How can people disagree with evolution? It just seems like artificial selection can't not happen. If there is a species of animal, isn't it obvious that the fittest will survive to pass on their genes? Even putting aside the millions of facts that back the theory, it almost seems like common sense to me. Thoughts?
Evolution
i agree, evolution makes a lot of sense, but some people HAVE to disagree with it because it contradicts other things that they believe in, like chrisianity... so if they were to accept one, they have to abandon the other, so it's just easier for them to doubt evolution, even if they do then look a bit dumb in science class 
The fittest of the fit surviving has very little to do with evolution. Yes, it is common sense to think that the best, strongest, etc. will survive but those characteristics could just as easily not evolve.
That being said, I do believe in evolution - at least to some extent. I have a hard time getting my head around the major evolutionary steps that science tells us about - huge dinosaurs becoming small, completely different looking animals. I do not rule out the possibility though.
I certainly believe that animals and plants adapt to their environment. I also believe that some species may have started as genetic mutations as opposed to evolution. I think there is a fine line separating the two.
That being said, I do believe in evolution - at least to some extent. I have a hard time getting my head around the major evolutionary steps that science tells us about - huge dinosaurs becoming small, completely different looking animals. I do not rule out the possibility though.
I certainly believe that animals and plants adapt to their environment. I also believe that some species may have started as genetic mutations as opposed to evolution. I think there is a fine line separating the two.
| spam wrote: |
| i agree, evolution makes a lot of sense, but some people HAVE to disagree with it because it contradicts other things that they believe in, like chrisianity... so if they were to accept one, they have to abandon the other, so it's just easier for them to doubt evolution, even if they do then look a bit dumb in science class |
I personally don't see any conflict between Biblical scripture and the theory of evolution.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
I personally don't see any conflict between Biblical scripture and the theory of evolution. |
I guess it depends how literally you want to interpret the OT. If you insist that it is factual and does not use allegory/parable then there are clearly conflicts between cosmology/biology etc and the Genesis account. Most people are happy to accept Genesis as a parable though which allows everyone to live and let live. It is only generally the ID/Creationist lobby that have a major issue.
Regards
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
I guess it depends how literally you want to interpret the OT. If you insist that it is factual and does not use allegory/parable then there are clearly conflicts between cosmology/biology etc and the Genesis account. Most people are happy to accept Genesis as a parable though which allows everyone to live and let live. It is only generally the ID/Creationist lobby that have a major issue. Regards Chris |
It does. I'm a Christian but believe the OT to be vague enough to allow for evolution, even if it might be "directed" evolution.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
It does. I'm a Christian but believe the OT to be vague enough to allow for evolution, even if it might be "directed" evolution. |
Ah directed evolution raises it's own problems of course. Strictly speaking that is just another name for ID/Creationism since the mechanism of evolution absolutely precludes any direction other than by the selection of a mate. Any outside interference would make it not evolution but design. It's a slippery slope and the best advice I can give to the religious is to accept that evolution is what it says and accept that any part God played in the matter was probably around 13 billion years ago when it's possible (s)he kicked off the big bang. Once you posit that God is involved in evolution then you start to make scientific statements which can be tested and that always ends badly for the devout. This is why, of course, ID/Creationism has been so harshly dealt with by many scientists (including non scientists like me) - they make claims which can be tested - such as the age of the earth, the date of the flood, the lineage of mankind and the like - it is hardly scientists fault when they then decide to see if the claims stand up to evidence/experiment and find that they don't.
Basically God shot His/her bolt after the effort of getting the BB together and is having a long lie-in at the moment...the alarm clock is set for about 5 billion years next Thursday and then we might expect another appearance
Regards
Chris
| Quote: |
| and the best advice I can give to the religious is to accept that evolution is what it says and accept that any part God played in the matter was probably around 13 billion years ago |
and that's just not going to happen, like i said, some people will reject the obvious because it destroys something else they hold dear. It is interesting how you showed the discussion over genesis has moved forward recently, with new interpretations overcoming the more glaring contradictions of a strict interpretation. But just as chrisianity will continue to be a help to a part of the population that needs it, so will belief in genesis continue to be a part of our culture, as this thread proves.
I guess some people do not want to hear about evolution because it is really huge compared to what was before. It's just like Coppernic's theory: it took time before people agreed that the sun was at the center of our system rather than the earth, as the Bible suggested. And same for round planet and the likes.
It's also because this takes place on a long period. To take back the example previously used around here of the big dinausor getting small, this took millions of years! And, despite what some may think, I personally believe that the human brain is unable to quantify such periods of time. This triggers a strange mechanism that leads people to believe this is done in a really short time, even if they perfectly know the said time. So it is hard to believe in something where a bacteria becomes a cell, then a fish, then an amphibian... and so on until us. The little time mechanism of the brain lets people interpret these changes as having last a few years. Thus making the theory a bit astonishing if you just take it with your instinct.
I strongly believe in this theory. Creationism was just an hypothesis made by people who knew very little about the world to explain something greater than them. Now we have something that makes more sense...
It's also because this takes place on a long period. To take back the example previously used around here of the big dinausor getting small, this took millions of years! And, despite what some may think, I personally believe that the human brain is unable to quantify such periods of time. This triggers a strange mechanism that leads people to believe this is done in a really short time, even if they perfectly know the said time. So it is hard to believe in something where a bacteria becomes a cell, then a fish, then an amphibian... and so on until us. The little time mechanism of the brain lets people interpret these changes as having last a few years. Thus making the theory a bit astonishing if you just take it with your instinct.
I strongly believe in this theory. Creationism was just an hypothesis made by people who knew very little about the world to explain something greater than them. Now we have something that makes more sense...
| Soltair wrote: |
| I guess some people do not want to hear about evolution because it is really huge compared to what was before. It's just like Coppernic's theory: it took time before people agreed that the sun was at the center of our system rather than the earth, as the Bible suggested. And same for round planet and the likes. |
I agree with much of what you say. The only real difference would be with the impact and actual importance of old Cannon Kopperigck. For some reason he has gained a central and honoured position in science as the 'discoverer' of the heliocentric universe. He was, of course, nothing of the sort. His 'famous' model of the Solar System (when it was finally prised from his hands by Rheticus after decades of him refusing to let anyone see it) is a triumph of pedantry, plagiarism, self-delusion and pomposity. It is unoriginal, wildly inaccurate and in some parts dishonestly so, and fails the very low demands Koppernigk himself placed on his 'Meister work' (i.e. being slightly more accurate than the model he 'adapted' from the Greeks more than 1700 years before).
It is tedious to read his 'Revolutions' - I have tried and given up 3 times - and consequently nobody did. He published 1000 copies in 1543 and it never actually went into a second print for 30 years. Even today there have been only 4 reprints of the work in more than 400 years.
As Koestler points out in 'The Sleepwalkers' even academics in the field frequently reveal that they have never read the thing by repeating the claim he makes at the start of the work to have explained the movement of the planets using only 34 circles (epicycles), when, had they read to the end, they would find in fact 48. Epicycles were the result of the fixation that prevailed in this era with the circularity of perfect 'bodies' which the planets and stars were thought to be. Everything had to be explained in circles so Koppernigk, like the unimaginative pedant he was, piled more and more circles within circles into his model until is was close (not that close) to the actual observed orbits (which he never actually examined for himself anyway). All in all I find him one of the most contemptible and least likeable of historical figures in science.
His actual model was no improvement on Ptolemy's model from a millennium previously. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Geoz_wb_en.jpg
He never admitted to seeing the earlier model of Aristarchus but many believe that he not only saw it but copied elements of it wholesale.
Here's a simple animation
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/projects/data/Retrograde/
All in all Koppernigk was a pygmy in an age of giants. Before long Kepler, Galileo and then finally Newton would appear and synthesise the early work of this period but my own opinion is that Cannon Koppernigk deserves very little credit for this exiting era of scientific re-discovery. Compare him to the wonderful Kepler who, whilst being erratic to the point of neurotic was a very human figure and crushingly honest in his opinions of his own importance. Even the overrated Galileo was a prince amongst men compared to the miserable, timid, pedantic and boring Cannon.
I have long been of the opinion that Aristarchus, Ptolemy or perhaps Herakleites should be the ones credited with the heliocentric model. Koppernigk only stole their models and barely improved on them at all and they were working centuries before him. He deserves nothing more than the merest footnote in the history of cosmology/science and certainly should not be the one figure than most schoolboys can remember from early science history.
