into new soecies {sic}(and bear in mind that taxonomy is a human invention:bacteria don't know what they are) but they have evolved.
Therefore evolution exists>.
was not, as some others have very kindly pointed out in my absence born out of laziness. I was an attempt to get to hear your explanation on one very important point.
I still have not. Once you've responded to that one point, and challenged me with a thorny point of your own we can continue! Just trying to keep things simple!!!
On the slightly wider theological issues and your very gracious apology: I do feel it's a bit rich to pop up on a Darwin discussion board, argue against the theory of evolution (as the board is designed to allow people to do) and then accuse people of being arrogant for attempting to disprove your argument...
An analogy might be me rolling onto a Catholic website, tell them they're all mad for not using condoms, and then tell them they're being arrogant for explaining to me why they believe I'm wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO the bacteria bit. I'm listening.....
:-)
>>By docjay (Tuesday, 26 Apr 2005 19:39)
<< I do however affirm that my point of view is neither misinformed or unsubstantiated, it is just different then yours. I feel it is an evolutionists arrogance that only one view is acceptable & all others misinformed.>>
Okay, in an attempt to clear the air, let me try to explain why this thing about being misinformed is a bit of a sticking point with me……..
One of the things that I’ve noticed is that anti-evolutionist arguments tend to “debunk” things that were never claimed by evolution in the first place and then conclude that they’ve shown evolution can’t occur. In short, they set up a “straw man” and imbue it with qualities that they THINK are representative of evolution (which they really aren’t) and then poke holes in it.
I’ve already touched on a few classic examples of this (eg, the assertion that complex structures arose purely by chance, or that species MUST change over time, etc etc). These are not a matter of opinion or point of view. They are untrue statements about the evolutionary model and to think that they aren’t (or to use them as arguments against evolution) is to be misinformed about the model, pure and simple. That is the point I was trying to make.
You can have a different viewpoint on whether or not the evidence is convincing enough for you, but you can’t have a different “viewpoint” on what the theory IS. That’s called making up your own theory.
(And for the record, I believe that such straw man arguments actually weaken the anti-evolutionist platform by casting doubt on ALL of their arguments, even the ones with some validity. There are enough legitimate details within evolution to debate without having to make up new ones.)
<<As far as being open minded, to what end? For you to convince me I am in error?>>
Not at all. Simply to learn. This is a message board where ideas can be swapped and contemplated. I think there are several people on this board who would be happy to debate the merits of Intelligent Design as well as evolution. Hume and docjay have made a couple of queries about God’s role. I, for one, am intrigued by the notion that humans co-existed with dinosaurs and would love to know more about the evidence for that. At your leisure, of course. We are all busy people and I doubt I can continue the current pace of the last few days. Nonetheless I find this discussion quite interesting and hope to continue it.
<<Are you any more inclined to become a creationist by keeping an open mind?>>
Would you believe me if I said yes? I think most scientists who are true to the scientific method would have to accept creationism if met with irrefutable evidence of it. The thing is, you don’t seem to want to debate creationism, just evolution. That doesn’t seem fair, does it? If you are arguing against something, you should be prepared to offer an alternative that can withstand the same amount of scrutiny, no?
Look, it doesn’t matter to me what you believe. I’m not out to change your mind about anything. I WILL correct false statements if I see them, though, and I expect you will do the same if I mis-speak about nursing, or the current state of creationist culture in the world today (two topics which I assume you are well-versed in). In the end, I expect we will all be better informed for our troubles, whatever side of the fence we sit on.
>>By Majorette (Tuesday, 26 Apr 2005 20:11)
Let's be realistic here. The anti-evolutionists aren't interested in learning anything, and they're not specifically anti-evolution. What they are is anti-SCIENCE. They hate science for what it is, a way of thinking--a way of thinking that makes it impossible to believe, for instance, that Noah crammed every single living organism (including deadly viruses) into a hand-made boat.
We who thank God for giving us brains and enjoy using them can argue all we want, but it will be to no avail. It isn't the idea of evolution, but rather, the scientific method that these people are against.
You'll notice, these idiots aren't arguing against the common misunderstanding of statistics or the belief that we'll soon use "wormholes" to travel through interstellar space. Oh, no--it's not any particular theory they're against, it's the whole methodology of using one's brain that offends them.
I'd say there's no point in arguing with them, but, hell, I like an easy fight as much as the next guy. It's fun to bully someone around with our plus-80 IQ's.
And yes, for the sake of disclosure, I deny Christ as being more than human in the same way I deny Santa Claus.
Ho Ho Ho.
