Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[Rhabbi]

That whole article is based on accepting his examples, ie "An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum."

Since Darwins theory takes account of this I don't really see how he manages to draw the conclusions he does. Here's a simple example. A -> B -> C. B dies out, and leaves no trace. We have now no way of knowing how C could evolve the way it did. See, no god needed.

The point here is that Darwins theory does not take this into account, he had absolutely no knowledge of this process. Scientific knowledge in his day saw the cell as a simple and irreducible building block of life. In fact it is a complex biochemical mechanism. The flaggellum is one of the simpler structures in a cell.

If I found a watch in the dessert, no one would think I was crazy if I said a man had made that watch, in fact they would think I was crazy if I told you it was the result of an accidental and random series of events. This is about the level of complexity involved in a flaggelum.

Yet you expect me to walk out into that dessert and find a working factory that is producing thousands of watches and believe that it somehow came about by accident and natural selection. Does this make sense to you?


The division of the RNA looks to me and all molecular biologists I've talked to like magic, (and that's been quite a few). It's staggeringly complex. But from there draw the conclusion that it cannot have evolved by itself is just dumb. All we can do is put it on the list of things we hope to figure out in the future. Us not understanding something cannot be used as evidence for anything.

It is not the division that I am even talking about, but the simple existence of RNA. How did these various chemicals learn to encode so many different things? Not understanding something is also not a reason to reject the only explaanation that offers even a small explanation. The problem with the people who profess evolution is not that they believe in evolution, but they reject the possiblity of Intelligent Design. If they accept it as possible, they might actually be able to prove that it is wrong by devising a test for it. By rejecting ig out of hand they prove my point, that they are not takind a scientific point of view and testing all hypothesies

{QUOTE]And even if I and Darwin are wrong, that's still no case for christianity. All that would mean is that we still don't know. Intelligent design would still be in the pile of maybes. {?QUOTE]

Agreed, but my point has not been to promote Christianity, but to show that evolution is lacking. We need to open the discussion to all possiblities.

[_ID_]

Didn't really see a question in the post. So I will go with the title of the thread.

"Evolution: Science or Philosophy"

Personally I feel anything that is provable falls into the realm of science, not philosophy. I feel this because it doesn't fit the description of a theory as I would understand the definition. I say evolution is science because the results of tests can be proven in separate testing scenarios.

I have a friend of the family that is a biologist. He studies frogs. He has studied why limbs and eyes and organs grow into the spots that they do. For instance; why do your arms grow at your shoulders rather than at your hips? We know it works pretty well for them to be there, so that's where they are. But why (this would lead to your intelligent design theory)? My friend researched the notion that you could find out the point in the growth process when the division of cells decides what parts of the body will go where. He tried to figure out if he could make the arms of the frog grow on other parts of the body.

Evolution comes into all this when we think about the traceable history of the frog. Frogs start as tadpoles correct? This makes them a water born organism at that time. They have evolved to move onto land. Why did they do this? For what purpose? Perhaps for the very same purpose that your arms are on your shoulders rather than your hips. It just works best that way.

In my opinion the watch example that you have given is a very pour illustration of the Intelligent Design theory. A watch is an inanimate object subject to the inputs of the one who posses it. If we are to believe along those lines of Intelligent Design then we must also believe that all of our actions are predestined the same as the watch. Shoots the notion of freedom of choice right out the window if you ask me.

Lets think of another example of evolution in action that is provable. This one will surprise you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_evolution#Hawthorn_fly


Hawthorn fly

An interesting example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[7] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Scientists are investigating whether or not the apple-feeding subspecies may further evolve into a new species.

Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.


There are more examples on the page I posted, this just happens to be one of them.

In summary. Either evolution is a fact, and provable, or you are purposing that all newly discovered species and subspecies are a direct result of some benevolent being putting them here on earth at specified times throughout history. Personally I don't know to what extent evolution exists, but I do know that it is there. As far as some greater force having influence on the happenings of the earth. I don't doubt that either. Couldn't it be a mix of the two?

[Rhabbi]

My apologies for the lack of a question, I was interuppted and never got back to edit my post.

This is actually an interesting article, though incomplete. I did not know of this observed phenomenon, and was delighted to add to my trove of knowledge. I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not the best source to use in research, but I will deal with this article on its merites.

First, this article actually disproves speciation:

there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring.Different species are always sterile, that is how we know they are different species, and not just different sub-types of the same species.

Second, although I am a believer that genetic drift would be the best evidence of speciation, this article points out that the drift is not consitent in any way. there are differences from year to year in the same poulation group, in other words, the same tree. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/119/2/445 I would expect that gentic drift would need some type of consistency to cause speciation.

Third, althoughsympatric speciation is not as controversial as it was in the 1980's, there is still much debate concerning its value and existence.

There have been ongoing experiments in laboratory settings using radiation to cause speciation in fruit flies. These studies are also augmented by studying fruit flies in natural environmnets, yet not onsce has anyone anounced evidence of speciation. Many theorists are moving away from evidence of speciation as proof of evolution because it is so hard to find. Juist something to think about.

[Rhabbi]

Let me state here a law of nature.

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

This is known as the Second Law of Thermodyanamics, and what it generally means is that as time progresses, things fall apart and become less ordered.

Yet those who believe in evolution want me to ignore this law, and accept that in the case of life, this law does not apply.

There is a difference between a law and a theory, one is proven by experiment and math, and has no exceptions. The law of gravity is an example of this. Planes may appear to violate this law, but they actually use other laws, (ie. aerodynamics) to accomplish this. Theories explain observed phenomenon and then tries to account for everything that it sees. If it fails to do this, it is adjusted and rethought, and new experiments are carried out. Einstein's theory of Relativity actually explained that light moved at a constant speed before ir was proven.How did he do this? He was just smarter than anybody else. But his theory has stood the test of time, with some tweaking to the math along the way.

Evolution is, at best, a hypothesis. In other words, it is only an idea on which to hang a theory. As far as I know, the only people that have offered any explanation of how evolution violates the laws of thermodyanamics are people who believe in God as the motive force behind evolution.

I would like someone to explain to me how evolution can violate this law, and please do not try to tell me that because of the sun shining on the eart the biosphere is not a closed system. Adding energy to a system actually increases the rate at wich entropy occurs, although it delays the actual point at which entorpy reaches the maximum rate. Besides, if we take te universe as a whole, it is a closed system, yet life exists.

[_ID_]

I think I understand what your trying to say, that thermodynamics causes a species to mutate. Is that correct, cause I am not college educated, and some of your wording seemed to be dancing around the idea of evolution. If thermodynamics causes a species to mutate. Wouldn't that fit the definition of evolution?

[TomOfSweden]

The point here is that Darwins theory does not take this into account, he had absolutely no knowledge of this process. Scientific knowledge in his day saw the cell as a simple and irreducible building block of life. In fact it is a complex biochemical mechanism. The flaggellum is one of the simpler structures in a cell.

If I found a watch in the dessert, no one would think I was crazy if I said a man had made that watch, in fact they would think I was crazy if I told you it was the result of an accidental and random series of events. This is about the level of complexity involved in a flaggelum.

Yet you expect me to walk out into that dessert and find a working factory that is producing thousands of watches and believe that it somehow came about by accident and natural selection. Does this make sense to you?


That's hardly the case is it. This is the old deist argument for god. According to Darwins theory, there's nothing accidental about natural selection so your point is what?

Who cares what Darwin knew or didn't know. His claim to fame is that he was the first scientist who tested the theory and had the guts to stand by it, in spite of it being very shaky at the time. He unlocked and opened the door, but only a crack. Others after him found the serious proof, ripping the whole door off it's hinges. We've got many times more evidence suporting Darwins theory now than we did when he was alive. It's no accident that the theory wasn't fully accepted by the scientific comunity until well into the 1920'ies. For good reason. Darwin was wrong about a whole boat-load of stuff. Let's focus on what he was right about.



It is not the division that I am even talking about, but the simple existence of RNA. How did these various chemicals learn to encode so many different things? Not understanding something is also not a reason to reject the only explaanation that offers even a small explanation. The problem with the people who profess evolution is not that they believe in evolution, but they reject the possiblity of Intelligent Design. If they accept it as possible, they might actually be able to prove that it is wrong by devising a test for it. By rejecting ig out of hand they prove my point, that they are not takind a scientific point of view and testing all hypothesies


I belong to the crowd who think DNA easily can form spontaneously anywhere. Even in vacuum. This is based on one experiment made in California, so it doesn't really hold water yet. My point is, be careful with saying that things cannot come to be through natural processes. Chances are that they can. There's a big difference between improbable and impossible.

The problem is that intelligent design is just taken straight out of thin air. It's not backed up by anything. If your only case is that you can't imagine it coming to be naturally, it says more about you than the theory of evolution. Argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) is not valid in logic.