Regards
Chris
People choose to ignore the evidence. I've debated with those people and even when you clear up the misconceptions about evolutions, they use those misconceptions again. Its like reality can't go beyond there short term memory.
Time for some debate
Ahh yes, the debate of evolution, it's funny that if you look at some of the evidence for evolution, there are many things that contradict
For example one of the major ones that disagree is the Carbon 14 dating method
The half life of C14 is 5730 years and to date the earth they take old rocks for dating and people say that the earth is 4500000000 or 4.5 billion years old. This means that carbon 14 went through 785340 half lives! That is dividing c14 in half 785340 times! That is not possible, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen which means that the age of the earth has to be a lot younger. If the earth was that old, there would be no carbon 14 left, and since there is still carbon 14 left and that evolution is solely based on carbon dating SHOWS EXTREMELY STRONG EVIDENCE that evolution CAN NOT WORK
Just so you know, there is already very little carbon 14 in a rock and c14 is only dectible up to 17 half lives which means the earth has to be younger than 97410 years
--Have a great day
Ahh yes, the debate of evolution, it's funny that if you look at some of the evidence for evolution, there are many things that contradict
For example one of the major ones that disagree is the Carbon 14 dating method
The half life of C14 is 5730 years and to date the earth they take old rocks for dating and people say that the earth is 4500000000 or 4.5 billion years old. This means that carbon 14 went through 785340 half lives! That is dividing c14 in half 785340 times! That is not possible, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen which means that the age of the earth has to be a lot younger. If the earth was that old, there would be no carbon 14 left, and since there is still carbon 14 left and that evolution is solely based on carbon dating SHOWS EXTREMELY STRONG EVIDENCE that evolution CAN NOT WORK
Just so you know, there is already very little carbon 14 in a rock and c14 is only dectible up to 17 half lives which means the earth has to be younger than 97410 years
--Have a great day
The only problem with your point is that carbon 14 is created continuously on the earth since it exists, thus allowing it to be present since the first days of the earth. And those rocks are so deep below the surface that nobody can see them. So the rocks you are talking of are probably a lot younger.
Even then I doubt that carbon 14 is used in those cases. It is rather used to date manmade objects, not natural (and a lot older) things.
Even then I doubt that carbon 14 is used in those cases. It is rather used to date manmade objects, not natural (and a lot older) things.
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Time for some debate
Ahh yes, the debate of evolution, it's funny that if you look at some of the evidence for evolution, there are many things that contradict For example one of the major ones that disagree is the Carbon 14 dating method The half life of C14 is 5730 years and to date the earth they take old rocks for dating and people say that the earth is 4500000000 or 4.5 billion years old. This means that carbon 14 went through 785340 half lives! That is dividing c14 in half 785340 times! That is not possible, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen which means that the age of the earth has to be a lot younger. If the earth was that old, there would be no carbon 14 left, and since there is still carbon 14 left and that evolution is solely based on carbon dating SHOWS EXTREMELY STRONG EVIDENCE that evolution CAN NOT WORK |
That would be a good argument if it hadn't already been refuted so often and so comprehensively.
Carbon 14 dating is not used to calculate the age of the earth for very obvious reasons. Carbon 14 can only be used to calculate the age of something that was once alive. Now the proper Geologists know this already and since they are interested in rocks, which were not once alive, they know that C-14 would be a very silly way of trying to date them. Since they are not generally silly they avoid doing so.
This is an old creationist piece of 'science' that occasionally crops up from the scientifically ignorant or the creationist/ID lobbyists
It is actually science, which makes a change; just very very bad science.
In reality, if radiometric dating is to be used then Lead Isochronography (using the decay of lead 206/207 against Lead 204/208. The results, as with every other technique used for this task, indicate a figure of around 4.5 Billion years...
The plot looks like this
Creationists often then object that the samples could be contaminated etc etc (as they do) and the geologists agree (although they know the range of experimental error is quite small) so they also use metorite samples as an indicator since they are uncontaminated. Giess what age they turn out to be ? Yep .. around 4.5 billion yrs
Chris
Another great argument. I have to say though, dating anything with any radiometric decay or any decay assumes 3 things
1. The starting amount of Parent isotopes is 100% and amount of Daughter isotopes is 0%
2. The only decay that has occured is the isotopic decay
3. The rate is always constant
Another thing that is wrong with the evolution theory is Time, as most of you know, time isn't constant, it's realitive depending on somethings mass. If you think about it time could've been "faster" before any life appeared on earth.
The Big Bang theory is also a problem. If you know the 2nd law of thermodynamics the big bang creating life is about as realistic is a tornado hitting a junkyard and creating a 747
1. The starting amount of Parent isotopes is 100% and amount of Daughter isotopes is 0%
2. The only decay that has occured is the isotopic decay
3. The rate is always constant
Another thing that is wrong with the evolution theory is Time, as most of you know, time isn't constant, it's realitive depending on somethings mass. If you think about it time could've been "faster" before any life appeared on earth.
The Big Bang theory is also a problem. If you know the 2nd law of thermodynamics the big bang creating life is about as realistic is a tornado hitting a junkyard and creating a 747
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Another great argument. I have to say though, dating anything with any radiometric decay or any decay assumes 3 things
1. The starting amount of Parent isotopes is 100% and amount of Daughter isotopes is 0% 2. The only decay that has occured is the isotopic decay 3. The rate is always constant Another thing that is wrong with the evolution theory is Time, as most of you know, time isn't constant, it's realitive depending on somethings mass. If you think about it time could've been "faster" before any life appeared on earth. The Big Bang theory is also a problem. If you know the 2nd law of thermodynamics the big bang creating life is about as realistic is a tornado hitting a junkyard and creating a 747 |
Who ever your getting these from, stay away from them, he/she have no idea what he/she is talking about.
Yes time is relative, relative to speed and mass, but for the time dilation to significant, you would have to travel at lest half the speed of light and the earth doesn't move at even 1% the speed of light and for mass to have a significant effect, it would need to be a black hole.
As for the second paragraph, the statement is so ridiculous its not worth mentioning.
Read and watch these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/program-3114.html
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Ah directed evolution raises it's own problems of course. Strictly speaking that is just another name for ID/Creationism since the mechanism of evolution absolutely precludes any direction other than by the selection of a mate. Any outside interference would make it not evolution but design. It's a slippery slope and the best advice I can give to the religious is to accept that evolution is what it says and accept that any part God played in the matter was probably around 13 billion years ago when it's possible (s)he kicked off the big bang. Once you posit that God is involved in evolution then you start to make scientific statements which can be tested and that always ends badly for the devout. This is why, of course, ID/Creationism has been so harshly dealt with by many scientists (including non scientists like me) - they make claims which can be tested - such as the age of the earth, the date of the flood, the lineage of mankind and the like - it is hardly scientists fault when they then decide to see if the claims stand up to evidence/experiment and find that they don't.
Basically God shot His/her bolt after the effort of getting the BB together and is having a long lie-in at the moment...the alarm clock is set for about 5 billion years next Thursday and then we might expect another appearance
Regards Chris |
I simply believe that it could be evolution by design, just as we as sentient beings have designed mechanisms to evolve in order to perform certain functions using evolutionary algorithims.
My difficulty with "pure" evolution comes from the fact that so few processes that are observable in nature demonstrate a propensity towards organization. Instead, what we see most of all is a propensity for systems to move towards disorder. Order seems to arrive only by the interference of another being, whether a bird building a nest or a human designing a car.
Even our own experiments to recreate the events that brought about the formation of amino acids from a "primordial soup" required the scientists to constantly manipulate the experiment. One could argue that they simply didn't have the conditions and substances correct initially. However one could also argue that they demonstrated a need for intelligent guidance to achieve this leap.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
| I simply believe that it could be evolution by design, just as we as sentient beings have designed mechanisms to evolve in order to perform certain functions using evolutionary algorithims.
My difficulty with "pure" evolution comes from the fact that so few processes that are observable in nature demonstrate a propensity towards organization. Instead, what we see most of all is a propensity for systems to move towards disorder. Order seems to arrive only by the interference of another being, whether a bird building a nest or a human designing a car. |
You have not looked hard enough. Get a cup of water and pour some cooking oil in it. Notice that the oil clumps up in tidy little "bubbles" on the surface of the water. For an even more intriguing demonstration, go to a creek with muddy water and get a glassful. Set the glass down and wait, and lo, the sediment will settle neatly at the bottom, with relatively clear water at the top - a totally natural disorganized substance self-organizing right in front of your eyes.