>>By Just Jon (Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 19:26)
In the intelligent design camp, like the scientific community (should be), there is a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. It should be noted that some great scientists have not yet accepted our current theory of evolution, though the overwhelming majority have. One of the best examples of this is Sir Frederick Hoyle. He was an accomplished astrophysicist and all around scientist (also a terrific author). He is one of the major voices behind the ntelligent design concept and posits arguments based on an in depth understanding of molecular behavior. Some scientists believe in God without the verification. Some are even christians, muslims, jews, etc... The only point I am making is that the perceived advocate for intelligent design ought to include or represent not just one stereotypical religious person (which is usually simplified for convenience), but what we might consider more critical thinkers as well. Those who accept a scientific method should never fear an idea or position and should not move the particular into the general without adequate evidence. This refers specifically to the tendency of ours to pick out the frustrating traits of opponents, illuminate them, and forget the rest, thereby painting a picture that is not necessarily fair. I agree that there are many people out there who dislike science as much as some scientists dislike faith-based religious beliefs. Methodological differences are here to stay. I think it would be worthwhile if this chat debated some of the finer points of the scientific method. Even here, where most of us would like to feel we are secure, some wiggle room exists. Scientists don't all share the same philosophical sentiments and a lot of it shows when you discuss concepts like facts, laws, causality, and the like. Meanwhile, I think that we must be careful when we discuss motives or agendas here because it forces us to make some assumptions that may not be accurate. That is what I meant by trying to avoid moving certain particulars into generalized perceptions. Afterall, I don't want religious people to assume, because I am a proponate of the scientific method, that I must be an athiest.
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 29 Apr 2005 13:44)
Thanks for the insulting comments Just Jon...Im sorry your mind couldnt come up with anything more brilliant ....
Docjay I answered what I thought was your question on the previous page, however I will add
that I do believe mutation exists but no scientific papers could be found to support any examples that the MUTATION of bacteria produces a NET INCREASE in the DNA CODE, leading to a higher level of tranistional development towards Macroevolution. T.A. Brown writes (Genomes 2nd Edition pg.418) "We have yet to find a mutation in DNA that increases genetic information even in those rare instances where mutation confers an advantage." (I assume this would also cover anti-biotic resistance in bacteria) In the B.G. Hall experiment, bacteria demonstrated a new function through an enzyme, however it was noted that the enzyme was already present and no new information was added to the bacteria's genetic code.
So it would appear though deletious mutations can prove to be beneficial (to HIV or bacteria etc) it does nothing to prove evolutons case. For evolutions basis from simple to complex cannot be accomplished through deltions because either the 1st organism was extremly complex & we are moving down hill or evolution through deletious mutation is immpossible.
Regards
Lisa
>>By beanieweenie (Monday, 2 May 2005 18:08)
My mind couldn't come up with anything more brilliant, no, but thanks to evolution my descendants will one day post something REALLY brilliant here.
>>By Just Jon (Monday, 2 May 2005 20:26)
A little something from the dictionary of butterflies and wheels… It made me laugh as a scientist, I quite like the thought of being known as wicked, not sure about the Starbucks bit tho:
Science
1. An inconvenient discipline that tends to undermine our most cherished beliefs.
2. A tiny cabal of powerful people who ignore what the majority of humanity believe.
3. A civil religion.
4. Part of the ideological state apparatus. Science "like the Church before it, is a supremely social institution, reflecting and reinforcing the dominant values and views of society at each historical epoch." [Richard Lewontin, Biology as Ideology]
Scientist
1. Wicked, elitist, narrow-minded member of tiny unelected aristocracy which does not share the beliefs of the great majority of people. "How can metaphysical life [New Age] theories and explanations taken seriously by millions be ignored or excluded by a small group of powerful people called 'scientists'?" [Andrew Ross, Strange Weather]
2. A bourgeois, legitimator of capitalist exploitation. "Science is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology." [Lewontin, Kamin and Rose, Not in our Genes] See Starbucks.
3. A dull, plodding, unimaginative person who only knows how to count things; a bore; a geek, a nerd, a swot, a grind.
I’m really interested in what everyone has written on both sides, but what has been forgotten is that scientists have to prove theories wrong, not right, if we proved them right then we would get results a hell of a lot quicker. And there hasn’t been much indisputable peer-reviewed evidence against evolution. But then I’m a wicked scientist so I’m going to say that!
“Do mutated bacteria evolve into new species? The answer is of course not”
Bacteria as a class, are broken down into genera like Escherichia and then sub-divided into species, such as Escherichia coli. So if a mutation in E.coli changed it dramatically we would get a new species, Escherichia bethanisgreat for example.
