Evolution

[rklenseth]

This debate is pointless as neither side will ever be open to the other side's point of view.

Thank you! That is what I said in the beginning. At least someone around here has some good sense.

[wichita]

Too bad I was so friggin' busy yesterday to slum it on the forums. I could have jumped in when this was a bit more fresh.

I am curious how many of you guys posting here are actual scientists, as opposed to people just keeping up with the reading. It doesn't matter all that much, but it just bothers me when people state finding published by the scientific community as rock solid fact.

I'm not supposed to let this secret out....but science is not perfect. Scientists are people. They make mistakes and they are just guessing at all this too. I have been one officially for five years now, and unofficially for twenty. The only thing I know for sure is that science is more faith based than the public wnats to admit.

Science faith-based?! Whatever do you mean, Wichita? The science man has clearly lost his mind! Well, I realize that there are several of you much more qualified to comment on my job than I am, but please just tolerate me for a little bit and let me share some experiences, hypotheses, and theories with you.

Science is based primarily on logic. Often, at the base of many logical (mathematical) arguments you will find assumptions and postulates that are ACCEPTED AS TRUE WITHOUT PROOF. These are called paradigms. Another important feature of assumptions, paradigms, and caveats is that they are also often ignored or forgotten. They are also almost never passed along to the normal public, because laypeople rarely need to be or want to be bothered by such details....particularly now in the times of instant gratification in which we live. The unfortunate side effect is that the common intellectual out there now looks to the scientists as a modern day priest, sage, prophet, shaman, whatever as the source for guidance and wisdom to support their debates. Having been on the inside of the scientific process for several years....this frightens me and fills me with a sense of obligation to do my job as properly I can.

Having said that, it should be pointed out that evolution is not free of assumptions. This of course doesn't often recieve mention, even much within the scientific community, because Darwin is god and why should we question a theory as founded as Evolution. Well...we should question it because it is a THEORY not a LAW of science. Keep in mind that even gravity is a theory, so use that as you will in whatever qualitative assessment you wish to make.

An example of an assumption is that speciation, the evolution of one species to a point that it can be identified as a new species, CAN occur. In order for evolution to be a valid explanation of the History of the World, speciation HAD to occur. To my knowledge, this has never been tested. To my knowledge, this cannot be tested. But this has to be tested in order for the theory to recieve further support.

So far evidence against the possibility of speciation does exist. This comes with the observation that two organisms separated zoologically more distantly than family cannot mate. (Species -> Genus -> Family -> Order -> Class -> Phylum -> Kingdom) If they can mate, the offspring are often infertile due to chromosomal incompatibility during meiosis. What does this imply? In order for speciation to occur as a function of random mutation, similar random mutations should occur in a mating pair of organisms, from the same species, and that mating pair must produce viable offspring. While not impossible, the statistical probablility of this occuring repeatedly enough to be facilitated grow exeedingly unfavorable, especially in light of the number of mutation events that will need to occur in order for the event to proceed to completeion. And this rare event will have had to occurr event will have had to occur millions, no billions of times, over the course of natural history in order to proceed from a pool of atomic elements to a human being, or for that matter a corn plant. (Which by the way is held as being the highest evolved life form on Earth by some biologist due to the fact that it has an octoploid genome - 8 copies of all its DNA in each cell.)


So blah blah blah yeah I can type a lot of crap too. What is my point? I guess....there is a reason I believe in Intelligent Design, and think it should be taught in schools, and the reason that some people have been pushing for it. The reason is that it is actually not less reasonable than Evolution as a viable theory once you examine the assumptions and caveats involved and contemplate the statistical significance. The dangerous thing about the way Evolution is being taught in modern education is that it is taught as a fact, as a law, rather than as a theory like it is. It is just as misrepresented as Creationism, only since the athiests and agnostics are in charge of the world, it is held up as fact and the most reasonable way to think.

The true significance of the Scopes trial was not to allow Evolution to be taught, but to allow an alternative idea to be presented at all and and subjected for approval to the masses. This of course has been lost over the course of history, and now we have come full swing to have the same argument today...only instead of Evolution encroaching on the Creationist standard, it is now Intelligent design encroahing on Evolution.