There's more too. Mass will clump together at the lowest point in a gravitational well. Charge will move towards the region lowest potential. Heck, mass will clump together period - with any mass - given enough time, by creating it's own gravity well. And charges will attempt to move to cancel out unbalances to create a neutrally charged cloud.
Or hell, just leave a glass of water out on a winter day, and watch the randomized hydrogen dioxide molecules organize themselves into crystaline structures - and you can't get much more organized than crystals.
Nature organizes just fine without any intervention. In fact, nature does nothing but self-organize. Any unstable system will self-stabilize, whether that stability is gravitational, electromagnetic or whatever. A common misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics leads to the assumption that disorder (entropy) always increases. There are two problems with that idea. First, even if total entropy increases, that does not preclude local entropy from being decreased - in other words, a body water will organize into a highly organized ice crystal, but the entropy of the surrounding atmosphere is increased (and the statistical average of the entropy in the water and the atmosphere altogether will also increase, but all of that additional entropy will be in the surrounding air). That's how your fridge works. Second, entropy does not always increase - entropy tends to increase. It is possible that the total entropy might decrease - albeit unlikely.
Regardless of all that - we do have proof that complex hydrocarbons do form spontaneously and naturally. Anthracene and pyrene have been observed as byproducts of nebulae in the final stages of their life spans. i think it's finally time to put the "complex organic molecules cannot form spontaneously" argument to bed - because if actually observing the evidence that they can is not proof enough, i don't know what would be.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Even our own experiments to recreate the events that brought about the formation of amino acids from a "primordial soup" required the scientists to constantly manipulate the experiment. One could argue that they simply didn't have the conditions and substances correct initially. However one could also argue that they demonstrated a need for intelligent guidance to achieve this leap. |
Or, you know, one could argue that they didn't want to wait a billion years to see the result of the experiment. Or that they didn't have the funding to send a spaceship out and look for planets where the necessary conditions existed naturally, and thus no human intervention was necessary.
The point of the experiments was to show that the chemical building blocks of life could be formed spontaneously under the conditions that were hypothesized to exist at that time. Yes, they artificially recreated those conditions... but they only artificially recreated conditions that were assumed to have existed naturally. Once those conditions were created, the chemicals were formed without further intervention. To characterize the experiments as requiring "constant manipulation" is dishonest. The experiments have been repeated dozens of times by dozens of researchers, and they just set 'em up and turn 'em on for a week or so - they don't constantly tweak the apparatus. And they made a whole hell of a lot more than just amino acids. They've made all of the base nucleotides for both DNA and RNA.
| Indi wrote: |
| The point of the experiments was to show that the chemical building blocks of life could be formed spontaneously under the conditions that were hypothesized to exist at that time. Yes, they artificially recreated those conditions... but they only artificially recreated conditions that were assumed to have existed naturally. Once those conditions were created, the chemicals were formed without further intervention. To characterize the experiments as requiring "constant manipulation" is dishonest. The experiments have been repeated dozens of times by dozens of researchers, and they just set 'em up and turn 'em on for a week or so - they don't constantly tweak the apparatus. And they made a whole hell of a lot more than just amino acids. They've made all of the base nucleotides for both DNA and RNA. |
Very well. I was of the understanding that it took numerous attempts and tweaking of the conditions. Thanks.
Like I said earlier, I see no contradiction in the OT and evolution.
Respectfully,
M
[quote=conspirator]As for the second paragraph, the statement is so ridiculous its not worth mentioning[/quote]
Do you mean the third?
Why not, the second law of thermodynamics states that everything goes from order to disorder, and since evolutionists beleive that life formed on earth is a problem because oxygen breaks down substances, and since oxygen breaks down substances you cannot have life forming.
Oh, and I'm getting most of this from a group of 8 creation scientists from some of the most prestegious scientists. I saw a video that they created, but I don't explain it well obviously.
One more thing
Do you know the expierment that miller performed? If you don't Click Here
They way he did it was interesting. He created life, but what he did was filter out oxygen, because oxygen would have prevented the life to form. Also he filtered out tar and some of the other products that when the life was created, it would have "killed" it soon after it was created. As I remember, the earth was full of oxygen, thus making it impossible for life to form without some help (in this case GOD)
--Have a great day
Do you mean the third?
Why not, the second law of thermodynamics states that everything goes from order to disorder, and since evolutionists beleive that life formed on earth is a problem because oxygen breaks down substances, and since oxygen breaks down substances you cannot have life forming.
Oh, and I'm getting most of this from a group of 8 creation scientists from some of the most prestegious scientists. I saw a video that they created, but I don't explain it well obviously.
One more thing
Do you know the expierment that miller performed? If you don't Click Here
They way he did it was interesting. He created life, but what he did was filter out oxygen, because oxygen would have prevented the life to form. Also he filtered out tar and some of the other products that when the life was created, it would have "killed" it soon after it was created. As I remember, the earth was full of oxygen, thus making it impossible for life to form without some help (in this case GOD)
--Have a great day
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Oh, and I'm getting most of this from a group of 8 creation scientists from some of the most prestegious scientists. I saw a video that they created, but I don't explain it well obviously. |
Creation science is not science, its pseudoscience so no creation scientists can be prestiges. Creation science is crap and should be ignored by every one.
| Quote: |
| One more thing
Do you know the expierment that miller performed? If you don't Click Here They way he did it was interesting. He created life, but what he did was filter out oxygen, because oxygen would have prevented the life to form. Also he filtered out tar and some of the other products that when the life was created, it would have "killed" it soon after it was created. As I remember, the earth was full of oxygen, thus making it impossible for life to form without some help (in this case GOD) |
Did you read the article? I doesn't say anything about filtering out oxygen or tar or anything else, in fact they wouldn't have done that cause oxygen and O2 were rare in the early atmosphere, the early atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide.
And did you miss this.
| Quote: |
| There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced. |
| Moonspider wrote: |
| My difficulty with "pure" evolution comes from the fact that so few processes that are observable in nature demonstrate a propensity towards organization. Instead, what we see most of all is a propensity for systems to move towards disorder. |
actually 'science' says just this, that on average things will tend towards a disordered state, or put another way, building order comes at the cost of creating a larger amount of disorder. Look up entropy in your textbooks
| Quote: |
| Creation science is not science, its pseudoscience so no creation scientists can be prestiges. Creation science is crap and should be ignored by every one. |
Man are you ignorant, the junk you leaned in school about evolution isn't real science! They just tell you things about evolution and only tell you one side, you don't know anything about evolution. If you know what science is it is testing theorys. Apparently you haven't looked on the other side of evolution. Some of the problems. Creation Science is real science. The junk that you call is science isn't real science at all. It's just regurgitating so called facts that some teachers told you that probably don't even know what they are talking about. Creation Science is not psudo-science.
| coolsmile wrote: | ||
Man are you ignorant, the junk you leaned in school about evolution isn't real science! They just tell you things about evolution and only tell you one side, you don't know anything about evolution. If you know what science is it is testing theorys. Apparently you haven't looked on the other side of evolution. Some of the problems. Creation Science is real science. The junk that you call is science isn't real science at all. It's just regurgitating so called facts that some teachers told you that probably don't even know what they are talking about. Creation Science is not psudo-science. |
Do you know what science is?
Creation science is not science, it is not falsifiable, they can not take there "theory" or "hypotheses" and produce testable predations. If you can not produce testable predations then it can not be tested and thus is not falsifiable thus is not science.
Evolution is science. The theory of evolution is falsifiable. Take the variety of species and subspecies, the fossil record, the evolution of insects and bacteria within our life time.
Evolution, the fact and theory have been proven and the theory of evolution can be falsified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evidence_of_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Misunderstandings_about_modern_evolutionary_biology
Ok, first off, you cannot prove evolution, you cannot prove anything!
Evolution Science is just as much of a science as creation science. Since a lot of you don't know what creation science is, it is looking at evolution and looking at what the problems are.
Evolution Science is just as much of a science as creation science. Since a lot of you don't know what creation science is, it is looking at evolution and looking at what the problems are.