Evolution is a measure of cumulative change within a population over time, it doesn’t necessarily mean the creation of something entirely new. At the same time you can’t use natural selection to argue for evolution. Evolutionary change is random, natural selection isn’t.
I will admit to be totally confused over why an increase in genetic material is so important. In the BG Hall example, a mutational change could change the shape of the protein and probably alter the protein's function. Apply that to a population and you have an evolutionary change. If you consider the science behind mutation, insertions are relatively rare, you nearly always get a single point change. I would love that referenced here please because I'm interested in why they studied this enzyme.
This is a humble scientist's opinion, those who feel hard done by from my writing feel free to chime in and put me in my place. Science spod signing off now.
Bethan.
PS Just Jon love the sarcasm!!!
>>By B.A.B.E.S (Wednesday, 11 May 2005 15:31)
you say something about how evoulution cannot be made to account for 'new species entirely', I think the semantic behind what we term 'new' here is rather misleading, especially from the vintage point of evolution which doesn't equate essetialist creationistic terms; Hume made a similar dialectic illustration by semantisizing the commonly held notion behind 'design' as essentionally held.....
>>By LINZ OF ASTRA (Wednesday, 11 May 2005 17:02)
I feel our glossary and concepts should be subjected to the scaple prior to all scientific/ metaphysical dialectical approaches
>>By LINZ OF ASTRA (Wednesday, 11 May 2005 17:04)
Linz you remind me of my old professor whose best advice was if in doubt baffle them with bullsh*t, so forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you.
Here’s my glossary: Division > Class > Order > Family > Genus > species.
Before you can argue for or against evolution these must be right.
You cannot argue against evolution by expecting a fruit fly to turn into a monkey by mutating one part of it. I used the quote before because bacteria do evolve into new species but they can’t become another class or division or suddenly become eukaryote (i.e. they’ll always be bacteria and nothing else, does this mean they are less complex than their predecessors?). Does evolution within a family count?
I have trouble believing the creationist 'uphill mutation complex species creation' because generally they don’t compare related species from what I have read, but changes that could not happen. Any evidence to the contrary is welcomed, by all means.
Bethan
>>By B.A.B.E.S (Wednesday, 11 May 2005 18:09)
I love the posting about the magnetic field decay -- haven't laughed so much in ages. Just like taking measurements during a couple of months in the spring and extrapolating figures saying that 30 months before it was absolute zero and in 500 months steel would melt if left out in the sun.
Of course if you know that temperature change through the year is a cyclical phenomenon, you know this is silly.
The population stats were hysterical too. I'm sorry I can't respond to them right now as I am looking for rabbits. If the calculations for humans to be at the world population now on the assumptions made here, the whole world should be completely covered by rabbits. Perhaps there are other factors to be taken into account? Like food supply, natural limits to population density, and so on, which means that actually the stats are way off the mark ...
>>By Happy chappy (Sunday, 15 May 2005 00:55)
The population argument didn't consider the well founded concept of "carrying capacity," which is a set in any given habitat for each population and is determined by such things as food supply, water availability, space, interspecific and intrspecific competition.
>>By Hume Ungus (Sunday, 15 May 2005 03:17)
For all of the sarcasm and bravado I keep reading, I notice that one major problem keeps occurring...I write qoutes from evolutionist, facts from scientists, calculations from both scientist and biologists to support my position, and with few exceptions you pro evolutionists reply with emotion and little else. Few respond to the scientific data I supply with their own writen data...if there is so much support out there for your theory's argument then I suggest less smugness and more raw data... just and idea eh???
Regards
beanie
>>By beanieweenie (Sunday, 15 May 2005 17:39)
wow. interesting stuff. but just an idea, to both sides. it's hard to be swayed by ad hominem arguments (and BOTH sides do it). Facts, not ridiculing, is the only way to have an intelligent argument. And underlying sarcasm is really offensive and distracting. i strongly believe in one side, but i'm not going to call the "other side" (i can't think of a more eloquent way to put that, lol) names. Respect and knowledge (from both points of view, like one person pointed out.), in my mind, will do everyone in here some good. oh, and i know you have a lot of good ideas hume, but perhaps more condensed versions would serve your purpose a little better? It's sometimes hard to follow, and sometimes it seems like you use biggest words possible. (then again, maybe you're just a lot smarter than me, which is absolutely possible. but i think it better to not try to alienate people who don't have such an expansive vocabularly).And i do feel that so far beanieweenie has cited more sources (and of course those sources are going to be pro-creationism. why would you cite a source that are pro-evolution if you wanted to discredit it? it doesn't mean that she hasn't read anything that is for evolution. no one but her will know that.). Okay, i'm done now. I think that's enough comments from the peanut gallery. :)
>>By The Secret Amulet (Monday, 16 May 2005 02:41)
I have literally two minutes so excuse the fact this is brief. Beanie it’s very hard to argue against quotes and stats when you only get a certain proportion of what is written, they can be taken out of context. A ref to the whole article/site would be a lot better in support so we can read the whole thing.