And then you've got the next problem, in that the "designing" isn't particularly intelligent. It's as if our creator couldn't make his mind up if humans should be quadrapeds or bipepeds, so we ended up being something in between, resulting in most humans having back-ache from ordinary life. Why is our vision centre at the back of the head, slowing down our response time? Our most critical sense being in our most vulnerable place in the brain. There's stupidity everywhere in our "design". And it gets worse if we move to other species. The closer you get to the cellular level it gives the impression of being more and more random.




{QUOTE]And even if I and Darwin are wrong, that's still no case for christianity. All that would mean is that we still don't know. Intelligent design would still be in the pile of maybes. {?QUOTE]

Agreed, but my point has not been to promote Christianity, but to show that evolution is lacking. We need to open the discussion to all possiblities.

This pretty much catches the whole point. Yes, we need to be open to all possiblities, which is important within science. But I think we can wait with taking intelligent design seriously until it at least has a coherrant logical model.

And then you've got the problem that Intelligent design isn't really a theory at all. It's more of an anti-theory. Saying that something else, (ie god or gods) has it covered, isn't saying anything at all. All it tries to do is point to the holes in Darwinism without having anything else in it's place. The intelligent design people make no claims at all as to what god is or how it did it. Considering the overwhelming evidence that suports evolution Intelligent design as a long way to go before being a credible competitor.

Regarding speciasation. Science hasn't decided what defines a unique species yet. It's got more to do with politics than biology. In my ears, the debates between scientists so far tend to be extremly silly. They're all on the who-gets-to-get-their-name-on-what level. So it's not clear what you mean by the term. It tends to shift between kingdoms. Let's agree here in the thread that it means stable reproduction of a distinct creature. It seems to me, what what you mean by it?

I have a vivid memory of a discussion, (over a few beers) with a fish expert I had this autumn about a stream in Sweden. In the 18'th century they had one species of fish living in it and in the 20'th century had 4 different stable species, all in different sections of the stream. But beer was involved so I won't swear on having the details right. So I'm not so sure about your claim about specisation never being witnessed in nature. I'll e-mail him for the name of the fish, (if anybody cares:)).

[Rhabbi]

I think I understand what your trying to say, that thermodynamics causes a species to mutate. Is that correct, cause I am not college educated, and some of your wording seemed to be dancing around the idea of evolution. If thermodynamics causes a species to mutate. Wouldn't that fit the definition of evolution?

Sorry abouit using big words, sometimes I get passionate about something and forget that not everyone is as knowledgeable as I am.

The Second law basicallly says that in any system order, and energy, always decrease. This is called entropy, and the maximum value for entropy means that there is there is no order or energy left. Picture a fire, that is the perfect example of the second law of thermodynamics. You start with a structure of logs, and end up with a pile of ashes.

Now do you see the problem with evolution? Somehow, in this balzing fire, random events came together to cause, not ashes, but gold. Something that could not happen has happened, and no one understands the implications.

[_ID_]

If thermodynamics as you state it were applied to evolution then we wouldn't have evolved as humans from the preindustrial age archaic way of doing things to how we live now, unless your trying to say we as humans will gain momentum until we burn ourselves out of existence.

[Guest 91108]

all energy isn't wasted but rather what is consumed or expended ., the residuals aren't used to further benefit in the case of the log.
is kinda wrong example..

species do not degenerate.
mutations are not degenerations always.

[Rhabbi]

That's hardly the case is it. This is the old deist argument for god. According to Darwins theory, there's nothing accidental about natural selection so your point is what?[/QUOTE}

Here is what Darwin said about Natural selection:

Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life. No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten.

His understanding of natural laws was rudimentary compared to ours, but he took the view of a scientist. He was lloking for an explanation of what he observed in nature, and he found on in his Origen of the Species. However his explanation no longer satands upo to the scrutiny of modern science. There are those who say it does, but they are unable to account for the fact that life exists. simply pointing to life and claiming that because it is there it must have been an accident is not an explanation, it is a rationalization.

[QUOTE]Who cares what Darwin knew or didn't know. His claim to fame is that he was the first scientist who tested the theory and had the guts to stand by it, in spite of it being very shaky at the time. He unlocked and opened the door, but only a crack. Others after him found the serious proof, ripping the whole door off it's hinges. We've got many times more evidence suporting Darwins theory now than we did when he was alive. It's no accident that the theory wasn't fully accepted by the scientific comunity until well into the 1920'ies. For good reason. Darwin was wrong about a whole boat-load of stuff. Let's focus on what he was right about.

Actually, he was not the first, not even in the sense of publishing, but that is another issue. I am still waiting for someone to show me the proof that evolution is true in a general sense. I can see adaptation to environmnet, and even generla genetic drift on a limited scale resulting in some rather interesting differences among different types of the same species. But where is the so called proof that species develop spontaneously?




I belong to the crowd who think DNA easily can form spontaneously anywhere. Even in vacuum. This is based on one experiment made in California, so it doesn't really hold water yet. My point is, be careful with saying that things cannot come to be through natural processes. Chances are that they can. There's a big difference between improbable and impossible.

I never heard of this experiment, so i will just ask, if proteins have not yet been proven to develop spontaneously, how can a complex chain of proteins and amino acids form into DNA?


The problem is that intelligent design is just taken straight out of thin air. It's not backed up by anything. If your only case is that you can't imagine it coming to be naturally, it says more about you than the theory of evolution. Argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) is not valid in logic.

And exactly how is evolution any better? Do they also not argue from ignorance?

Let me point out though that i am not arguing from ignorance, I am arguing against implausiblity. I simply state that statisticle odds seem to be stacked against evolution. I then offer the opinion that Intelligent Design actually has an explanation that will deal with these discrepencies, but evolutionary theorists do not. They have postualated that there may be laws of nature that we do not know about that actually force DNA to evolve in the proper conditions. Yet they offer neither mathematical or experimental evidence to support this. yet I am arguing from ignorance because I point this out? Interesting, to say the least.

Science should not be in the business of rejecting a hypothesis just becuse it does not agree with the general idea of the way the universe is. They should test to prove or disprove any hypothesis, even if it goes against personal beliefs. If someone presented evidence that could refute the existence of God I would accept it because I have a scientific outlook. Would you accept evidence that proved the existence of God? If not, which one of us is close minded?


And then you've got the next problem, in that the "designing" isn't particularly intelligent. It's as if our creator couldn't make his mind up if humans should be quadrapeds or bipepeds, so we ended up being something in between, resulting in most humans having back-ache from ordinary life. Why is our vision centre at the back of the head, slowing down our response time? Our most critical sense being in our most vulnerable place in the brain. There's stupidity everywhere in our "design". And it gets worse if we move to other species. The closer you get to the cellular level it gives the impression of being more and more random.

Really? Do you know what the initial design parameters were? How can you be sure that this is not the best of the choices that was available?


This pretty much catches the whole point. Yes, we need to be open to all possiblities, which is important within science. But I think we can wait with taking intelligent design seriously until it at least has a coherrant logical model.

And then you've got the problem that Intelligent design isn't really a theory at all. It's more of an anti-theory. Saying that something else, (ie god or gods) has it covered, isn't saying anything at all. All it tries to do is point to the holes in Darwinism without having anything else in it's place. The intelligent design people make no claims at all as to what god is or how it did it. Considering the overwhelming evidence that suports evolution Intelligent design as a long way to go before being a credible competitor.

I agree, but my point is that this is axactly what evolution does. In fact, evolution is so inconsistent that they are no beeter than those idiots that want me to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. They both ignore any evidence contrary to what they believe, which is why I insist that evolution is not science, but philosophy. I am not pointing to Intelligent Desing as the answer because it has no more basis in science than creationism or evolution. But it does answer some questions that is raised by evolution. We are then left with another question if we acccept ID, where did the designer come from?


Regarding speciasation. Science hasn't decided what defines a unique species yet. It's got more to do with politics than biology. In my ears, the debates between scientists so far tend to be extremly silly. They're all on the who-gets-to-get-their-name-on-what level. So it's not clear what you mean by the term. It tends to shift between kingdoms. Let's agree here in the thread that it means stable reproduction of a distinct creature. It seems to me, what what you mean by it?

I have a vivid memory of a discussion, (over a few beers) with a fish expert I had this autumn about a stream in Sweden. In the 18'th century they had one species of fish living in it and in the 20'th century had 4 different stable species, all in different sections of the stream. But beer was involved so I won't swear on having the details right. So I'm not so sure about your claim about specisation never being witnessed in nature. I'll e-mail him for the name of the fish, (if anybody cares:)).


I would be delighted to hear about evidence of speciation, but first let us define our terms. Merriam Webster (http://m-w.com) defines
speciation as: the process of biological species formation.
And a species as: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class <confessing sins in species and in number> c: the human race : human beings — often used with the <survival of the species in the nuclear age> d (1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name

The key part of this is that different speciess are not capable of interbreeding, and if I remember my biology correctly this is a key element of detirmining species. Older classifications of species have had to be changed becuse interbreeding was detirmined to be possible where it was initially thought to be impossible. Ths actually causes some of the argument about names that you probably are recalling.