The fact of evolutions is based on the variety of species and subspecies, the fossil record and now DNA. The Theory of evolution is based on natural selection, creature that has a trait(s) that makes it better at surviving than others of the same species will have a grater chance of passing on its DNA and that trait(s), this can and has been replicated through unnatural selection (breeding) for thousands of years. The fact of evolution is undeniable, the theory of evolution has been proven and any theory that replaces it would have natural selection as a major part.
Creation "science" can and never will say the same, its based on the idea that God created and runs the universe, and argument that can not be falsified or tested and the argument that some intelligent force is at play controlling evolution can not be falsified or tested.Testing and falsifiability are extremely important ins science, if it can't be tested and/or falsified, it is not science.
Creation "science" can and never will say the same, its based on the idea that God created and runs the universe, and argument that can not be falsified or tested and the argument that some intelligent force is at play controlling evolution can not be falsified or tested.Testing and falsifiability are extremely important ins science, if it can't be tested and/or falsified, it is not science.
If you knew anything about creation science, it is looking at the downfalls of evolution and if you ever listened to any of the previous posts, you find only a fraction of the problems of evolution. It's also called natural selection. Evolution is easily denyable. You can't prove that god doesn't doesn't exists.
Also if you knew anything about science you would know it is technically impossible to prove anything in science, but you ingnorantly ignore the truth.
Natural Selection also is micro evolution, not macro evolution. If you look at darwins finches, they say that larger beaked ones survive because of some condition and the ones with the smaller die, but not all of them. The problem with this is this condition oscilates and the birds are still the same species, but they just have minor differences. If scientists found a very old but small person and found a very tall person just a little younger, they would classify them as different species.
Another problem is that all the so called early humans had traits of apes and not humans
For example, all the so-called early humans didn't have the same locking mechanism in our knees as we did
Also there is a claim that lucy had feet like a humans. The funny thing is is that they never found lucys feet so they cannot find out how lucy stood up
This shows very strong evidence that evolution doesn't work. You have not shown me 1 peice of evidence that I cannot refute
You cannot prove evolution or creation
Another thing that is funny is that you said the carbon dating method is flawless. If you paid attention earlier there are many problems because Carbon dating assumes 3 things
1. The starting amount of Parent isotopes is 100% and amount of Daughter isotopes is 0%
2. The only decay that has occured is the isotopic decay
3. The rate is always constant
Another problem is that if the earth if 4.5 billion years old carbon had 785340 half lives. After 17 half lives scientists cannot detect any carbon. Which means the earth has to be less than 100000 years old
--Have a great day and actually read the post
Also if you knew anything about science you would know it is technically impossible to prove anything in science, but you ingnorantly ignore the truth.
Natural Selection also is micro evolution, not macro evolution. If you look at darwins finches, they say that larger beaked ones survive because of some condition and the ones with the smaller die, but not all of them. The problem with this is this condition oscilates and the birds are still the same species, but they just have minor differences. If scientists found a very old but small person and found a very tall person just a little younger, they would classify them as different species.
Another problem is that all the so called early humans had traits of apes and not humans
For example, all the so-called early humans didn't have the same locking mechanism in our knees as we did
Also there is a claim that lucy had feet like a humans. The funny thing is is that they never found lucys feet so they cannot find out how lucy stood up
This shows very strong evidence that evolution doesn't work. You have not shown me 1 peice of evidence that I cannot refute
You cannot prove evolution or creation
Another thing that is funny is that you said the carbon dating method is flawless. If you paid attention earlier there are many problems because Carbon dating assumes 3 things
1. The starting amount of Parent isotopes is 100% and amount of Daughter isotopes is 0%
2. The only decay that has occured is the isotopic decay
3. The rate is always constant
Another problem is that if the earth if 4.5 billion years old carbon had 785340 half lives. After 17 half lives scientists cannot detect any carbon. Which means the earth has to be less than 100000 years old
--Have a great day and actually read the post
Did you read the links that I posted? Do I have to quote them?
No science can't disprove God and thats why there is not god in science, God is not falsifiable and you can't test for God. You can't use God in science.
Evolution has been proven, breeders prove it. The evidence is clear.
We have the extensive fossil record secondly we have unnatural selection and thirdly we have DNA that tels us how the proses works. We know from the fossil record that animals have changed over the the eons and humans have bred animals, changing some them radically.
Did I say it was perfect? No. I said its reliable.
And this will debunk your "probloms"
Do not listen to creatonists, no not listen to "creation scientists".
No science can't disprove God and thats why there is not god in science, God is not falsifiable and you can't test for God. You can't use God in science.
Evolution has been proven, breeders prove it. The evidence is clear.
We have the extensive fossil record secondly we have unnatural selection and thirdly we have DNA that tels us how the proses works. We know from the fossil record that animals have changed over the the eons and humans have bred animals, changing some them radically.
| Quote: |
| Another thing that is funny is that you said the carbon dating method is flawless. If you paid attention earlier there are many problems because Carbon dating assumes 3 things
1. The starting amount of Parent isotopes is 100% and amount of Daughter isotopes is 0% 2. The only decay that has occured is the isotopic decay 3. The rate is always constant |
Did I say it was perfect? No. I said its reliable.
And this will debunk your "probloms"
Do not listen to creatonists, no not listen to "creation scientists".
You are obviously blind to the fact that EVIDENCE ISN'T THE SAME THING AS FACT!!!
Evolution has not been proved, and it is not close to being proved.
There are no fossil records that show evolution works. Like the animal in between a dinosaur and a bird, an animal couldn't live because it would be too heavy and couldn't become a bird. There are no records that even show the "transformation"
Oh, and saying "Do not listen to creations, no not listen to "creation scientists" is ignoring the fact that YOU ARE WRONG
I'm done trying to debate with you since you clearly don't know what you are talking about and clearly deny the fact that evolution doesn't work. Oh and it isn't creationists who are arguing evolution anymore, even sceintists are debating if evolution works. Evolution isn't science since you CAN NOT PROVE IT!!!
--I'll pray for you, Goodbye
Evolution has not been proved, and it is not close to being proved.
There are no fossil records that show evolution works. Like the animal in between a dinosaur and a bird, an animal couldn't live because it would be too heavy and couldn't become a bird. There are no records that even show the "transformation"
Oh, and saying "Do not listen to creations, no not listen to "creation scientists" is ignoring the fact that YOU ARE WRONG
I'm done trying to debate with you since you clearly don't know what you are talking about and clearly deny the fact that evolution doesn't work. Oh and it isn't creationists who are arguing evolution anymore, even sceintists are debating if evolution works. Evolution isn't science since you CAN NOT PROVE IT!!!
--I'll pray for you, Goodbye
I don't deny that over time as our climate changes our the migrations of other races and species to other global climates that everything evolves to adapt. Black people have a natural factor 5 built into their skin that protects them from the suns rays because they are from hotter climates than White people. Starlings in the Shetland Isles are darker than those in London due to it's climate. That is all evolution.
But this world was not created by a big bang that caused atoms etc to colide to create a our complex biological planet. I look at everything around me from insects to plants to humans to fish to animals and we are all to perfect in our make up. This is why God, to me exists
But this world was not created by a big bang that caused atoms etc to colide to create a our complex biological planet. I look at everything around me from insects to plants to humans to fish to animals and we are all to perfect in our make up. This is why God, to me exists
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
Who ever your getting these from, stay away from them, he/she have no idea what he/she is talking about. Yes time is relative, relative to speed and mass, but for the time dilation to significant, you would have to travel at lest half the speed of light and the earth doesn't move at even 1% the speed of light and for mass to have a significant effect, it would need to be a black hole. As for the second paragraph, the statement is so ridiculous its not worth mentioning. Read and watch these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/program-3114.html |
Not trying to say you're wrong because you probably aren't wrong, but don't refer someone to Wikipedia to prove a point. Remember Wikipedia can be editted by the public at will.
| coolsmile wrote: |
| One more thing
Do you know the expierment that miller performed? If you don't Click Here They way he did it was interesting. He created life, but what he did was filter out oxygen, because oxygen would have prevented the life to form. Also he filtered out tar and some of the other products that when the life was created, it would have "killed" it soon after it was created. As I remember, the earth was full of oxygen, thus making it impossible for life to form without some help (in this case GOD) --Have a great day |
Actually according to my astronomy teacher... when the Earth was just a rock filled with eruptions and gases, it took awhile before oxygen was trapped in Earth's atmosphere (since it didn't have one when it was really young). And as for help, you might as well say God is an alien. Hell, (no pun intended) we've done a lot of stuff that seemingly breaks the law of nature or pisses it off. I don't see why aliens can't. So are you telling me God is actually a UFO full of little green or blue/grey men?