[Pie]

aha, so everything is a fath. as i have been saying. conserning west,(you know what he wrote) animals can ADAPT. they can eat less, get smaller, and chang there fisical looks, as in size ans speed if nesesary by what they eat. now, the reson dinosours didn't adapt, is becous THERE COLD BLODED. so they couldn't stand the climat chang that happend in the ice age. and, the air was thinner, so that mamals could servive better, and, THEY TRIVED. Then they got bigger becous they could breath, NOT becous of a mutatious habbit. so there D.N.A could have changed INSIDE OF THE WOMB, but, nowere els. and as for humans, it is my THEORY ethat they staid up north, or on hi mountains were the dinosours could not reach them becous of there cold blodednes. and also, all of the plant life got WAY smaller, becous there were more obnivours, and the air was thinner, and it was colder. this is MY THEORY of what i beleiv, and i say, the proof that you give me for evolution, is the proof for this, becous, THE DINOSOURS DID GET SMALLER, THEY DID CHANGE, BUT THEY WERE STILL DINOSOURS.

also, 99% of all things on Earth have become Extinct in the last ice age, and the climat chang, and so on. so, i don't think it is very likly that everything "evolved" into 1% of whats left on this earth.

lets go out on a limb, and say that Evolution is right, and everything did happen as you say it did, then, in the next few billion years we sould be evolving into a hier specieas of mamals.

but lets say that i am right with what i said, then the earth could be 50,000 years old, to 20,000 years old. then that means that soon we will have to move to the moon with all of the ozone layer we have left and colonise the moon with little bubles of air in a plastic buble that can chang to sunglas material so we don't have our eys fryed every time that a soler flare comes along. and soon we will have to go to a different sun, becous ours will run out of energy sooner becous the sun is only 25,000 years old now and its alredy yellow. whats next? red. it will becom a red Giant.but we will probably be prepaird by then.

so, if you can reprove this, pleas, try, and i will give my answer.

[Floyd]

Well in my opinion i'd rather trust a theory that was thought up by a well educated man 150 or however many years ago Darwin wrote his book, that is backed up by a credible amount of scientific "Proof" rather than some old monks who collaberated to write the torah 3000 years, or however long ago it was written.

Besides, the earth is much much older than 20, or even 50 thousand years.. We're talking like a good few million arn't we? i'm pretty sure thats been proved hasn't it? (ramble ramble ramble ramble)

[Pie]

what ime saying, is that all of that could have happend in 50,000 years.

[BadMonkey]

See, that misses the point of my post. I never mentioned anything as being fact. The basis of science is that nothing is fact. Everything must be challenged, even if it seems we know it completely. Many of Einsteins theories are based on assuming that Newton is wrong, for instance.

The reason I am against Intelligent Design being taught is that it has not been tested in any way. Whist evolution may also only be a theory, it is one that has withstood 150 years of scientists trying to show that it's wrong. Therefore it should be taught in schools, as the theory it is, as all science is. Once ID can boast that as a theory, it too should be taught.

Edit: Because my typing is atrocious.

[The Industriallist]

aha, so everything is a fath. as i have been saying. conserning west,(you know what he wrote) animals can ADAPT. they can eat less, get smaller, and chang there fisical looks, as in size ans speed if nesesary by what they eat.

Really? Research to that effect, on the grand scale you're claiming? I've never heard that a chihuawa in the wild will grow to be a wolf, which would presumably be much more practical than trying to survive as is. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that a wild-born pure-breed chihuawa will, in fact, be a chihuawa, not something better suited to it's environment.

now, the reson dinosours didn't adapt, is becous THERE COLD BLODED. so they couldn't stand the climat chang that happend in the ice age. and, the air was thinner, so that mamals could servive better, and, THEY TRIVED.

A great deal of evidence suggests that dinosaurs were not cold blooded at all...though that certainly isn't proven. And perhaps I'm confused, but what does the thickness of the air have to do with cold versus warm blood?

Then they got bigger becous they could breath, NOT becous of a mutatious habbit.

Wouldn't this imply that rabbits ought to grow to the size of moose? I don't believe that rabbits have any difficulty breathing, as a rule.

so there D.N.A could have changed INSIDE OF THE WOMB, but, nowere els.

Why, and by what? This seems to be the center of your bizarre theory, and you haven't explained it at all.

and as for humans, it is my THEORY ethat they staid up north, or on hi mountains were the dinosours could not reach them becous of there cold blodednes. and also, all of the plant life got WAY smaller, becous there were more obnivours, and the air was thinner, and it was colder.

Pie, the one thing I doubt anyone is greatly concerned about in your theory is the ability of humans, had they existed, to survive since the start of the world you described. Regardless of dinosaurs.

this is MY THEORY of what i beleiv, and i say, the proof that you give me for evolution, is the proof for this, becous, THE DINOSOURS DID GET SMALLER, THEY DID CHANGE, BUT THEY WERE STILL DINOSOURS.