(Of course, by this definition, Vulcans and Humans are the same species, and observation that does not really belong here, but one I am incapable of bypassing due to my nature.)

[TomOfSweden]

Let me state here a law of nature.

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

This is known as the Second Law of Thermodyanamics, and what it generally means is that as time progresses, things fall apart and become less ordered.

Yet those who believe in evolution want me to ignore this law, and accept that in the case of life, this law does not apply.

There is a difference between a law and a theory, one is proven by experiment and math, and has no exceptions. The law of gravity is an example of this. Planes may appear to violate this law, but they actually use other laws, (ie. aerodynamics) to accomplish this. Theories explain observed phenomenon and then tries to account for everything that it sees. If it fails to do this, it is adjusted and rethought, and new experiments are carried out. Einstein's theory of Relativity actually explained that light moved at a constant speed before ir was proven.How did he do this? He was just smarter than anybody else. But his theory has stood the test of time, with some tweaking to the math along the way.

Evolution is, at best, a hypothesis. In other words, it is only an idea on which to hang a theory. As far as I know, the only people that have offered any explanation of how evolution violates the laws of thermodyanamics are people who believe in God as the motive force behind evolution.

I would like someone to explain to me how evolution can violate this law, and please do not try to tell me that because of the sun shining on the eart the biosphere is not a closed system. Adding energy to a system actually increases the rate at wich entropy occurs, although it delays the actual point at which entorpy reaches the maximum rate. Besides, if we take te universe as a whole, it is a closed system, yet life exists.

He he. In rhetoric you are using what is known as weasel words. Evolution doesn't have to break the the second law of theromodynamics. It states that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world. The law doesn't state anything about the entropy being symetrical. Order can apear spontaneously. The only thing important is that in average the differences in temperature, pressure and density don't increase.

So life can apear by itself without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. But without anything outside this universe keeping it going, it will finally blink out. This is if we count on the laws as we know them being correct. Since the theory of relativity has a huge gaping hole in it, (and quantum theory), we know for a fact that we're missing a critical bit of the puzzle. So let's not asume too much.

[cheeseburger]

I just skimmed this and I couldn't resist.


He tried to figure out if he could make the arms of the frog grow on other parts of the body.
This has already been done on drosophila flies. In answer to "what makes your arms grow out of your shoulder," it's controlled by "Hox genes." So... not sure what the point is, but this has been studied in depth in several genetic model organisms. If you care... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_genes)

And Rhabbi, your entropy argument is my favorite. The way that argument goes is, if you take some closed system and leave it alone, it gets more disordered. Therefore, the earth should get more disordered over time instead of evolving life. Makes sense, right?

The earth is not a closed system. It's getting energy thrown at it by the bucketfull in the form of light from the sun. In case you still don't get it, lets go back to the staple entropy analogy: your room.

A mess, right? Let's say you go and clean up your room. You're adding energy to your room, and decreasing the entropy of your room. You're also not violating any laws of physics, because the entropy of the 'universe' is increasing ever so slightly while the entropy of your room is decreasing.

The second law does NOT state that entropy always increases. You can add order to a system by adding energy to it; but, you are also increasing disorder somewhere else. The definition, according to wikipedia, is
"The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time"

Wikipedia has a cute example:
"In general, according to the second law, the entropy of a system that is not isolated may decrease. An air conditioner, for example, cools the air in a room, thus reducing the entropy of the air. The heat, however, involved in operating the air conditioner always makes a bigger contribution to the entropy of the environment than the decrease of the entropy of the air. Thus the total entropy of the room and the environment increases, in agreement with the second law."

Just as a general statement, there is no debate. Evolution vs. 'intelligent design' is a moot point. If you really want to read up on evidence of evolution, take a trip to pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) and browse some articles on evolution.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, he was not the first, not even in the sense of publishing, but that is another issue. I am still waiting for someone to show me the proof that evolution is true in a general sense. I can see adaptation to environmnet, and even generla genetic drift on a limited scale resulting in some rather interesting differences among different types of the same species. But where is the so called proof that species develop spontaneously?


Now you're avoiding the question. Who cares what Darwin said? I didn't say he was the first. He was the first who had the balls to test and publish it. That's what I said.

You're attacking this from the wrong angle. The fact that we have diverse species is proof that they develop spontaneously. We know how mutations come about, and we know some become stable. Speciasation is just about our defintions. Given enough time every single variety of anything living will be defined as their own species, because scientists get so fucking wet about having their name on shit.

God is an absurd and outlandish concept. The only reason why anybody takes it seriously is because humanity has believed in it for so long. The reasons for this are many and easy to explain. So the burden of proof is on the religious right now. If god was involved in creating the different species, how did god do it?



I never heard of this experiment, so i will just ask, if proteins have not yet been proven to develop spontaneously, how can a complex chain of proteins and amino acids form into DNA?


They couldn't recreate it, so who knows. It was maybe just a fluke or a fault in the measuring systems. But now we're talking about faith. I think it's an intriguing idea, but I'm not going to bank on it being true. Which is what christians are doing about going to heaven, allthough it's just guesswork.



And exactly how is evolution any better? Do they also not argue from ignorance?


ha ha ha. You're going to have to do better than that. Evolution has evidence coming out of the woodwork. We've got fossils and DNA lineages everywhere to study. They're all conclusive. We've yet to have a single bit of living tissue that breaks the theory. So it's pretty safe to say that it's correct by now.




Let me point out though that i am not arguing from ignorance, I am arguing against implausiblity. I simply state that statisticle odds seem to be stacked against evolution. I then offer the opinion that Intelligent Design actually has an explanation that will deal with these discrepencies, but evolutionary theorists do not. They have postualated that there may be laws of nature that we do not know about that actually force DNA to evolve in the proper conditions. Yet they offer neither mathematical or experimental evidence to support this. yet I am arguing from ignorance because I point this out? Interesting, to say the least.


That's just bullshit. We don't know the numbers to use, so we have no idea of what is statistically unlikely. The intelligent design theory does not deal with any discrepancy because it explains nothing. Again. Just saying god has it covered, is not a theory.



Science should not be in the business of rejecting a hypothesis just becuse it does not agree with the general idea of the way the universe is. They should test to prove or disprove any hypothesis, even if it goes against personal beliefs. If someone presented evidence that could refute the existence of God I would accept it because I have a scientific outlook. Would you accept evidence that proved the existence of God? If not, which one of us is close minded?


Nobody will ever be able to prove god doesn't exist. Because god as a concept is everything we want it to be. We can go up to mount Olympos today and visit where the ancient Greeks thought the gods lived. Handy fact, that that religion is dead. Is it a coincidence that the only surviving religions with supernatural claims today are the ones who has a god that's all powerful and invisible. Saying that because you can't that it isn't true then...this...that and the other. Is arguing from ignorance.

God has been used as a wild card for so long now that I think we should demand any proof pointing to that anything in it is true. If not, let's just wait with passing judgement until we've got some more info on god.



Really? Do you know what the initial design parameters were? How can you be sure that this is not the best of the choices that was available?


Now you're thinking. Good. Exactly. How do we know? What were gods available options? See, it's not a coherant theory. Intelligent design explains jack shit. It's just fantasy. A series of what-ifs.



I agree, but my point is that this is axactly what evolution does. In fact, evolution is so inconsistent that they are no beeter than those idiots that want me to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. They both ignore any evidence contrary to what they believe, which is why I insist that evolution is not science, but philosophy. I am not pointing to Intelligent Desing as the answer because it has no more basis in science than creationism or evolution. But it does answer some questions that is raised by evolution. We are then left with another question if we acccept ID, where did the designer come from?


I'm pretty sure your beef with specisation is just Taliban created bullshit. I've e-mailed a molecular biologist about it. Let's hear what her explanation is.



The key part of this is that different speciess are not capable of interbreeding, and if I remember my biology correctly this is a key element of detirmining species. Older classifications of species have had to be changed becuse interbreeding was detirmined to be possible where it was initially thought to be impossible. Ths actually causes some of the argument about names that you probably are recalling.


As your dictionary very aptly pointed out, there are many defintions of it. My biology teacher also told me a simplified version of it. It's simplified. It's a lot more complicated.

[Rhabbi]

You're attacking this from the wrong angle. The fact that we have diverse species is proof that they develop spontaneously.

Now there is a perfect example of a circular argument, a method that is even worse than arguing from ignorance. The simple existence of life does not prove anything about how it got here.




God is an absurd and outlandish concept. The only reason why anybody takes it seriously is because humanity has believed in it for so long. The reasons for this are many and easy to explain. So the burden of proof is on the religious right now. If god was involved in creating the different species, how did god do it?

The concept of a god is no more outlandish than the concept of random chance explaining everything. You are correct that we do not know the actual odds, but every calculatikon aand estimate I have seen puts it so far out that it is not worthy of being considered.


Evolution has evidence coming out of the woodwork. We've got fossils and DNA lineages everywhere to study. They're all conclusive. We've yet to have a single bit of living tissue that breaks the theory. So it's pretty safe to say that it's correct by now.

Show me some. No one has ever pointed to anything and shown conclusive proof of evolution. All they do is to redefine evolution to accept anything that comes along as evidence. How is this science? Which, by the way, is my point. Evolution is not science, it is philosophy, and thus deserves no more merit than, say, the Hindu version of creation.


Nobody will ever be able to prove god doesn't exist. Because god as a concept is everything we want it to be. We can go up to mount Olympos today and visit where the ancient Greeks thought the gods lived. Handy fact, that that religion is dead. Is it a coincidence that the only surviving religions with supernatural claims today are the ones who has a god that's all powerful and invisible. Saying that because you can't that it isn't true then...this...that and the other. Is arguing from ignorance.

I am sure the Hindus, who believe in neither and are also the largest single religion on the face of the planet, would be interested to hear that their religion is dead.


Now you're thinking. Good. Exactly. How do we know? What were gods available options? See, it's not a coherant theory. Intelligent design explains jack shit. It's just fantasy. A series of what-ifs.

And evolution is different how?


I'm pretty sure your beef with specisation is just Taliban created bullshit. I've e-mailed a molecular biologist about it. Let's hear what her explanation is.

Do so, perhaps after she answers you we can move on to other things. Speciation is the one point than has been generally conceeded as the single greatest weakness in evolutionary theory, it will be intersting to see if there is something I am unaware of.

[Rhabbi]

The earth is not a closed system. It's getting energy thrown at it by the bucketfull in the form of light from the sun. In case you still don't get it, lets go back to the staple entropy analogy: your room.

A mess, right? Let's say you go and clean up your room. You're adding energy to your room, and decreasing the entropy of your room. You're also not violating any laws of physics, because the entropy of the 'universe' is increasing ever so slightly while the entropy of your room is decreasing.

Agreed, but the amount of energy that has apparently been added by the sun does not seem to account for the drastic decrease in entropy. It is almost the equivelant of adding a nuclear bomb to a normal bonfire. The Earth does not retain most of the energy that actually reaches it from the sun.

[TomOfSweden]

Now there is a perfect example of a circular argument, a method that is even worse than arguing from ignorance. The simple existence of life does not prove anything about how it got here.


It's not circular. Evolution has a model. It fits the model. That's how science works. You have a model and then you try to disprove it. So far it holds up nicely. It has holes. But most models do.

Intelligent design as nothing. It cannot explain how god works. God leaves no residual traces anywhere. Something transfering that much energy all the time must leave something behind right?



The concept of a god is no more outlandish than the concept of random chance explaining everything. You are correct that we do not know the actual odds, but every calculatikon aand estimate I have seen puts it so far out that it is not worthy of being considered.


Nobody has ever said anything about random chance. But you alone keep repeating it. It's just right-wing christian propaganda, and it's bullshit. Just drop it.

What I meant was that finding minute holes in the theory of evolution is not a case for god doing it. All it means is that we need to figure out more. So far the god theory doesn't have anything going for it. That is arguing from ignorance.

Even a theory with holes in it is better than no theory at all.



Show me some. No one has ever pointed to anything and shown conclusive proof of evolution. All they do is to redefine evolution to accept anything that comes along as evidence. How is this science? Which, by the way, is my point. Evolution is not science, it is philosophy, and thus deserves no more merit than, say, the Hindu version of creation.


In the 60'ies humanity discovered the DNA. We can trace DNA in anything living. What more evidence do you need?



I am sure the Hindus, who believe in neither and are also the largest single religion on the face of the planet, would be interested to hear that their religion is dead.


Now it's getting silly. How did I say Hinduism is dead? I suggest reading up on Hinduism.



And evolution is different how?


ha ha ha. It's a model that makes sense.



Do so, perhaps after she answers you we can move on to other things. Speciation is the one point than has been generally conceeded as the single greatest weakness in evolutionary theory, it will be intersting to see if there is something I am unaware of.

Intelligent design still has a long way to go before being a contender theory.

I'll get back when we have her answer

[Rhabbi]

It's not circular. Evolution has a model. It fits the model. That's how science works. You have a model and then you try to disprove it. So far it holds up nicely. It has holes. But most models do.

Nobody has ever said anything about random chance. But you alone keep repeating it. It's just right-wing christian propaganda, and it's bullshit. Just drop it.

Then explain to me what the model is. You are telling me that evolution is not random chance, yet that is exactly what I was taught in school and college. When exactly did that change, and why didn't I get the memo?


What I meant was that finding minute holes in the theory of evolution is not a case for god doing it. All it means is that we need to figure out more. So far the god theory doesn't have anything going for it. That is arguing from ignorance.

Even a theory with holes in it is better than no theory at all.{/QUOTE}

Again, tell me what the hteory is. I appaerently was mislead all through school.




In the 60'ies humanity discovered the DNA. We can trace DNA in anything living. What more evidence do you need?

Mitochondrial DNA has been traced back to an "Eve" who apparently lived in Africa, but it has not been traced back to anything else.


[QUOTE]Now it's getting silly. How did I say Hinduism is dead? I suggest reading up on Hinduism. {?quote}

Go back and read your post, "The only surviving religions..." This does not describe Hiduismk, and it does prove that you maake claims without knowing their validity.

Go read up on evolution and what the people who expound it claim, and then come back and tell me what is wrong with my arguments.

[_ID_]

curious how this would play into this discussion.

http://news. nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html

[Rhabbi]

curious how this would play into this discussion.

http://news. nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html

Actually, I am also. I would have to say that at first glance this appears more an example of adaptation than speciation as I understand it. Maybe Tom is more accurate than I thought in saying that scientists are diluting the definition of a secies. It makes me wonder why.

[cheeseburger]

Agreed, but the amount of energy that has apparently been added by the sun does not seem to account for the drastic decrease in entropy.

I'd like to see your source on this before I respond to it.


Mitochondrial DNA has been traced back to an "Eve" who apparently lived in Africa, but it has not been traced back to anything else.
It's mitochondrial DNA. (In case you don't know what a mitochondrion is, it's the organelle most human (and not so human) cells contain which functions in aerobic respiration; i.e. making ATP or energy).

Where did it come from? According to the secondary endosymbiotic theory, it was originally some single celled bacterium/prokrayote that made it's energy by aerobic respiration (citric acid cycle), and got engulfed by a bigger organism that couldn't digest it.

Point is, it has been traced back to something else.


Maybe Tom is more accurate than I thought in saying that scientists are diluting the definition of a secies. It makes me wonder why.
Scientists are not 'diluting' anything. Over the last decade or so, scientists have gone from a morphological approach to what constitutes a species, to a molecular approach. As a result, some species that 'looked' the same turned out to be unrelated, and some species that didn't look similar were actually related.

Very few different species can mate due to pre-zygotic mating barriers, i.e. you physically cannot mate a whale with a fly. But even if you tried to fertilize a whale egg with sperm from a fly in vitro, you would fail nearly 100% of the time. Mating barriers are generally the first to appear in any speciation event.


You are telling me that evolution is not random chance, yet that is exactly what I was taught in school and college.
This quote indicates you don't even know what evolution is.

Let's take a step back and consider why species even undergo sexual reproduction. It is far 'cheaper' (in terms of energy) to reproduce asexually.

Species reproduce sexually in order to increase variation within the species, because that increases the chances the species will survive. Mutations occur far too infrequently, and are too often detrimental, for it to replace sexual reproduction.

So if species didn't evolve, why bother with the variation within species? If there is no selection, or 'survival of the fittest,' why do practically all species have some mechanism for genetic recombination?

No one's even going to read this. Makes me wonder why I write it...

[TomOfSweden]

Then explain to me what the model is. You are telling me that evolution is not random chance, yet that is exactly what I was taught in school and college. When exactly did that change, and why didn't I get the memo?


No, you wheren't. Not if the teacher knew anything about it. The mutations of traits are random, (well, sort of random) but it's survivability aren't.



Mitochondrial DNA has been traced back to an "Eve" who apparently lived in Africa, but it has not been traced back to anything else.


We can trace DNA in all kinds of shit. We share plenty of genes with all kinds of creatures. All humans share 97% of all our genes with chimpanzees for instance. We share plenty of DNA with anything living on earth. So it's fairly easy to work out evolutionary trees, which insidentaly correlate to Darwins orignial estimates based purely on visible physical charecteristics.



Now it's getting silly. How did I say Hinduism is dead? I suggest reading up on Hinduism. {?quote}

Go back and read your post, "The only surviving religions..." This does not describe Hiduismk, and it does prove that you maake claims without knowing their validity.