Personally, I think "creation science" is a very dangerous concept.
The problem boils down to two things, in my opinion:
1. Since their faith conflicts with what science tells us, they reject science. Too many American kids are growing up being taught that evolution is not science, and all the rest that goes along with that. America will fall behind other countries where the religious right is not as powerful, because too many of the people reject everything that science has learned. I've read "Evolution is just a theory" way too many times.
2. More importantly, the underlying message of Christianity is that the world is here for us to use, and that God will take care of us. Many of these people are the ones who reject global warming. Between running out of energy and global warming, society is headed for a a very difficult future. Believing otherwise is self-delusion. Which is fine, unless these people are in leadership positions, in which case, they're leading us down a path of destruction just because they believe their god will save us.
The fact that people continue to use ridiculous stuff like the half-life of Carbon 14 or the second law of thermodynamics to prove their point only reinforces how much they misunderstand.
You're not going to change their mind, but our goal should be to limit the number of people they can damage with their "science".
The problem boils down to two things, in my opinion:
1. Since their faith conflicts with what science tells us, they reject science. Too many American kids are growing up being taught that evolution is not science, and all the rest that goes along with that. America will fall behind other countries where the religious right is not as powerful, because too many of the people reject everything that science has learned. I've read "Evolution is just a theory" way too many times.
2. More importantly, the underlying message of Christianity is that the world is here for us to use, and that God will take care of us. Many of these people are the ones who reject global warming. Between running out of energy and global warming, society is headed for a a very difficult future. Believing otherwise is self-delusion. Which is fine, unless these people are in leadership positions, in which case, they're leading us down a path of destruction just because they believe their god will save us.
The fact that people continue to use ridiculous stuff like the half-life of Carbon 14 or the second law of thermodynamics to prove their point only reinforces how much they misunderstand.
You're not going to change their mind, but our goal should be to limit the number of people they can damage with their "science".
| QrafTee wrote: | ||||
Not trying to say you're wrong because you probably aren't wrong, but don't refer someone to Wikipedia to prove a point. Remember Wikipedia can be editted by the public at will. |
Um, no, it more complicated than that. It has rules like articles must show there sources and must have a neutral point of view and you can't just edit things, you have to discus it and sources and so on.
Plus, its better than looking in google. Google (or any other search engine) is good for finding site on subjects but not reliable information. Wikipedia is far more reliable than searching on google.
I think day by day we are adapting, evolving. Whether it be global warming, unclean oxygen, etc. The earth is forever changing, so the creatures will change as well. We use to not cook our food, or chop it into small pieces so we had larger jaws. And we had more grinders (molars). So eating has changed over time; forks, spoons, chopsticks and so on, we no longer need such a huge jaw. So now some people don't get their "wisdom teeth." I suppose you could say their "more evolved" than others who still have to get them pulled out.
| stone1343 wrote: |
| Personally, I think "creation science" is a very dangerous concept.
The problem boils down to two things, in my opinion: 1. Since their faith conflicts with what science tells us, they reject science. Too many American kids are growing up being taught that evolution is not science, and all the rest that goes along with that. America will fall behind other countries where the religious right is not as powerful, because too many of the people reject everything that science has learned. I've read "Evolution is just a theory" way too many times. 2. More importantly, the underlying message of Christianity is that the world is here for us to use, and that God will take care of us. Many of these people are the ones who reject global warming. Between running out of energy and global warming, society is headed for a a very difficult future. Believing otherwise is self-delusion. Which is fine, unless these people are in leadership positions, in which case, they're leading us down a path of destruction just because they believe their god will save us. The fact that people continue to use ridiculous stuff like the half-life of Carbon 14 or the second law of thermodynamics to prove their point only reinforces how much they misunderstand. You're not going to change their mind, but our goal should be to limit the number of people they can damage with their "science". |
Did I once mention anything about god. Creation Science isn't proving god exists, it's showing why evoltion doesn't work. Don't assume things when you don't understand them.
God isn't a dillusion, you're the one who needs to beleive in a false theory which you know very little about to show that you are right. Many evolutionist are veering away from evolution except for the extreme evolutionists who are blind to the truth. Many biology teachers aren't even going into evolution anymore.
Calling Creation Science isn't dangerous. If darwin was alive he would accept that he might be wrong and move on. But then again, you wouldn't know that. He even said that knowing both sides of the equation is the truth. Apparently you havent looked at both sides so you shouldn't even be posting...
--Have a great day
| coolsmile wrote: |
|
Did I once mention anything about god. Creation Science isn't proving god exists, it's showing why evoltion doesn't work. Don't assume things when you don't understand them. |
Creation science is actually nowadays called ID (Intelligent Design) and claims to be the theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
| Quote: |
|
God isn't a dillusion, you're the one who needs to beleive in a false theory which you know very little about to show that you are right. Many evolutionist are veering away from evolution except for the extreme evolutionists who are blind to the truth. Many biology teachers aren't even going into evolution anymore. |
Many evolutionists are veering away? Do you have any evidence for such a claim?
Likewise, the claim about Biology teachers.... I would like to see some evidence for your claim because my own understanding (certainly applicable to the UK) is that evolution is part of the curriculum and is therefore covered by all pupils as standard.
| Quote: |
|
Calling Creation Science isn't dangerous. If darwin was alive he would accept that he might be wrong and move on. But then again, you wouldn't know that. He even said that knowing both sides of the equation is the truth. Apparently you haven't looked at both sides so you shouldn't even be posting... |
There is always room in science for doubt and counter theory, for sure. The problem is that the ID lobby use the same discredited arguments long after they have been shown to be wrong. Another problem is that since ID supporters start from a fixed position (that evolution is wrong) then they cannot themselves said to be operating impartially and objectively which is a requirement for real science. These are a couple of reasons that the US Court system ruled, I believe correctly, that ID “is a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,”
Regards
Chris
PS - I would also urge you to read the article Indi gives below
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:21 am; edited 1 time in total
| Bikerman wrote: |
| These are a couple of reasons that the US Court system ruled, I believe correctly, that ID “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” |
Details on that can be found in the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Defining_intelligent_design_as_science).
At the same time the article (that section of it at least), in a roundabout way, gives a very concise and well-rounded explanation of why intelligent design is not a science. It covers a wide range of the points against it.
There is an encoded message in human DNA: "This is only a time trial version. Please buy and register!"
Today's religion can be tomorrow's science. Everyone is learning and should be. We can't resist changes. Evolution is definitely answer most of the questions we have had. I am afraid we just have to accept it.
| Shin wrote: |
| Today's religion can be tomorrow's science. Everyone is learning and should be. We can't resist changes. Evolution is definitely answer most of the questions we have had. I am afraid we just have to accept it. |
Religion and science are different things. Can you think of one example to support your statement that religion can become science ?
Regards
Chris
You are correct that religion itself is not science. You can back up religion with science.
You know what I don't like is when people don't know very much about evolution think it is true. I would consider myself a creationist and I know more about evolution than most people at my High School. Saying we just have to accept evolution is saying "I don't know much about evolution, but since many people say it's true, I beleive it's true". That is what I hate about school, is that they teach it on a one sided view. If you even started to look at the problems. It wouldn't be hard to convince you that it wouldn't work.
You know what I don't like is when people don't know very much about evolution think it is true. I would consider myself a creationist and I know more about evolution than most people at my High School. Saying we just have to accept evolution is saying "I don't know much about evolution, but since many people say it's true, I beleive it's true". That is what I hate about school, is that they teach it on a one sided view. If you even started to look at the problems. It wouldn't be hard to convince you that it wouldn't work.
You clame to know about evolution but you are a creationist. That makes no sense. As those who truly know about evolution would not be a creationist.
| coolsmile wrote: |
| You are correct that religion itself is not science. You can back up religion with science.
You know what I don't like is when people don't know very much about evolution think it is true. I would consider myself a creationist and I know more about evolution than most people at my High School. Saying we just have to accept evolution is saying "I don't know much about evolution, but since many people say it's true, I beleive it's true". That is what I hate about school, is that they teach it on a one sided view. If you even started to look at the problems. It wouldn't be hard to convince you that it wouldn't work. |
Your track record thus far is far from inspiring. i certainly hope you know more about evolution than radiometric dating or the second law of thermodynamics. How about you try to impress us by explaining exactly what's wrong with the theory of evolution?