Is there evidence of this? The latest dinosaurs I'm aware of were, for the more part, the largest. I've never heard of any dinosaurs found that could be determined to have died during the downfall period.

And who gave you the "proof of evolution" that that you are referring to?

also, 99% of all things on Earth have become Extinct in the last ice age, and the climat chang, and so on. so, i don't think it is very likly that everything "evolved" into 1% of whats left on this earth.

Well, first off, where did that figure come from? I've never heard it before.

Secondly, given that figure...your version of history would have that 1% being all of the currently existant species, rather than only being the ancestors of all existant species. Which of those is more likely?

lets go out on a limb, and say that Evolution is right, and everything did happen as you say it did, then, in the next few billion years we sould be evolving into a hier specieas of mamals.

Well, maybe...we're a little hampered by having an incredibly large breeding population. And the possibility of a group being isolated long enough to form a breakaway species seems unlikely (certainly from the mainstream population). In a population as large and connected as the human population on earth, I don't know if it's even possible to drift into being a different species. Not that there'd be much way to tell, since to test you'd have to find an population definitely of the (now) modern human species and determine that they could not successfully breed with this future population.

If speciation were an issue, though, it wouldn't be in billions of years. Much sooner than that. And referring to 'higher' forms of life is dangerous ground in a lot of ways. How can you define it?

but lets say that i am right with what i said, then the earth could be 50,000 years old, to 20,000 years old. then that means that soon we will have to move to the moon with all of the ozone layer we have left and colonise the moon with little bubles of air in a plastic buble that can chang to sunglas material so we don't have our eys fryed every time that a soler flare comes along. and soon we will have to go to a different sun, becous ours will run out of energy sooner becous the sun is only 25,000 years old now and its alredy yellow. whats next? red. it will becom a red Giant.but we will probably be prepaird by then.

Well, first off there'd be no point in moving the ozone layer...it would probably be easier to make ozone onsite, but rather useless since I doubt you could get it to stay with the moon in any thickness.

Also, why would we have to abandon the Earth in the first place? It's a bit abused, yes, but I can't think of any life-supporting characteristics that the Moon is better in than the Earth...

so, if you can reprove this, pleas, try, and i will give my answer.

Try to make your answer a little different from the thing being reproved...

Also, perhaps you could say what it is you think 'evolution' means?

[Pie]

well, all i am saying, is that this could happen, asuming that the Evolving part of Evolution is rong. and the age of the world.

and rabbits could have been the size of a moos. in fact, Paracets were the size of a moos. they would have needed MORE OXEGEN to survive becous they were BIGGER, so when the air got thinner, with less oxagin, some animals couldn't live, but some just got smaller becous they didn't get what they needed. some anmals(Eg: the parrot) adapted to get smaller in size becous they didn't get the right nutryounts. so, they had to either eat less(witch could happen) or get smaller(witch could happen) and gues witch one happend?

as for the "abilaty of humans" what do you think you would do if you were a caveman if you saw a dinosour? you would go to a place were there are no dinosours. hence, a cold place. and humans could have used anything warm to survive being in that cold place.

i am refering to the bone structure of all the animals found in places.

and just to tell you, dinosours died, either buy a comit hitting the earth, or by an ice age, or bothe. but what would have happend is eyther an instant extincton, or a prolonged death, of plants dying, and hubavors getting smaller, or dying of starvation, and then carnivors dying of lak of food, whos left? THE LITTLE CREATURES. the mols, the horses, the birds, the small mamals. and after that, since they WERNT BEING EATON they trived, and as the air could have been thick with oxagin at this time, they got bigger, untill the oxagin got low, so they got smaller.

you would have to abandon the earth becous of futher climat changes. and have you ever watched any geografy chanals? alot of links in the chain are dying.

to go on the moon would mean that you are at the closest hevanly body to the earth. so that body is the closest to the earths climat. and really, how long is it untill we run out of room here? look at china.

[kinvoya]

If I were a cavewoman and I saw a dinosaur I would say to myself, "I must be in the worst science fiction movie ever because dinosours became extinct 65 million years ago. I think I'll see what the caterers brought today."

If we could build domes on the moon with livable climates why wouldn't we just build them here on the polluted earth which at least would still have a gravitational force which is compatible with our physical structure and the raw resources needed?

And another good question is, "Why am I bothering to argue with Pie?"

[AngelSpice]

Well, I am in the sciences and I have to say that the more I learned about biology and how complex everything is, the more I realized that I don't think we came about by chance. There are patterns that repeat throughout the world and species. In my personal beliefs, I lean more towards intelligent design than evolution. I am too much of a scientist to be a Creationist. However, I don't have anything to back up my beliefs, other than my beliefs. *grins* So, say what you want about my post, but you won't change my mind and I bet I won't change yours. How about we just live and let live and call a truce?

[west]

Poor Pie. Too much TV and internet.

It's only worth arguing with someone if they have some sort of understanding what they're talking about. I get the feeling Pie has no idea what he's talking about, and understands neither side of whatever debate he's in.


In any case, I'm pretty open-minded, but evolutionary theory has behind it a century and a half of corrabortive evidence, and all ID or Creationism has behind it (really) is "Evolution is wrong". And I'm sorry but that's not good enough for me.

The problem as I see it with Intelligent Design theory is that its goal specifically seems to be to discount Evolution without providing any evidence against it. Intelligent Design is not something that can be quantified, if it did happen, so trying to say, "oh, Evolution didn't happen, we were designed by intelligent beings" isn't good enough.

I personally tend to believe that it's just a BIT too improbable that life on earth could have evolved to where it is without a bit of guidance.

So I guess where I stand is, I believe in a God and I believe that God had a hand in designing and forming the world. I believe that the METHOD He used was as discovered by science; i.e., incorporating evolution.

So I believe in intelligent design, I suppose, but intelligent design that followed transparent principles that we can observe through science.

God gave us brains for a reason, and I don't think ignoring the scientific evidence we alone of all animals can observe and collate in favor of essentially parables or "no you di'int-ism" is what He intended.

Oh, and A_O, you use the example that the "6 days" of genesis' creation story correspond roughly to the evolutionary path as an argument against religion? I would have thought that the opposite implication would have been reached.

[Floyd]

In any case, I'm pretty open-minded, but evolutionary theory has behind it a century and a half of corrabortive evidence, and all ID or Creationism has behind it (really) is "Evolution is wrong". And I'm sorry but that's not good enough for me.

Exactly what I meant, just put alot better...

Anyways, isn't it an accepted fact that the dinsouars becam extinct 65 million years ago? Thus making it obvious that the world is over 50,000 years old? I cant stand science, and know very little about it, but this is what is being taught, and for that too happen, people.. scientists.. must be pretty certain this is the way it is, no?

[Pie]

GOD DAMIT, WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE WORLD COULD have HAPPEND IN 50,000 YEARS! IT COULD BE LONGER THAN THAT BECOUS THE WOURLD WOULD HAVE BEEN A MOLTEN ROCK OF LIFLES MOLTEN, STUF! SO IT WOULD HAVE HAD TCOOL DOWN, BUT MY IDEA COULD HAVE HAPPEND IN 50,000 YEARS!

I'm not saying that some life form created the univers, witch can't be proved, ime saying that Evolving has only has D.N.A closenes to it. JUST BECOUS YOU ARE CLOSE TO BEING A MONCKY, DOESENT MEAN YOU ARE A MONKY!

kinvoya, i remember hering IN THIS THREAD somone said that human remains have been found with dinosours.

and also i am saying that the intier carbondating proses COULD be rong in a very long range of ways. and i wonder what the carbon dating system said 100 years ago. can anyone tell me?

[Floyd]

GOD DAMIT, WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE WORLD COULD have HAPPEND IN 50,000 YEARS! IT COULD BE LONGER THAN THAT BECOUS THE WOURLD WOULD HAVE BEEN A MOLTEN ROCK OF LIFLES MOLTEN, STUF! SO IT WOULD HAVE HAD TCOOL DOWN, BUT MY IDEA COULD HAVE HAPPEND IN 50,000 YEARS!

Yes, but what i'm saying is that, it probally didnt, you might aswell claim that the earth began on the same day as the acient greek empire, and they all kept dinosaurs as pets, or something else as ridiculous

Edit:

i wonder what the carbon dating system said 100 years ago. can anyone tell me?

And no, because carbon dating didnt exist in 1905

[Nick]

You are right, west. I retract my last statement.

I got my degree in Religious Studies partly because I'm very interested in people's religious experience and story - the ways they view the world and the cosmos and explain reality to themselves, the tribal level of community (which is usually so closely guided by religion) and the beauty of creation myths from around the world.

I get very excited when these myths somehow mysteriously corroborate or are corroborated by science. I believe there are mysterious forces at work that we can only perceive dimmly, if at all and I have no interest in fitting them into any particular formal (or informal) religion. I also get excited when various areas of cosmology and physics encounter little bits of these mysteries.

Ah, a religious nut. That explains a lot.