I have no idea what you're talking about. Hindu gods are reincarnated in humans. There's no way to prove a suposedly reincarnated god is or isn't. All gods are in turn suposedly reincarnations of Brahma.



Go read up on evolution and what the people who expound it claim, and then come back and tell me what is wrong with my arguments.


The problem with this discussion is that we're basically comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of evolution. There's not two different models to compare. Intelligent design has nothing. So evolution wins by default. All theories accept the purely theorical theories are imperfect. There's gaps in all of them. We have to compare what we've got and take the best one.

We know how mutations can occur. We know how they survive and spread. Specisation is just a logical extension of something we allready know for a fact. If that's your only complaint you have a very weak case. My molecular biology friend hasn't got back to me yet but I'll keep you posted.

We're still back to our original problem.

Intelligent design isn't a theory. There's no Intelligent design models for how creation occured. It's so easy to criticize and throw shit when you've got nothing of your own. In many cases in science we just have to extrapolate, because it's the best we can do. Right now, evolution is all we have.

If you believe in creationism you're stuck in a whole quagmire or problems that we have to solve before it being comparable to evolution as a theory. Answering "what god is at all?", is a good start. How it works? We assume closed systems go toward entropy, so where does god get it's external energy from? Or our models are just plain wrong, (which is extremly likely) which gives the god theory no extra points either. And then you still have to answer how god affects our world/dimension etc? What traces does it leave? On the god side we've only got unanswered questions. They've got nothing tangible at all. God as a concept is only based on extrapolation.

I don't know if you've noticed this. But all you've done this whole thread is criticize evolution as a theory without presenting anything that strengthens an alternative theory at all. You haven't built a case for anything.

[Rhabbi]

I'd like to see your source on this before I respond to it.

Will try to find it, it is from a book I read so I do not heve it handy.


It's mitochondrial DNA. (In case you don't know what a mitochondrion is, it's the organelle most human (and not so human) cells contain which functions in aerobic respiration; i.e. making ATP or energy.

Where did it come from? According to the secondary endosymbiotic theory, it was originally some single celled bacterium/prokrayote that made it's energy by aerobic respiration (citric acid cycle), and got engulfed by a bigger organism that couldn't digest it.

Point is, it has been traced back to something else.

Not really, at least not in the sense I meant. Scientists have, at least theoretically, traced the mitchondrial DNA back to "Eve" through the testing the similarities of different women's mDNA and extrapolating it back to a woman in Africa.


Scientists are not 'diluting' anything. Over the last decade or so, scientists have gone from a morphological approach to what constitutes a species, to a molecular approach. As a result, some species that 'looked' the same turned out to be unrelated, and some species that didn't look similar were actually related.

The definition of a species I learned says that they are unable to mate. As far as I know this would hold true on a molecular level. Species are being redefined because of early misconceptions. Yet you cite a study that shows two different 'species' of butterflies mating to produce a third. To me that means that the definition has been diluted. Artificial support to force a hybrid that is not viable in nature does not prove evolution, it proves an outside influence.


Very few different species can mate due to pre-zygotic mating barriers, i.e. you physically cannot mate a whale with a fly. But even if you tried to fertilize a whale egg with sperm from a fly in vitro, you would fail nearly 100% of the time. Mating barriers are generally the first to appear in any speciation event.

This quote indicates you don't even know what evolution is.

My language was not clear, I am referring to the genisis of life on Earth. Every model I have encountered tells me that the chemiacals in the pre-biotic soup came together and formed the organic molecules that support life, and then life spopntaneoulsy arose. Am I mistaken in this? (By the way, i am aware that this a goss oversimplification, but my point is that the original event seems to be random.)


Let's take a step back and consider why species even undergo sexual reproduction. It is far 'cheaper' (in terms of energy) to reproduce asexually.

Species reproduce sexually in order to increase variation within the species, because that increases the chances the species will survive. Mutations occur far too infrequently, and are too often detrimental, for it to replace sexual reproduction.

So if species didn't evolve, why bother with the variation within species? If there is no selection, or 'survival of the fittest,' why do practically all species have some mechanism for genetic recombination?

Adaptation to environment? I would have no idea, i am at a loss to explain how we went from asexual reproduction to binary reproduction anyway, another thing that has never been explained in any way other than, it happened, so it must have happened.

[Rhabbi]

No, you wheren't. Not if the teacher knew anything about it. The mutations of traits are random, (well, sort of random) but it's survivability aren't.[/QOUTE]

Sort of random?

[QUOTE]We can trace DNA in all kinds of shit. We share plenty of genes with all kinds of creatures. All humans share 97% of all our genes with chimpanzees for instance. We share plenty of DNA with anything living on earth. So it's fairly easy to work out evolutionary trees, which insidentaly correlate to Darwins orignial estimates based purely on visible physical charecteristics.

We apparently share DNA with more than just monkeys. but as we do not fully understand the encoding process that DNA uses I am not as confident about those numbers as some others seem to be. I still have problems with the way they usee DNA in leagla cases, and would not be surprised to see that future knowledge throwing out some of the current assumptions about numbers.


The problem with this discussion is that we're basically comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of evolution. There's not two different models to compare. Intelligent design has nothing. So evolution wins by default. All theories accept the purely theorical theories are imperfect. There's gaps in all of them. We have to compare what we've got and take the best one.


We know how mutations can occur. We know how they survive and spread. Specisation is just a logical extension of something we allready know for a fact. If that's your only complaint you have a very weak case. My molecular biology friend hasn't got back to me yet but I'll keep you posted.

We're still back to our original problem.

Intelligent design isn't a theory. There's no Intelligent design models for how creation occured. It's so easy to criticize and throw shit when you've got nothing of your own. In many cases in science we just have to extrapolate, because it's the best we can do. Right now, evolution is all we have.[/QOUTE]

Evolution is all we have because no one wants to look at the alternatives for fear of being ridiculed.

[QUOTE]If you believe in creationism you're stuck in a whole quagmire or problems that we have to solve before it being comparable to evolution as a theory. Answering "what god is at all?", is a good start. How it works? We assume closed systems go toward entropy, so where does god get it's external energy from? Or our models are just plain wrong, (which is extremly likely) which gives the god theory no extra points either. And then you still have to answer how god affects our world/dimension etc? What traces does it leave? On the god side we've only got unanswered questions. They've got nothing tangible at all. God as a concept is only based on extrapolation.

I don't know if you've noticed this. But all you've done this whole thread is criticize evolution as a theory without presenting anything that strengthens an alternative theory at all. You haven't built a case for anything.

I do not have to present an alternative, my point in this thread is that evolution falls short as science. The fact that I do not have an explanation does not make evolution true.

[Guest 91108]

I don't know if you've noticed this. But all you've done this whole thread is criticize evolution as a theory without presenting anything that strengthens an alternative theory at all. You haven't built a case for anything.

Actually neither side has done anything for either argument.
So I propose there is still one idea/theory/supposition out there that noone is intelligent enough to have found yet.
And then i say if we don't understand it why do we try to put in false theories and think they are the answer until they are disproven..
That is what creates all the arguments.

[cheeseburger]

Will try to find it, it is from a book I read so I do not heve it handy.The only source I accept is an article from an accredited scientific journal. Sorry. Books fall under many genres, one of which is fiction.




Not really, at least not in the sense I meant. Scientists have, at least theoretically, traced the mitchondrial DNA back to "Eve" through the testing the similarities of different women's mDNA and extrapolating it back to a woman in Africa.

Ok. Everyone knows that the Y chromosome is passed down along the male lineage, since boys are XY and only the father can contribute the Y.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed along the female lineage, because a fertilized egg cell, or zygote, already has a mitochondrion. When it divides, just like any other cell, the mitochondrion divides first, and then the cell divides. Sperm has no play in this, and so mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child.

The reason I'm saying this is to give you a better understanding of why people even want to 'trace' mitochondrial DNA. However, tracing it 'all the way back' is pointless. Humans are not the only species with mitochondria, so if you want to find out where the organelle originates, you turn to the secondary endosymbiotic theory, which is a fancy way of saying "what you engulf and can't digest you make friends with."



The definition of a species I learned says that they are unable to mate.
This is an extremely simplistic definition that does not hold true in many cases. Mules are one common example.

The way things are done now, they sequence the genome of a species and compare it to that of another. Good match means either same species or pretty close - but keep in mind, the difference is in the .01% or there abouts. I'm no expert on this, but what you stated is clearly wrong.



Species are being redefined because of early misconceptions.
Reorganized is a better word.

Yet you cite a study that shows two different 'species' of butterflies mating to produce a third. To me that means that the definition has been diluted. Artificial support to force a hybrid that is not viable in nature does not prove evolution, it proves an outside influence.

Wasn't me. And by the way, this means nothing. Another example of this is D. Melanogaster mating with D. Yakuba. Big deal; they're unlikely to create viable offspring due to post-zygotic mating barriers. Nothing is being 'diluted,' whatever you mean by that.



My language was not clear, I am referring to the genisis of life on Earth. Every model I have encountered tells me that the chemiacals in the pre-biotic soup came together and formed the organic molecules that support life, and then life spopntaneoulsy arose. Am I mistaken in this? (By the way, i am aware that this a goss oversimplification, but my point is that the original event seems to be random.)

You are diluting it, but not entirely. Let me add some detail but still keep it really simplistic.

Basically, under the right conditions (reducing atmosphere, lightning, whatever) you form organic (organic simply means containing carbon) molecules that are polar on one side and non-polar on the other side. In an aqueous solution, the non-polar sides get pushed together and you get a very rudimentary membrane, allowing some separation. This means you can do things inside your membrane that couldn't go on outside. Once you have something that reproduces itself, like some self replicating RNA enzymes ('ribozymes') the cat's out of the bag and whatever replicates the fastest sticks around.



Adaptation to environment? I would have no idea, i am at a loss to explain how we went from asexual reproduction to binary reproduction anyway, another thing that has never been explained in any way other than, it happened, so it must have happened.

If you're at a loss, let me explain. Something that reproduces asexually can very quickly 'fill up' a niche that it is well suited to. Any change in that niche that makes it unfavorable for one of these creatures makes it unfavorable for all of the creatures since they're basically clones, and they all die.

And clearly environments change over time. Life is basically adapted to survive stressors. So, some mechanism that enhances variation among a species was highly selected for - since everything else died out once the environment changed.

Or, some creature multiplied so fast mutations became significant and added to the variation. Viruses and bacteria are like this; mutations add a lot of variation to a culture of bacteria because they reproduce something like once every couple hours.

Although bacteria can also reproduce sexually, at a greater cost. If you stress them, by say adding antibiotics, then the 'cost' of reproducing sexually outweighs the 'cost' of dying to the antibiotics, and they all suddenly start reproducing sexually and passinga round resistance genes.

I typed this a little rushed so I apologize for any spelling/nonsense errors.

[cheeseburger]

Actually neither side has done anything for either argument.
Well, it's a little hard to 'do something' for one side of the argument if you don't read the argument. Sorry, but taking a megaphone and yelling down your nose isn't legal. Take the time to read a scientific article, or any of the bajillions of popular science evolution books.


So I propose there is still one idea/theory/supposition out there that noone is intelligent enough to have found yet.
I dunno buddy, are you calling all evolutionary biologists morons? I don't see you with a PhD and 20 years of experience. Even if you did have one, watch your mouth.


And then i say if we don't understand it why do we try to put in false theories and think they are the answer until they are disproven..
That is what creates all the arguments.

Why is argument bad? Argument, if done in a non-condescending and academic manner, is actually very valuable for both sides. It allows them to try and explain their side - which reinforces their theories by explaining it to others, and it allows for an exchange/rebuttal of ideas.

Unfortunately, this particular debate is a little one sided (what with there being myriads of scientific articles on evolution), but it's still interesting (for me).

I'm not trying to be rude, or singling you out for a personal attack. But seriously, don't go around calling people 'not intelligent enough' without an arsenal of proof.


I do not have to present an alternative, my point in this thread is that evolution falls short as science. The fact that I do not have an explanation does not make evolution true.
This attitude I like.

[Guest 91108]

Laughs.

[TomOfSweden]

Sort of random?


Don't weasel your way out of it. Evolution isn't random and the mutations of genes is limited to modifications of it's base pairs. There's physical limits to what's possible. So it's not totaly random. Since we don't know what all genes do we can't say in what way they aren't random. We can just make that statement.

To make it simple
Evolution = not random
Genetic mutations = sort of random



We apparently share DNA with more than just monkeys. but as we do not fully understand the encoding process that DNA uses I am not as confident about those numbers as some others seem to be. I still have problems with the way they usee DNA in leagla cases, and would not be surprised to see that future knowledge throwing out some of the current assumptions about numbers.


I'm sorry. I might be missing something. But I don't understand how this is relevant?



Evolution is all we have because no one wants to look at the alternatives for fear of being ridiculed.


You've got to be kidding. It's the oposite situation. In the west evolutionists have been fighting midieval christian superstition for over a century now. In spite of the christians having nothing but fairytales, extrapolations from arguments from ignorance and strictly theoretical mathematical models.

There's been more money put into proving the Bible and christian god than any other field of study in the world. No other area is even close. You making that claim isn't even funny. It's ignorant to the extreme. Isaac Newtons complete catalogue of articles are without exception only about proving gods existance. It's not from lack of trying or funding. There's just a lack of results.

The theory of evolution came at the same time as Nietschze denied god openly. This instantly become a symbolic issue for the christian comunity. And today it's only the religious fundamentalists who cling to the idea of creation. Only.



I do not have to present an alternative, my point in this thread is that evolution falls short as science. The fact that I do not have an explanation does not make evolution true.

No, it doesn't. You've floated a theory about that speciasation doesn't occur spontaneously in nature which I've yet to find any credible source agreeing with. It seems to be some religious objection, which the scientific comunity doesn't seem to aknowledge as a problem.

A geographically limited group of creatures will constantly mutate and evolve. Ever so slightly, a little at a time. This much I know we can prove. In time they will differ so much from their original group that their genes are incompatible. I don't get what's not to understand? It takes so long and is so gradual that it may very well be, that it hasn't been seen in a laboratory. But that's not a argument against the theory. We know how mutations occur and we know they can become stable. From this we can extrapolate. Where's the holes in it?

We didn't see the big bang either. Good luck denying that one.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually neither side has done anything for either argument.
So I propose there is still one idea/theory/supposition out there that noone is intelligent enough to have found yet.
And then i say if we don't understand it why do we try to put in false theories and think they are the answer until they are disproven..
That is what creates all the arguments.

So what's your objection with accepting evolution as the one theory?

To me it sounds like your trying to sound smart by taking some middle ground. The problem is when it's a middle-ground between two theories that don't carry equal weight. All your doing is to look half-assed.

[Guest 91108]

ToS -- That may be.

just not choosing a side. Odd that an opinion that doesn't support either idea would be seen as smart assed. I just consider it open to something other than what has already been put out by other factions .

I think there are gaps in both theories.

For example - we have an unexplained chromosome. how come there is no explaination for this one by scientists? Others have an explanation ....

[~hellish one~]

lord, you guys are exhausting...~laughs~ my take on it all?

ID is crap. it is NOT science.

Evolution/Natural Selection is NOT crap and is science.

i believe in the latter of the two. why? because i am the kind of person that needs to see proof of something before i can believe it. and ID does not provide that proof. one of you made a very smart comment in one of these posts...one that i agree with 100%! i think it was TOS..lemme see if i can find it...

here we go


But now we're talking about faith. I think it's an intriguing idea, but I'm not going to bank on it being true.

i couldn't agree more. i'm not here to criticize anyone's faith. if you want to believe in something...in god...and have faith in that, then more power to you. if it makes you happy and fulfills your life then i am happy for you. but i am not a faith based person. i need that physical proof before i believe something to be true. i can't spend my entire life worshipping a god just because he MIGHT have created us. imagine how much it would suck to die and be like...oh fuck...where's heaven? lol i'm not singling out Christianity here either. i'm talking about all faith-based religions.

so yeah basically until god comes to me and says "yo dumbass..." sorry...me believing in ID just isn't gonna happen.

[cariad]

Popping my head into this thread for a moment, deciding not to use the edit button but, differing ideas are great - they make for debate, snide remarks and insults make for playground fights, and Mistress Cariad will growl if she has to.

So, pretty please...

*trots off to other parts of the forum, hoping that peace and mutual respect will reign*

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

ToS -- That may be.

just not choosing a side. Odd that an opinion that doesn't support either idea would be seen as smart assed. I just consider it open to something other than what has already been put out by other factions .

I think there are gaps in both theories.

For example - we have an unexplained chromosome. how come there is no explaination for this one by scientists? Others have an explanation ....

Sometimes not picking sides is just taking the lazy road. I'm not calling you an idiot or anything. But there's really is no middle ground between ID and evolution, since ID isn't a theory. Only an anti-theory. It's dressed up to pose as a theory. But since it makes no claims, there's nothing to test or refute. Which is crucial for the definition of a theory.

Saying that "the complexity of nature is much too intricate to come to by chance" is saying nothing. Unless you can specify why it's unlikely it came to be by chance it's just voicing a vague opinion that carries no weight. ID proponents can't agree on much at all. Nobody has bothered to define gods physical properties. As if it's unimportant. Anything that can physically effect this world must have some kind of a physical manifestation. I've not read or heard about a single attempt to explain it, even though it's critical here.

edit: I've never heard anything about any unexplained chromosome. Please explain.