In response to the N. Heribet Neilson quote up the page, the lack of transitional series can be explained, it’s a big planet, with few people looking. The evidence will come slowly and this article in this weeks science press illustrates that with a new addition to the argument:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/
life/mg18624995.700
That’s all I have time for now, will expand further another time. Bethan.
PS I would really like a ref for that BG Hall experiment, that wasn't sarcasm! - thanks.
>>By B.A.B.E.S (Monday, 16 May 2005 10:35)
secret amulet...sorry to all about the past lengthy postings. I'm not sure which words you are referring to exactly but my intention isn't to confuse or alienate through their use...in this duscussion some of the technical language is called for. I agree with your overall sentiment about this tone of this room. The topic clearly does get the folks heated at times.
>>By Hume Ungus (Monday, 16 May 2005 13:30)
on secret amulets' point which happens to be valid, I must just insert if invited that to substantiate the scholarstic brevity of a thesis or theory..often, one would be called upon to technicalise(if I may so quote it ) to avoid the soundness from being anologised in mainstream fashion...I actually found the lengthy rendition to be insightful, for it cleared out the misconceptions I would've upheld myself...and the matter is that you can always request for an elaboration or clarification if neccessary
>>By LINZ OF ASTRA (Monday, 16 May 2005 21:04)
Here's an idea...Why not debate gravitation or magnetism next? Those are both just "theories" after all, and frankly I suspect the whole gravitation thing was invented by anti-Biblical scientists trying to make atheists of us all.
My point is, evolution is only doubted by those with a religious (or similarly puerile) agenda. If someone came on here insisting electricity doesn't exist, would we then be obliged to spend thousands of hours recounting the entire scientific journey that produced our present knowledge, or can't we just suggest turning on a lamp?
Should we have to teach calculus to anyone who insists nothing can actually get from point A to point B, or can't I just call them an idiot and be done with it?
And before someone says this board is for "debate," this board is actually, supposedly, about Charles Darwin, not about fairy tales. I don't mind the weak-minded posting their two-cent's worth, but I do resent it when reasonable people are asked to defend perfectly reasonable beliefs.
I'll debate evolution as soon as I'm finished debating my whacky "sun-centered solar system" theory.
>>By Just Jon (Monday, 16 May 2005 22:23)
"My point is, evolution is only doubted by those with a religious (or similarly puerile) agenda." Wow, that's a pretty broad statement there. Evolution in the sense of gradual change is a fact, in my mind at least. But evolution in relation to how humans came to be humans is a theory. (And personally i think anything and everything related to the beginning of the world will always continue to be a "theory". People really need to just get over that). Both my biology and chemistry teachers (both of which are extreme atheists, since you've brought religion into the debate) even acknowledge this. And putting the theory of evolution in the same category as a "sun centered solar system" proves your opinion worth two-cents. Like you pointed out, this discussion should be about evolution and arguments for and against. Religion has no part in it, and shouldn't be used as reasoning. And you're just as much to blame as anyone else.
>>By The Secret Amulet (Tuesday, 17 May 2005 01:15)
oh, and to hume i just want to clarify that i wasn't at all trying to be rude. it was just a comment of mine because i wanted to more fully understand your points. but i completely understand your point, linz. i'll just keep my dictionary handy, lol. ;)
>>By The Secret Amulet (Tuesday, 17 May 2005 01:18)
I must point out that a disbelief in God is also a religion Just Jon. Placing ones faith in a creator God does not make one stupid...I have yet to see any contributions of intelligent discussion from your camp. Your statement regarding having to defend is similar to say defending gravitation ect. is not only silly but insulting. Lets quit the bickering and have a serious debate here. And by the way, it is a discussion board, not a majority dominates board. All points of view must be allowed. I represent the only non evolutionist point of view here...as far as I can tell. With out my input this board has no contrast. So please stick to the debate and stop the critical comments...thanks
>>By beanieweenie (Tuesday, 17 May 2005 04:12)
I don't know if I could call disbelief in "God" a religion. Over human history, many gods have been worshipped. There must have been hundreds if not thousands of them.