No one is saying you just have to accept anything, let alone the theory of evolution by natural selection. Accept what you want. Accept that God shat us out six thousand years ago if that makes you happy. But people who use the scientific method are bound to follow the logic of that method - otherwise they're not using the scientific method. By the scientific method, evolution guided by natural selection is - by a ridiculously high level of confidence - the most likely explanation for speciation.
Also by the scientific method, creation "science" is not even a valid hypothesis. There is no science in creation "science". Anyone who told you otherwise is a bald-faced liar. But don't take my word for it. Read up on what science is, how it's done, and what constitutes a scientific theory. Then apply those rules to creation "science" and see if it fits. You'll find that it fails on several standards, but don't take my word for it. Go see for yourself.
Since you two don't really know what you are talking about...
You cannot argue evolution if you first do not understand it. Which shows that you don't know what you are talking about...
@Indi
Evolution does not use the scientific method. Nothing about evolution you can prove. Natural selection only changes a physical appearence or qualities of an animal. Not change your species. But since you seem to know so much about evolution, you should've known that. When I was talking one sided view, I was talking that they don't show problems which some are obvious and they teach evoultion like it is true. Unfortunately, since the only choice from religion is evolution, they do that on purpose because it is the only thing that makes sence, indirectly forcing students without a religion to beleive fake science.
I don't have to impress you with anything, just show that you are wrong. It's like an equation or a statement. If one part is false, then the entire equation or statement is false. I'm a programmer and I know a lot about that.
Natural Selection will show that micro evolution works, but micro evolution doesn't change a species to another...
The reason it is supported by a rediculously high level of confidence is because some scientists can't accept their wrong because then the only alterinitive is religion. If you know darwin, he would've accepted this, but you have seemed to overlook a lot of factors when it comes to a scientific method...
I am fully aware that religion is not a science, but nither is evolution. It is about as provable as god...
Then again, I don't need to use science to prove god.
If you think about it, in your way, you think god was made up by some humans, then again, so was evolution.
The chances of evolution happening, or so to speak, the chances of a tornado of hitting a junkyard and building a 747 is not possible.
Our body's are so complex, that we humans don't really understand how they work, we know a little bit, but there is so much more to know and understand. Something that complex couldn't have came from a simple life form... It had to be created by something more complex that could understand all of this
If you know about mutations, you cannot add any information...
I would like to elaborate, but I have class... I would love to spend more time to prove you wrong
You cannot argue evolution if you first do not understand it. Which shows that you don't know what you are talking about...
@Indi
Evolution does not use the scientific method. Nothing about evolution you can prove. Natural selection only changes a physical appearence or qualities of an animal. Not change your species. But since you seem to know so much about evolution, you should've known that. When I was talking one sided view, I was talking that they don't show problems which some are obvious and they teach evoultion like it is true. Unfortunately, since the only choice from religion is evolution, they do that on purpose because it is the only thing that makes sence, indirectly forcing students without a religion to beleive fake science.
I don't have to impress you with anything, just show that you are wrong. It's like an equation or a statement. If one part is false, then the entire equation or statement is false. I'm a programmer and I know a lot about that.
| Quote: |
| But people who use the scientific method are bound to follow the logic of tha method - otherwise they're not using the scientific mehtod. By the scientific method, evolution guided by natural selection is - by a rediculously high level of confidence ... |
Natural Selection will show that micro evolution works, but micro evolution doesn't change a species to another...
The reason it is supported by a rediculously high level of confidence is because some scientists can't accept their wrong because then the only alterinitive is religion. If you know darwin, he would've accepted this, but you have seemed to overlook a lot of factors when it comes to a scientific method...
I am fully aware that religion is not a science, but nither is evolution. It is about as provable as god...
Then again, I don't need to use science to prove god.
If you think about it, in your way, you think god was made up by some humans, then again, so was evolution.
The chances of evolution happening, or so to speak, the chances of a tornado of hitting a junkyard and building a 747 is not possible.
Our body's are so complex, that we humans don't really understand how they work, we know a little bit, but there is so much more to know and understand. Something that complex couldn't have came from a simple life form... It had to be created by something more complex that could understand all of this
If you know about mutations, you cannot add any information...
I would like to elaborate, but I have class... I would love to spend more time to prove you wrong
The study of evolution dose use the scientific method, evolution is testable and falsifiable. How? You set up certain conditions, than you take an animal species that come from an environment that dose not have or have all those conditions, you stick them in those conditions and watch them over many generations.
Creation "science" on the other hand is not science, the premise (that God created the universe and us) is not testable nor falsifiable.
Every thing in science is set up to fail, you test theory's not to prove them but to disprove them. evolution has survived over a hundred years of these tests. In a hundred years scientists could not make evolution fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotmline.html
http://www.toptenmyths.com/
Read these.
Creation "science" on the other hand is not science, the premise (that God created the universe and us) is not testable nor falsifiable.
Every thing in science is set up to fail, you test theory's not to prove them but to disprove them. evolution has survived over a hundred years of these tests. In a hundred years scientists could not make evolution fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotmline.html
http://www.toptenmyths.com/
Read these.
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Since you two don't really know what you are talking about...
You cannot argue evolution if you first do not understand it. Which shows that you don't know what you are talking about... |
Oh really? Let's see what you're qualifications are....
| coolsmile wrote: |
| I don't have to impress you with anything, just show that you are wrong. It's like an equation or a statement. If one part is false, then the entire equation or statement is false. I'm a programmer and I know a lot about that. |
Ah. Well, we're both scientists here, so we know a lot about science. Advantage: indi.
Putting aside the actual mechanics of evolution and how they are tested for the moment, let me take that moment to show you why you don't know what you're talking about.
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Nothing about evolution you can prove. |
And this is where you fail.
The above statement is evidence to any real scientist that you are not well versed in what science is, and thus totally unqualified to make conclusions like this:
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Evolution does not use the scientific method. |
You see, you can't expect to be taken seriously when you make a statement like that, when in the sentence immediately after you show your ignorance of what the scientific method is. (And then, amusingly enough, in the sentence immediately after, that you go ahead and prove yourself wrong.)
It doesn't matter whether or not you can prove evolution. Or creation. Or anything for that matter. What matters to science is that you can disprove it. i recommend reading up on the scientific method and falsifiability. At least have a clue what you're talking about when you go around pronouncing things to be or not to be science. (But here's a free tip. When your conclusion about whether or not a thing is science or not is the opposite of what the vast majority of the science establishment says... and even when the courts are against you... you might want to just maybe consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Just throwing that possibility out there.)
Ok, so, so far we have shown that you don't know anything about what real science is, and are thus completely unqualified to say what counts and science and what doesn't. What next?
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Evolution does not use the scientific method. Nothing about evolution you can prove. Natural selection only changes a physical appearence or qualities of an animal. Not change your species. But since you seem to know so much about evolution, you should've known that. |
Why should i know that when it's wrong. Ah, but if you knew anything about evolution, you would know that that's wrong, and why.
(Note: i'm not going to bother to explain to you why you're wrong as long as you're putting on the attitude that you're putting on. If you're so sure you're right that you're telling me i'm wrong before i even make a point, then perhaps you should show your evidence first. After all, you are arguing against the whole of known biological and medical science. Seems to me the burden of proof is on you.)
| coolsmile wrote: |
| When I was talking one sided view, I was talking that they don't show problems which some are obvious and they teach evoultion like it is true. |
The only school levels that they would not show problems with evolution at is the high-school level, because students there are not ready intellectually to properly study the pros and cons of evolution. At higher levels, such as in colleges and universities, they do discuss the problems with evolution.
Which leads to the conclusion that you didn't do any biology beyond high school. Which further proves that you're totally unqualified to talk about any of this.
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Unfortunately, since the only choice from religion is evolution, they do that on purpose because it is the only thing that makes sence, indirectly forcing students without a religion to beleive fake science. |
Uh huh? And... what about those religions that don't believe in creation? Aren't you being an ignorant bigot by saying it's ok to force people who don't believe in creation to have to sit through being taught it, when it's not even science and has absolutely no use to them? Even if you don't believe evolution, you still need to know it if you want to be a doctor (or anything to do with medicine, virology, botany, etc. etc.). Creation "science" won't help you be anything but a street preacher.