[TomOfSweden]

Popping my head into this thread for a moment, deciding not to use the edit button but, differing ideas are great - they make for debate, snide remarks and insults make for playground fights, and Mistress Cariad will growl if she has to.

So, pretty please...

*trots off to other parts of the forum, hoping that peace and mutual respect will reign*

cariad

I know you don't like being a misstress so I'll be nice. :bondage:

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, I am also. I would have to say that at first glance this appears more an example of adaptation than speciation as I understand it. Maybe Tom is more accurate than I thought in saying that scientists are diluting the definition of a secies. It makes me wonder why.

You and me both, man. I think it's down to simple and stupid pride. As if it's more important to have your name on stuff than having a consitant terminology.

There's plenty of faults in science. It's a pride driven machine, which brings with it many undesirable side affects. Still it's the best system we've got for finding the truth. I hope you're with me on that one?

[cariad]

I know you don't like being a misstress so I'll be nice. :bondage:

Thanks Tom, the problem is that I do such a bad job of it.

*looking around to make sure that everyone else is suitably horrified at the thought*

cariad

[cheeseburger]

For example - we have an unexplained chromosome.

...what?

[anonymouse]

I just want to touch on a couple of points raised early in this thread.

Historically speaking, all science originally began as philosophy. Over the past several millenia, philosophical debate about the nature of things turned up answers to philosophical questions. These 'answers' then broke away from philosophy and formed into various branches of science and art. It could be argued that this 'evolution of thought' is part of a wider evolutionary process.

There have been two very interesting books written in recent years to address the phenomenon of spiritual belief.

'God's Debris', written by Scott Addams, creator of the Dilbert series of comics, is available as a free PDF download (easily found by Googling it). It's a very enjoyable read that asks more questions than it answers.

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread and I hope I haven't treaded on the toes of anybody who might have a different viewpoint to mine.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.


Thanks for the book tips. I'm always on the look out for books on the subject. Belief in an ubiquitous physical god I thought was called pantheism? Extremly interesting anyway.




It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.


I fucking hate social relativists. Of the simple reason that most people seem to missunderstand it. It has to do with cognitive truth and not with the actual truth. If two people stand in the rain, the truth is that they'll get wet no matter how much they might disagree on the details about definitions of weather or degrees of wetness.

Post modernist philosophers tend to get grossly miss-quoted in the press further adding to the confusion.

And then you've got smart-asses who use the term, (erroneously) because they're too damn lazy to engage their brains and just claim everything is relative. Right now it poisons the Swedish philosophical debates. I don't know how it is over there, but here it's rediculous. You might get some post-modernist feminist talking about axioms. I mean, that's not what her thing is. It's talking about ethics. Yes, there is a truth. The problem may be that nobody sees it, but that's a completely different matter.

[anonymouse]

I fucking hate social relativists. Of the simple reason that most people seem to missunderstand it. It has to do with cognitive truth and not with the actual truth. If two people stand in the rain, the truth is that they'll get wet no matter how much they might disagree on the details about definitions of weather or degrees of wetness.

Language/linguistics is largely at fault here. To ask the question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" denies the possibility that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 'Truth' here is so bound up in semantics it ignores context.

Apologies for the short reply ... it's been a long day :)

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

Language/linguistics is largely at fault here. To ask the question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" denies the possibility that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 'Truth' here is so bound up in semantics it ignores context.

Apologies for the short reply ... it's been a long day :)

anonymouse

I totaly understand what relativism is all about. But as you say; it's largely about linguistics and not about truth at all.

I read "gods debris". I like Scott Adams. Thanks for the tip, he's fun. I'm guessing it's the result of taking a beginners course in philosophy because it usually covers just the problems he poses in the book. Even though none of it is very profound or new it was still a good read.

[Rhabbi]

I just want to touch on a couple of points raised early in this thread.

Historically speaking, all science originally began as philosophy. Over the past several millenia, philosophical debate about the nature of things turned up answers to philosophical questions. These 'answers' then broke away from philosophy and formed into various branches of science and art. It could be argued that this 'evolution of thought' is part of a wider evolutionary process.

There have been two very interesting books written in recent years to address the phenomenon of spiritual belief.

'God's Debris', written by Scott Addams, creator of the Dilbert series of comics, is available as a free PDF download (easily found by Googling it). It's a very enjoyable read that asks more questions than it answers.

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread and I hope I haven't treaded on the toes of anybody who might have a different viewpoint to mine.

anonymouse

I do not think you have tread on anyone's toes, at least you have not tread on mine. I kind of started this debate because i wanted to make people think about evolution in a new way. My reading over the last few years has raised a lot more questions about evolution than I had thought existed and has shown me that the debate between science and religion has never been that, the debates are always about philosophy.

I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type.

[Rhabbi]

The only source I accept is an article from an accredited scientific journal. Sorry. Books fall under many genres, one of which is fiction.

That is too bad because I was about to recommend a book that raises some of the issues I think are pertinant to this discussion. It is The Language of God by Francis Collins. Dr Collins has a PhD in Medical Genetics, is an MD, and was head of the human genome project. His book is as unbiased a book as I have ever read, and raises some serious questions about the current levle of understanding of genetics and evolution. He also raises questions about theistic evolution, which is the model he seems to prefer.


Ok. Everyone knows that the Y chromosome is passed down along the male lineage, since boys are XY and only the father can contribute the Y.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed along the female lineage, because a fertilized egg cell, or zygote, already has a mitochondrion. When it divides, just like any other cell, the mitochondrion divides first, and then the cell divides. Sperm has no play in this, and so mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child.

The reason I'm saying this is to give you a better understanding of why people even want to 'trace' mitochondrial DNA. However, tracing it 'all the way back' is pointless. Humans are not the only species with mitochondria, so if you want to find out where the organelle originates, you turn to the secondary endosymbiotic theory, which is a fancy way of saying "what you engulf and can't digest you make friends with."

Humans are genetically unique because we are the only species on Earth that has mitochondrial DNA? Interesting, isn't it? But coming up with a theory to explain that with no way of actually testing it seems pointless to me. I have tried to read up on this, but molecular biology is not my fielad and i will need some time to study the subject before I can reply in a manner that would make any sense to me. I do enjoy learning about these things though, so I hope that you will continue to educate me. I especially enjoyed the definition you gave about making friends with something if you cannot digest it. This is essentially waht we do everytime our digestive tract gets upset, our 'friendly' bacteria battle with the invading bacteria, and we adapt or die.


This is an extremely simplistic definition that does not hold true in many cases. Mules are one common example.

The way things are done now, they sequence the genome of a species and compare it to that of another. Good match means either same species or pretty close - but keep in mind, the difference is in the .01% or there abouts. I'm no expert on this, but what you stated is clearly wrong.

I can see that now, and am able to admit that I am wrong. But I am now faced with the problem that I have no definition of species, nor does anyone else. How are we supposed to debate a topic with no objective definition?


Reorganized is a better word.

Wasn't me. And by the way, this means nothing. Another example of this is D. Melanogaster mating with D. Yakuba. Big deal; they're unlikely to create viable offspring due to post-zygotic mating barriers. Nothing is being 'diluted,' whatever you mean by that.

You are diluting it, but not entirely. Let me add some detail but still keep it really simplistic.

Basically, under the right conditions (reducing atmosphere, lightning, whatever) you form organic (organic simply means containing carbon) molecules that are polar on one side and non-polar on the other side. In an aqueous solution, the non-polar sides get pushed together and you get a very rudimentary membrane, allowing some separation. This means you can do things inside your membrane that couldn't go on outside. Once you have something that reproduces itself, like some self replicating RNA enzymes ('ribozymes') the cat's out of the bag and whatever replicates the fastest sticks around.

If you're at a loss, let me explain. Something that reproduces asexually can very quickly 'fill up' a niche that it is well suited to. Any change in that niche that makes it unfavorable for one of these creatures makes it unfavorable for all of the creatures since they're basically clones, and they all die.

And clearly environments change over time. Life is basically adapted to survive stressors. So, some mechanism that enhances variation among a species was highly selected for - since everything else died out once the environment changed.

Or, some creature multiplied so fast mutations became significant and added to the variation. Viruses and bacteria are like this; mutations add a lot of variation to a culture of bacteria because they reproduce something like once every couple hours.

Although bacteria can also reproduce sexually, at a greater cost. If you stress them, by say adding antibiotics, then the 'cost' of reproducing sexually outweighs the 'cost' of dying to the antibiotics, and they all suddenly start reproducing sexually and passinga round resistance genes.

I typed this a little rushed so I apologize for any spelling/nonsense errors.

I certainly will not complain aboiut spelling and nonsense errors as I make more than my share of those. I have a question for you though, are you saying that bacteria have been observed to reproduse sexually? I thought that the mutations that you spoke of where selected for when all the competing bacteria died out from the antibiotics.