It just so happens that some people reject all of these gods. Some others reject all but one.
Evolution is an explanation, which is not a religion either.
>>By Happy chappy (Wednesday, 18 May 2005 00:57)
once again evolution does't neccessarily equate disbelief in diety or god
>>By LINZ OF ASTRA (Wednesday, 18 May 2005 12:09)
evolution is merely a narrative of mega eonic time spans yielding variable developments mutated without an ounce on ethic or ordained cause...like the developments in Darwins theory its all @ ground level
>>By LINZ OF ASTRA (Wednesday, 18 May 2005 12:13)
meaning that it's not entailed or neccessary that we make extrapolations @ an immaculate level or cause exclusively & contingently human...its a founded and relatively complete theory hypothesised despite the finds in fossil to substantiate @ an empirical level
>>By LINZ OF ASTRA (Wednesday, 18 May 2005 12:19)
linz makes a good point about why we ought not equate a belief in evolution with a disbelief in god. The theory merely shows how complex adaptations of organisms over lng periods of time can come about under the pressure of a natural mechanism. It has no say on whether the mechanism itself, or the fundamental physical laws that seem almost improbably perfect for such a universe as this with life, came about. That scientists theorize about the origins of our universe still cannot stand in the way of a belief in God. The entire field of Anthropic studies realizes these points.
As for the discussion on what is and what is not a religion...maybe we will all simply define it in our own ways. The important thing to remember is where the burden of proof lies. I would be appropriate in asking someone why they believe in God but would almost be begging the question of God's existence if i were to ask why someone did not believe in God. One you can answer based on a set of reasons which may satisfy and may not. Similarily, a belief in evolution can be defended, though not everyone will agree. Total agreement is not relevant. The other is like trying to prove the non-existence of a special fruit that nobody has ever seen before. On what grounds can that argument be made which could even begin to satisfy our curiousity? The only evidentiary premise is not having seen or experienced such a fruit. This is clearly not enough reasoning to account for not believing in the fruit, but the lack of reasons says nothing to the truth of its existence or non-existence. Some truths seem to be beyond our means of satisfactory proof.
>>By Hume Ungus (Wednesday, 18 May 2005 13:33)
So here’s my attempt at intelligent discussion most points have appeared here, any issues that are picked up feel free to argue against:
1) BG Hall. Mr Hall, amongst many others, has since shown that in vitro mutagenesis (i.e. site directed point mutations) can mimic evolution in nature if done properly, maybe enabling us to predict evolution in antibiotic resistance (Hall G (2002), Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 46(9); 3035-38. Barlow and Hall (2002) Genetics, 160;823-32). Can you explain why this shouldn’t be classed as evolution and how this fits with the creationist theory?
2) David Foster. Alright so he produced a big number “proving” haemoglobin wasn’t by chance. But evolution of haemoglobin has been proven to be small changes over time not one big ‘bang’. Guldner et al (2004). J Molecular Evolution, 59(3);416-25. Aguileta et al (2004). J Mol Evol, 59(2);177-89. How does this affect David Foster’s calculation? What one major point has he not adjusted for with his figures. I will answer this later if you can’t. There’s another basic protein chemistry failing he hasn’t taken into account either – can you spot it?
3) Stasis – its been argued that evolution over millions of years would lead to impossibly high levels of each species, I think something like that was quoted here. Do the creationist calculations take stasis into account? Evolution is a slow process, if you don’t believe me then look at the evolution of Homo sapiens over the last 300 years, what change has there been that we can see? None. What will we see in another 1,000 years? Our metabolism changing to reduce obesity because of our longing for fat filled fast food? To quote Henry Ford “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” evolution works in the same way.
4) Antibiotic resistance - often heralded by creationists as their proof evolution doesn’t exist because there is no new genetic information added into the genome. What about ‘transportable’ DNA: transposons, integrons, plasmids – they often code for resistance genes, and if they are passed into a different bacterial species (see my earlier post re. what a species really is to avoid confusion on this point) that didn’t have those genes before is that gaining new information?
To complicate this even further in your minds, consider the level of bacterial antibiotic resistance which is much lower in the general community, than in hospitals, do you see this as proof of evolution (small changes and adapting to the environment) and then natural selection (by reproductive selection) in hospitals?
P.S. It isn’t evolution that questions God and the story of the creation of the world, but abiogenesis, and that is a whole different subject. Evolution considers the cumulative changes in formed species, not how they formed.
>>By B.A.B.E.S (Wednesday, 18 May 2005 15:50)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS