Author Topic: Evolution  (Read 9984 times)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Evolution
« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2008, 11:24:29 PM »
I know what you are trying to say, but listen carefully because now I feel that I am repeating myself. Species can't cross over, "other evolutionary processes" is something that you are taking by faith alone.
lol sorry you feel your repeating yourself but it seems you still misunderstood so let me repeat myself, I agree that species cant cross over and breed with another species which if i understand correctly is what you are saying. what im saying is the species split such as that of the dogs and wolves and eventually changes or "evolves" so much that the dog is a new species in itself. Which is scientifically what happend to dogs. Now as for the other evolutionary processes not all are based on faith alone. Some are based on scientific fact not theory and are as obvious as the bacteria and antibacterial soap example that I used earlier. I will elaborate if you would like me too.

MMC78

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: Evolution
« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2008, 11:30:02 PM »
yes, but this doesn't mean that there isn't evidance
There is evidance of Noah and a world wide catostrophy.

There is evidence for a flood in the near east.  There is no evidence that there was a Noah character that boarded the animals two by two (or was it 7 each) into an ark.

There is no evidence to support the fact that Adam and Eve lived ~6000 years ago.  Not one shred.  To the contrary there is a mountain of evidence from all fields in science that support the fact that the earth and the life on it is billions of years old.

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: Evolution
« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2008, 11:40:06 PM »
There is evidence for a flood in the near east.  There is no evidence that there was a Noah character that boarded the animals two by two (or was it 7 each) into an ark.

There is no evidence to support the fact that Adam and Eve lived ~6000 years ago.  Not one shred.  To the contrary there is a mountain of evidence from all fields in science that support the fact that the earth and the life on it is billions of years old.
There is absolutely no accurate method of calculating time so when you say billions of years it means nothing. The same scientist know that dates cannot be measured. back to square one= you got nothing. See you tomarrow

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: Evolution
« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2008, 03:36:00 AM »
No accurate method to calculate time? Do yourself a favor and open a children's encyclopedia one of these days...

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: Evolution
« Reply #54 on: January 29, 2008, 06:48:15 AM »
There is absolutely no accurate method of calculating time so when you say billions of years it means nothing. The same scientist know that dates cannot be measured. back to square one= you got nothing. See you tomarrow

again incorrect.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2008, 08:33:33 AM »
I think the issue was whether a person believes in evolution, not how evolution compares with any other theory.  Believing that our perfectly shaped planet suddenly appeared, through an explosion or however the heck it got here, and that a single celled creature suddenly appeared and began to evolve into life as we know it, requires faith.  In fact, it requires willful suspension of disbelief.  There is no provable explanation for the origin of life based on the theory of evolution.  It sounds like science fiction. 
I know what the issue is.  I use religion as a point of reference for pointing out why having faith in the scientific method is merited.

Science is a rational process.  The more refined our tools (hahahaha) become for scientific inquiry, the better the chance we'll find out what happened.  It just so happens that evolution is already a viable scientific fact in many other areas of study and that application to discussions of origins is an apt application.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2008, 08:36:25 AM »
Do the planets have a stamp on the that sais "hi, I'm Jupitor and I've been living here for 4.6 billion years''? and do the dinosaure bones have a tag when they get dugged out saying " Im 65 million years old"? and has A Macro-evolution ever been observed? NO NO NO. All you know about a bone buried in the ground is that it was once a life form that died.

You call that reason? I call that faith.
Even if the planets had "Made By God" stamped on them, that would not prove there is a God.  What you refer to as faith on the conclusions you present is related to your incomplete understanding of the scientific process.

Science is empiricism, testing and it is also rational inferences.  We have to start somewhere and work in a methodical way.

OTHstrong

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14122
  • Jasher
Re: Evolution
« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2008, 10:43:29 AM »
Even if the planets had "Made By God" stamped on them, that would not prove there is a God.  What you refer to as faith on the conclusions you present is related to your incomplete understanding of the scientific process.

Science is empiricism, testing and it is also rational inferences.  We have to start somewhere and work in a methodical way.
Science is great, but evolution isn't science

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #58 on: January 29, 2008, 10:54:12 AM »
Science is great, but evolution isn't science
Tell that to evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, or molecular biologists.

I know what you are getting at though.

Evolution is science.  It's just that, at the moment, scientists cannot prove our origins in a falsifiable way, therefore in that respect it is not science but conjecture about the mystery.  The chance that we can find the answers along scientific lines does exist.

But the play is the thing.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2008, 11:18:36 AM »
oh god not you too. nothing magical about it. in fact it all follows the principles of complexity and physics.

Yes,  me too.   :D  We cannot replicate the origin of life in a lab.  We can't study it.  We cannot test it.  The belief that a single cell just appeared and spawned all human life really doesn't pass the common sense test IMO. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2008, 11:21:22 AM »
Yes,  me too.   :D  We cannot replicate the origin of life in a lab.  We can't study it.  We cannot test it.  That belief a single cell just appeared and spawned all human life really doesn't pass the common sense test IMO. 
The 'common sense test'? 

Like the ground is flat therefore the world is flat. 

Or the Phlogiston theory of combustion?  Paper is full of phlogiston--that's why it burns.  Rocks have little if any phlogiston and that's why they don't burn.

Why that just stands to reason.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2008, 11:22:22 AM »
it wasnt an explosion but an expansion and we the singularity is a mathematical concept not a physical occurance. its not in perfect harmony by the way, as asteroids wiped out the dinosaurs, also, supernovas, black holes etc... and relativity explains it quite effectively.

i too look upon our existence with awe and wonder how this happened, and ask the question, why is there something rather then nothing? it may lead me down a path of circular logic but i dont think the answer is in a benevolent being that wants you to follow a few laws.

I somewhat agree.  I am in awe pretty much every day.  When I drive to work (when the sun is up).  When I look out my window.  When I'm out hiking.  At the beach (which is often).  It's incredible.  There is also a great deal of order.  The day and night, the weather, the soil, the plants, animals, our bodies, the sun, the moon, etc.  It's really amazing.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2008, 11:23:31 AM »
I know what the issue is.  I use religion as a point of reference for pointing out why having faith in the scientific method is merited.

Science is a rational process.  The more refined our tools (hahahaha) become for scientific inquiry, the better the chance we'll find out what happened.  It just so happens that evolution is already a viable scientific fact in many other areas of study and that application to discussions of origins is an apt application.

There is nothing scientific about the theory of evolution's explanation for the origin of life.  It is a faith-based belief. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2008, 11:25:45 AM »
The 'common sense test'? 

Like the ground is flat therefore the world is flat. 

Or the Phlogiston theory of combustion?  Paper is full of phlogiston--that's why it burns.  Rocks have little if any phlogiston and that's why they don't burn.

Why that just stands to reason.

?  No, I mean like the fact a living organism appeared on our perfect planet that then produced all of the incredibly complex life forms we see today.  It really makes no sense. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2008, 11:25:53 AM »
There is nothing scientific about the theory of evolution's explanation for the origin of life.  It is a faith-based belief. 
Yes it is.  But it is rock solid fact where biology and paleontology are concerned.  

And since it is a legitimate scientific fact, it is likely only a matter of time before some evolutionary scientist fleshes out a methodology that shows our evolutionary origins.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2008, 11:28:38 AM »
?  No, I mean like the fact a living organism appeared on our perfect planet that then produced all of the incredibly complex life forms we see today.  It really makes no sense. 
So Hawking's paper on something out of nothing is just gibberish?  That's the creation of the universe.  Perfection is a strange concept.  How is our planet perfect?

"The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&print=true

I like that answer--it's all scientific like.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2008, 11:31:47 AM »
Yes it is.  But it is rock solid fact where biology and paleontology are concerned.  

And since it is a legitimate scientific fact, it is likely only a matter of time before some evolutionary scientist fleshes out a methodology that shows our evolutionary origins.

How can it be a faith-based belief and a scientific fact?  From my Billions of Missing Links thread (and book):  "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." 

How has the theory of evolution proved, by "scientific fact," the origin of life based on the preceding scientific method?   

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2008, 11:38:05 AM »
So Hawking's paper on something out of nothing is just gibberish?  That's the creation of the universe.  Perfection is a strange concept.  How is our planet perfect?

"The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&print=true

I like that answer--it's all scientific like.

Sounds like theoretical gobbledygook to me.  But I agree it does sound scientific.  :) 

How is our planet perfect?  I'll refer you again to Billions of Missing Links:  "Fossil records suggest that the Earth's temperatures and climate have remained essentially the same for 3.5 billion years.  It cleans, refreshes, protects, defends, regenerates, maintains, and repairs itself.  In a sense, it may breathe, and it definitely has a circulatory system.  No one knows how our planet acquired these abilities or remained stable.  The only choices appear to be improbable coincidences, Intelligent Design, or incredible luck." 