Furthermore, no one has to "believe" evolutionary theory. No one's forcing you to believe anything. You don't want to believe in evolution? Fine. Don't. Learn it for the test, then forget it. That's all there is to it. (Of course, don't plan on doing anything in any field related to biology, unless you're comfortable with working with evolution every day, and applying it all the time.) If you don't need to know evolution for what you want to do, then just forget about it as soon as the class is over. We all have to learn useless crap in school that we can forget right after and never use again. You think i even thought about an alkene since first year chem? Hardly. Learned it, regurgitated it on the test, forgot it.
Grow up, dude. Seriously. You don't have to completely accept every single thing you learn and rewrite your whole belief system around it. At the higher levels, that's not even accepted - you're supposed to criticise everything you're told by the profs. Just because you have to learn evolution to pass high school bio, doesn't mean you have to give up your religion. Just grow up. Suck it up - learn it, write the test, then forget it, and quit whining about it.
well, I go to interfere itself in the colloquy I am teacher of Biology and education evolution in my lessons. Exactly here in Brazil, where it has a cultural diversity and religious great resistance to the evolucionist theory exists.
I try to explain that the theory of the evolution is only an more explanation of as the life appeared. The religious explanations had also been valid and logical in the time that they had been proposals.
We must respect the faith, but not believe that only the faith goes to answer all the enigmas of the nature.
I try to explain that the theory of the evolution is only an more explanation of as the life appeared. The religious explanations had also been valid and logical in the time that they had been proposals.
We must respect the faith, but not believe that only the faith goes to answer all the enigmas of the nature.
Im so tired of all that say that its "only a theory" Theory in science are very strong only thing that make it theory is that we cant see it happened because of the long time evolution take. But this is not true because some studies have show diff rends i population under only 50 years for Guppies ( a small fish).
If a murder occur and we find the body so have the murder still happen even if we have not seen the murder. The same for evolution we cant see it happens but we see the effects.
If a murder occur and we find the body so have the murder still happen even if we have not seen the murder. The same for evolution we cant see it happens but we see the effects.
| spam wrote: |
| i agree, evolution makes a lot of sense, but some people HAVE to disagree with it because it contradicts other things that they believe in, like chrisianity... so if they were to accept one, they have to abandon the other, so it's just easier for them to doubt evolution, even if they do then look a bit dumb in science class |
Yeah... evolution has always made sense to me (traits are passed down through genetics) but it also goes along with my faith. I think God allowed for evolution when he first made life. Many things in the bible aren't literal.. so I think that Adam and Eve were the first to actually have the opportunity to have a relationship with God.
Thoughts?
| SyncM wrote: |
| Im so tired of all that say that its "only a theory" Theory in science are very strong only thing that make it theory is that we cant see it happened because of the long time evolution take. But this is not true because some studies have show diff rends i population under only 50 years for Guppies ( a small fish).
If a murder occur and we find the body so have the murder still happen even if we have not seen the murder. The same for evolution we cant see it happens but we see the effects. |
No. A theory in science is an explanation of a phenomena. The theory of evolution explains the proses of evolution.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
No. A theory in science is an explanation of a phenomena. The theory of evolution explains the proses of evolution. |
Agreed but I would argue that a theory is a bit stronger than that. Theory is normally taken to mean scientifically valid theory which in turn implies that it has been published in the peer-reviewed journals of that particular discipline/field. This means that the theory will have been subjected to rigorous peer-review prior to publication - a process designed to find faults in the theory by subjecting it to a quite brutal onslaught by professionally capable scientists who's goal is to refute the theory. It will also have been subjected to either experimental or observational test, normally repeated tests.
It is my understanding of terminology that any 'theory' which has not been through such a process cannot be correctly labelled as a theory and should, instead, be called a hypothesis until it does qualify in the manner outlined above.
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Intelligent Design is dead, guys, get over it.
Pointing to flaws in evolution, or holes in the evidence, isn't an argument against evolution ... it just means that the research is incomplete. Just because the science doesn't answer everything doesn't mean that it's wrong.
That's how science works.
Pointing to flaws in evolution, or holes in the evidence, isn't an argument against evolution ... it just means that the research is incomplete. Just because the science doesn't answer everything doesn't mean that it's wrong.
That's how science works.
I keep seeing references to scientific method and whether such and such qualifies. To me scientific method has 4 characteristics or elements. I tend to think Wikki has it about right when it lists them as
There is also an annotated example of a real scientific paper on the 'science magazine' site which follows a real piece of work (on Microbial Genes in the Human Genome) and supplies a series of annotations which explain what part of the scientific method is being used at different stages of the paper. It's a useful study for those wanting a bit more meat on the bones..
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/scope/keystone1/
- Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
- Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
- Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis and theory)
- Experiments (tests of all of the above)
| Quote: |
|
1. Define the question 2. Gather information and resources 3. Form hypothesis 4. Perform experiment and collect data 5. Analyse data 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses 7. Publish results |
There is also an annotated example of a real scientific paper on the 'science magazine' site which follows a real piece of work (on Microbial Genes in the Human Genome) and supplies a series of annotations which explain what part of the scientific method is being used at different stages of the paper. It's a useful study for those wanting a bit more meat on the bones..
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/scope/keystone1/
A theory in sceince like the evolution theory is very strong i dont think that it is any theory that has been tested so much like evolution. It calls a thery because of it nature and it will always be called a theory. For exampel garvity law will always exist if you drop a pen it will always fall to the floor a law. But evolution you can never say always and everytime you cant form a perfect formula that explain everything. Because evolution deepend on so many now and nown factors. But evolution theory is a really strong theory. Many hav tried to brake the thery but failed. Evolution tehory is not perfect it will come new big discovery but the ground mekanism will stay
| coolsmile wrote: |
| Oh and it isn't creationists who are arguing evolution anymore, even sceintists are debating if evolution works. Evolution isn't science since you CAN NOT PROVE IT!!!
--I'll pray for you, Goodbye |
Let's look into that shall we
... I assume you've mastered the basics of Euclidean Geometry? If not, tell me, I'll instruct you ... If so, then let me tell you about this science ...
Euclidean geometry is founded on a few axioms. An axiom is something you now is right but you cannot prove it. You cannot prove (to take a silly example) that 1+1=2. You cannot deny it either. From that axiom everything else is deducted. The axioms arise from obeservation. You observe something and begin to see some analogy with other fenomena (like Newton did with the apple) and so you make a few statements. If somebody can prove you wrong, so be it, the statements are false, or have to be revised. Until someone can prove you that those statements are wrong, they are right. That's the way it happens. So did Darwin when he observed nature. My point being that you do not necessarily have to prove something in order for that to be a science. (note that I didn't say that everything you cannot prove is ipso facto a science)
The same counts for religion. You cannot prove that there is or is no God. You cannot prove that there are or are no Hindu gods etc.
You believe or you don't believe that they exist. Or you don't know that they exist so you leave the possibility open that they might or might not exist. But apart from that I don't think you need to believe in a god, to be a religious person. I, for example, am raised as a catholic, my whole family is catholic. I am a true scientist in the heart. I believe Darwin was right, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe in God. I don't know if he exists. I do however repel against some of the churches values and statements. I do even follow some boeddhistic rules and values. Not because I don't agree with catholicism but because I do agree with those other values.
| giovle wrote: | ||
Let's look into that shall we ... I assume you've mastered the basics of Euclidean Geometry? If not, tell me, I'll instruct you ... If so, then let me tell you about this science ...
Euclidean geometry is founded on a few axioms. An axiom is something you now is right but you cannot prove it. You cannot prove (to take a silly example) that 1+1=2. You cannot deny it either. From that axiom everything else is deducted. The axioms arise from obeservation. You observe something and begin to see some analogy with other fenomena (like Newton did with the apple) and so you make a few statements. If somebody can prove you wrong, so be it, the statements are false, or have to be revised. Until someone can prove you that those statements are wrong, they are right. That's the way it happens. So did Darwin when he observed nature. My point being that you do not necessarily have to prove something in order for that to be a science. (note that I didn't say that everything you cannot prove is ipso facto a science) |
All true, but maybe not worded in the best way.