We are also the perfect distance from the sun and moon.  We have equal day and night.  But I'm repeating myself . . . .

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2008, 11:43:29 AM »
How can it be a faith-based belief and a scientific fact?  From my Billions of Missing Links thread (and book):  "Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions." 

How has the theory of evolution proved, by "scientific fact," the origin of life based on the preceding scientific method?   

That's not what I said.  Evolution as applied to molecular biology is a fact.  Evolution applied to origins is a guess.  I'm not debating that.  Are you?


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2008, 11:46:51 AM »
Sounds like theoretical gobbledygook to me.  But I agree it does sound scientific.  :) 

How is our planet perfect?  I'll refer you again to Billions of Missing Links:  "Fossil records suggest that the Earth's temperatures and climate have remained essentially the same for 3.5 billion years.  It cleans, refreshes, protects, defends, regenerates, maintains, and repairs itself.  In a sense, it may breathe, and it definitely has a circulatory system.  No one knows how our planet acquired these abilities or remained stable.  The only choices appear to be improbable coincidences, Intelligent Design, or incredible luck." 

We are also the perfect distance from the sun and moon.  We have equal day and night.  But I'm repeating myself . . . .
I don't know what is perfect but I'll take your word for it.  Then again, I could ask my wife, she said I acted like a perfect horse's ass when I pulled the old mirror in the shower trick on her to get a good eyeful.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2008, 11:53:51 AM »
That's not what I said.  Evolution as applied to molecular biology is a fact.  Evolution applied to origins is a guess.  I'm not debating that.  Are you?



Ah so.  I wasn't debating that, but we can.  Evolution at the cellular level is not a fact.  I created a thread about this a while back after reading Darwin's Black Box.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=89955.0

This is a different issue from the origin of life.   

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2008, 11:55:18 AM »
I don't know what is perfect but I'll take your word for it.  Then again, I could ask my wife, she said I acted like a perfect horse's ass when I pulled the old mirror in the shower trick on her to get a good eyeful.

lol.  Just use a camera next time.   :)

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2008, 12:15:58 PM »
Ah so.  I wasn't debating that, but we can.  Evolution at the cellular level is not a fact.  I created a thread about this a while back after reading Darwin's Black Box.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=89955.0

This is a different issue from the origin of life.   
Darwin's Black Box has been shown to be nonsense.  The author, Michael Behe was picked apart by a lawyer in a courtroom where Behe admitted that if ID was science, then so was astrology.  That's relevant b/c the lawyer presented evidence that Behe's irreducible complexity was fiction b/c they showed that cellular evolution explained the seemingly irreducibly complex Yersinia pestis.

It really isn't different than the origin of life in this respect (which does seem to agree with you):

New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm

Life did not begin with one primordial cell. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations. They swam in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing their evolutionary inventions. The driving force in evolving cellular life on Earth, says Carl Woese, a microbiologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has been horizontal gene transfer, in which the acquisition of alien cellular components, including genes and proteins, work to promote the evolution of recipient cellular entities.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Evolution
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2008, 12:22:16 PM »
Darwin's Black Box has been shown to be nonsense.  The author, Michael Behe was picked apart by a lawyer in a courtroom where Behe admitted that if ID was science, then so was astrology.  That's relevant b/c the lawyer presented evidence that Behe's irreducible complexity was fiction b/c they showed that cellular evolution explained the seemingly irreducibly complex Yersinia pestis.

It really isn't different than the origin of life in this respect (which does seem to agree with you):

New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm

Life did not begin with one primordial cell. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations. They swam in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing their evolutionary inventions. The driving force in evolving cellular life on Earth, says Carl Woese, a microbiologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has been horizontal gene transfer, in which the acquisition of alien cellular components, including genes and proteins, work to promote the evolution of recipient cellular entities.


 The concept of irreducible complexity makes perfect sense. 

So three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations suddenly appeared and swam together?  You honestly cannot see how fanciful that sounds?  Where did these cellular organizations come from?   

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Evolution
« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2008, 12:57:39 PM »
The concept of irreducible complexity makes perfect sense. 

So three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations suddenly appeared and swam together?  You honestly cannot see how fanciful that sounds?  Where did these cellular organizations come from?   

Here's the explanation the buried Behe:

" "Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all."

Rather verbose but it does debunk the grand theories of ID supporters.