From a certain point of view, every branch of knowlege, including science, math... everything... even literary studies... is based on a set of axioms; the idea of an axiom is a formal mathematical concept, but it can be analogized to other bodies of knowlege. The axioms that define a body of knowlege cannot be derived from anything else, but form the basis for the body of knowlege derived from them. They also cannot be proven, neither by themselves, nor by the other axioms in the same body of knowlege. They are the most basic units of knowlege in that body - they are the "atoms" of that body of knowlege.
A good example in physics is the Schrödinger equation... but that just goes over most people's heads. So say Newton's second law, F = ma, and ignore the fact that we now have better equations (like Schrödinger's) that supersede it. Why do we believe F = ma? That equation cannot be derived from any other equation, and there's no real logical reason to assume that it's true, other than that it works (by observation). However, it forms the basis for entire fields of physics. It is, for all intents and purposes, an axiom in physics. It cannot be derived from more basic laws and it cannot be proven. But it can be disproven; that is a prerequisite of all science.
So what giovle said is true. Not everthing in science needs to be proven (actually, the truth is far stronger - nothing in science can be proven - but ignore that for now) before it is considered true. Some things really are just assumed true in science. However! That is only rarely done, and only when there is no other alternative - and only after it has been shown to be accurate by lots and lots of observation - one unaccountably false result and the assumption is abandoned. And even then, we don't just accept it and move on - people work hard to find out why scientific axioms are true (unlike in mathematics, where they are simply defined as true and accepted as such). For example, we now know that Newton's second law comes from the Schrödinger equation. And one day we'll know where the Schrödinger equation comes from, and so on.
Now, what about "evolution"? Well that depends. What do you mean by "evolution"? Do you mean intraspecies adaptivity by evolution? Do you mean speciation by evolution? Do you mean the mechanism of evolution by transmission of species information? As long as the opponent of "evolution" is being vague, they can get away with saying things like "evolution has never been observed", when in fact that's not actually true for many definitions of "evolution".
Is evolution an axiom? Is it just assumed? Is it impossible to derive the theory of evolution from other, more basic, theories (or axioms)?
The answer to all these three questions... is no.
You don't need to just assume that the theory of evolution is true. It is trivially easy to derive from more basic assumptions:
- First, assume that parents pass information to their offspring about what characteristics that offspring should have, based on the parent's characteristics. This is no great leap. Chickens look like chickens because their parents looked like chickens. White couples have white children and black couples have black chicken (barring any fooling around). We knew long before Darwin that children take on the characteristics of their parents.
- Next, assume there is variation within a species. This is another "well, duh" assumption. Obviously within the species of humans, we don't all look alike.
- Next, assume that some members of a species live longer than others, and breed more. Again, this assumption takes no great stretch of the imagination.
| Indi wrote: |
| As long as the opponent of "evolution" is being vague, they can get away with saying things like "evolution has never been observed", when in fact that's not actually true for many definitions of "evolution". |
| Indi also wrote: |
You don't need to just assume that the theory of evolution is true. It is trivially easy to derive from more basic assumptions:
|
I haven't quite followed your argument here, Indi, -- at least not as far as you seem to be saying your argument leads. All I get when I put those 3 things together is a very narrow definition, a 'micro' definition, of evolution. You wouldn't be being vague about your definition of evolution, would you?
Maybe I am just lacking in imagination! It may be one small step for you, but it feels like a gazillion giant leaps for me!
So which definition of evolution do you mean to derive from those 3 assumptions? And what is the one extra assumption that gets you to speciation? Really, I'd like to know.
By the way, I believe in God and that He created us, but I'm coming from the perspective that these beliefs alone don't preclude belief in (or the assumption of truth of) any or all of the evolutionist theories. I don't think it's a one-or-the-other situation (it seems you would agree here).
Regards,
Eldon
| eldon_r wrote: | ||||
I haven't quite followed your argument here, Indi, -- at least not as far as you seem to be saying your argument leads. All I get when I put those 3 things together is a very narrow definition, a 'micro' definition, of evolution. You wouldn't be being vague about your definition of evolution, would you? |
Nope, read more carefully: "... Add one more assumption and you even get speciation...."
In other words, those three assumptions lead to a theory of how a single species might evolve and change without speciation. Those assumptions won't get you to "salamanders can become horses", but they will tell you several very fundamental and important things about salamanders and horses and why they are the way they are.
Adding that one more simple assumption - that it is possible to evolve so far that you can no longer interbreed with the "original" species - and you get the final piece of the puzzle: speciation. Now you have the "whole" theory of evolution, including how "salamanders can become horses".
| Indi wrote: |
| Those assumptions won't get you to "salamanders can become horses"... |
Thanks Indi, I found that a lot clearer (as to which level of evolution those 3 assumptions were meant to derive).
| Indi wrote: |
| Adding that one more simple assumption - that it is possible to evolve so far that you can no longer interbreed with the "original" species - and you get the final piece of the puzzle: speciation. Now you have the "whole" theory of evolution, including how "salamanders can become horses". |
This is where you really leave me behind, I think. That doesn't sound like a simple assumption to me. So what background do you have that I don't (or don't recognise?) that lets you call that a simple assumption? Or are you just exaggerating to the max for simplicity?
edit: On further thought, to be clearer, since there is controversy over the definition of species, it's when you go higher than the species level with these assumptions that you really leave me behind. Like at the genus level or above in the taxonomy, which you didn't actually mention but I assume you meant by your example of salamanders and horses, since that's further apart than species differences, isn't it? I have trouble thinking about how something could feasibly morph between subspecies, let alone species, at least going by the definition in the first paragraph of the Species Wikipedia page. So anything above that is ...well, even more difficult.
| eldon_r wrote: | ||
This is where you really leave me behind, I think. That doesn't sound like a simple assumption to me. So what background do you have that I don't (or don't recognise?) that lets you call that a simple assumption? Or are you just exaggerating to the max for simplicity? |
Yup, that's exactly it. Remember, i was just trying to show that you don't have to just start with blind faith to get at the theory of evolution, i wasn't actually creating a manual of how to go about doing it. Not like you could, anyway; a priori arguments are meaningless in science - observation is the only way to learn. There is no way i can "prove" the theory of evolution from a priori argument alone - even Darwin didn't do that, he formed the theory based on observation. All i'm trying to show is that it's possible to come up with the general idea (which you could then go on to prove with evidence and turn into an actual scientific theory).
However, the rationale is this... start with the first three assumptions:
- Parents pass information to their offspring about what characteristics that offspring should have, based on the parent's characteristics.
- There is variation within a species.
- Some members of a species live longer than others, and breed more.
Ok, so we haven't got to "salamanders turning into horses" yet. But we can get "salamanders getting bigger" over successive generations, if the environment is such that they would be better suited to it if they were bigger (that's not implausible, right? it's still "micro" evolution). We can also get "salamanders' legs getting longer" and "salamanders' feet getting hard pads on the bottom" and even "salamaders' tail shrinking and developing very soft spines for swishing flies". All of these things fit in with those three assumptions - all of them are "micro" evolutions. They're still salamanders. Right?
Or are they? If they're big, have long legs, hooves and a tail for swishing... how far are they from horses? At precisely what point do a lot of "micro" evolutions... become a "macro" evolution? One answer is... whenver you say it does. The whole micro/macro evolution thing is a little silly, because the difference between the two is totally arbitrary. Another answer is... when the "new" species is no longer capable of breeding with members of the "old" species. Hold that thought a moment.
What are the limits of "micro" evolution? Who decides how much a species can change? There are no limits in those assumptions that suggest that humans could never develop wings, or sharks could never develop horns, or... anything. So... aside from the arbitrary restrictions we put on "species", why couldn't a salamander change so much - gradually - that it is eventually indistinguishable from what we call a horse? What if you walked into a field that had some of the "original" salamanders (decendents of those that did not start to evolve) and some of the "evolved" salamanders (large with long legs, hooves, etc.)? Why wouldn't you say there were two different "species" there?
The only answer i could think of is... you might not say they were two different "species" if they could still interbreed. Thus, the fourth assumption - that members of a "species" could change so much that they are so different from the original form, they can no longer interbreed.
But is it really such a radical assumption? i mean, if you're ok with a salamander growing hooves... why not a womb? Oh, not all at once, of course - just as with the hooves, it will take time, and it's not a binary thing - you don't have padded feet one generation and hooves the next, so why assume you lay eggs one generation and incubate internally the next. But why not such a change? If you allow the first three assumptions... what prevents enough change over a long enough time that you can no longer interbreed?