[Rhabbi]

Unfortunately, this particular debate is a little one sided (what with there being myriads of scientific articles on evolution), but it's still interesting (for me).

there is a growing body of scientific evidence and articles from other points of view, so it not as one sided as it used to be.

[TomOfSweden]

I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type.

I just thought I'd point out that all the religious beliefs are all philosophical schools. Nothing in this post makes any sense. It's comparing Toyotas to cars. The idea of objective truth is Aristotelian, and is just one of the pre-christian ideas incorporated into christianity. There is nothing in christianity philosophy which even at its inception that was original or new. The Bible is a collection of moral values that where commonly shared by most people at the time of its compilation, (ie ca 300 AD).

And you are on top of this wrong. If two philosophers have a discussion where one of them is open to every avenue and the other only is open to a world of objective, (ie external) truths. Who is the most open to new ideas?

You might have found that in general christians are more open to new ideas than non-christian philosophers, which is a gross generalisation. It's a value judgement impossible to measure of verify. Just a bag of wind, right?

All we have is our own intellect. You believe god gave you free will right? If its not your intellect at work, then what is?

[Rhabbi]

Don't weasel your way out of it. Evolution isn't random and the mutations of genes is limited to modifications of it's base pairs. There's physical limits to what's possible. So it's not totaly random. Since we don't know what all genes do we can't say in what way they aren't random. We can just make that statement.

To make it simple
Evolution = not random
Genetic mutations = sort of random

Interesting, but the argument lacks a foundation. The physical limits on possiblity would tend to argue agaiiiiinst evolution, not for it. There is a gap in our understanding in the process that has not yet been crossed, and until then all scientist can do is offer conjecture. I have no problem with that, as long as they clearly lable it as such.


You've got to be kidding. It's the oposite situation. In the west evolutionists have been fighting midieval christian superstition for over a century now. In spite of the christians having nothing but fairytales, extrapolations from arguments from ignorance and strictly theoretical mathematical models.

There's been more money put into proving the Bible and christian god than any other field of study in the world. No other area is even close. You making that claim isn't even funny. It's ignorant to the extreme. Isaac Newtons complete catalogue of articles are without exception only about proving gods existance. It's not from lack of trying or funding. There's just a lack of results.

Not quite true, the money spent on proving the bible has been far outspent by those trying to disprove it. The one thing that clouds this is that so many people who decided to spend their time and money to disprove the Bible have ended up accepting it that they get counted as the ones trying to prove it.


The theory of evolution came at the same time as Nietschze denied god openly. This instantly become a symbolic issue for the christian comunity. And today it's only the religious fundamentalists who cling to the idea of creation. Only.

Prove that statement.


No, it doesn't. You've floated a theory about that speciasation doesn't occur spontaneously in nature which I've yet to find any credible source agreeing with. It seems to be some religious objection, which the scientific comunity doesn't seem to aknowledge as a problem.

This proves my earlier argument about the ridicule that you dismissed so cavalierly. If someone disagrees with evolution, they are fundamentalists christians, and thus not credible.

What makes one credible?[LIST]
A Phd in Biochemistry? Dr. Michael Behe
A PhD in Philosophy and a Doctorate in Mathematics? Dr. William Dembski
A PhD in Phyiscal Chemistry Dr. James Eberhart

In addition there is an intersting book By Klaus Dose, The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers in which he states:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.
The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers (Dose 1988, p. 348)



A geographically limited group of creatures will constantly mutate and evolve. Ever so slightly, a little at a time. This much I know we can prove. In time they will differ so much from their original group that their genes are incompatible. I don't get what's not to understand? It takes so long and is so gradual that it may very well be, that it hasn't been seen in a laboratory. But that's not a argument against the theory. We know how mutations occur and we know they can become stable. From this we can extrapolate. Where's the holes in it?

You mean other than the fact that it has only been seen in a limited ssense of adaptation to environment than in the sense of changing from a simple bacteria to a multi-celluar creature? Or evolving from a fruit fly to a bee? If we cannot see an example in life forms that we have the equivelant data of millions or even billions of generations, how gradual is this process? I know we have only been watching for a couple of centuries, but early experiments have all proven to be faulty, and even the reducing atmosphere that was supposed to provide the perfect environment for producing life is being question by reputable scientists.


We didn't see the big bang either. Good luck denying that one.

In the beginning God said "Let there be light, and there was light." Why deny it?

[Rhabbi]

i need that physical proof before i believe something to be true. i can't spend my entire life worshipping a god just because he MIGHT have created us. imagine how much it would suck to die and be like...oh fuck...where's heaven? lol i'm not singling out Christianity here either. i'm talking about all faith-based religions.

so yeah basically until god comes to me and says "yo dumbass..." sorry...me believing in ID just isn't gonna happen.

I am not going to ask you to believe in ID, or even God, but let me make a quick point.

If I dedicate my life to God, which I am doing, and I die and find oput I am wrong, what have I lost? My life of somewhere around 100 years, if I am lucky.

If you dedicate your life to yourself and die and find out there is a God, what have you lost? Eternity. Just something to think about.

[Rhabbi]

You and me both, man. I think it's down to simple and stupid pride. As if it's more important to have your name on stuff than having a consitant terminology.

There's plenty of faults in science. It's a pride driven machine, which brings with it many undesirable side affects. Still it's the best system we've got for finding the truth. I hope you're with me on that one?

Well, I have to say we seem to agree on something here, is the world going to end?:4:

[Rhabbi]

You might have found that in general christians are more open to new ideas than non-christian philosophers, which is a gross generalisation. It's a value judgement impossible to measure of verify. Just a bag of wind, right?

All we have is our own intellect. You believe god gave you free will right? If its not your intellect at work, then what is?

Actually Tom, I have not found this. I would like to point out that though I am a Christian, you are the one that keeps bringing up Christianity. I have found that most 'christians' are closed minded bigots. I am a believer in a God that is bigger than I am, so I do not have to defend him at the expense of truth. This allows me to apply all of my mind to a discusssion and not be offended when someone disagrees. I know that eventuall the truth will be found out, whatever it is.

[fantassy]

If I dedicate my life to God, which I am doing, and I die and find oput I am wrong, what have I lost? My life of somewhere around 100 years, if I am lucky.



But if this 100 years is all you get, you have lost everything.

fantassy

[fantassy]

If you dedicate your life to yourself and die and find out there is a God, what have you lost? Eternity.

A God worth spending eternity with would look more at the quality of life I've lived. What use did I make of the time I had - did I help my fellow creatures, etc., rather than merely judging me on lack of religious belief. So I will have lost nothing.

If God merely judges a person on their religious belief and not their good deeds, I've saved myself from spending eternity with a vain unworthy God.

fantassy

[gloombunny]

I am not going to ask you to believe in ID, or even God, but let me make a quick point.

If I dedicate my life to God, which I am doing, and I die and find oput I am wrong, what have I lost? My life of somewhere around 100 years, if I am lucky.

If you dedicate your life to yourself and die and find out there is a God, what have you lost? Eternity. Just something to think about.
Hey, it's Pascal's Wager.

It's been thoroughly discredited by many people more eloquent than me, but I can at least try to sum things up a bit by pointing out that it only "works" because you've carefully framed it as a consideration between two arbitrary possibilities that are in fact no more likely than any others. (Hint: "no gods or afterlife at all" and "my specific version of Christianity" are not the only two ways the universe could conceivably work.)

[~hellish one~]

Hey, it's Pascal's Wager.

It's been thoroughly discredited by many people more eloquent than me, but I can at least try to sum things up a bit by pointing out that it only "works" because you've carefully framed it as a consideration between two arbitrary possibilities that are in fact no more likely than any others. (Hint: "no gods or afterlife at all" and "my specific version of Christianity" are not the only two ways the universe could conceivably work.)

agreed. and i agree with fantassy as well. very wise words hun.

there are a million different possibilities. nothing after death, heaven, reincarnation...all of which are just as plausible as the other.

but there is no way i could pretend to worship a god for my entire lifetime just because there is the possibility that i might go to hell if i don't. there is also the possibility that i might be reincarnated. ~shrugs~ like i said...i need that proof. i doubt i will ever get it. but i'm not belittling your choice to believe in what you do, Rhabbi. there are so many different faiths around the world, it just blows my mind that any one could think they are the one true religion....ya know?

[TomOfSweden]

Sorry Rhabbi, I'll get back to answering your earlier posts. I'm a bit pressed for time. I thought I'd add this real quick since it's relevant. I got an answer from my PhD friend in molecular biology and I'll have to interpret since she's Swedish.

There's a long list of observed speciasation that has occured both in laboratory and in nature. She didn't go into detail but Diane Dodd proved it without a doubt in 1989. There's always critique about every experiment, especially if it gets this much attention. Just because a scientist words some critcism about a method doesn't mean that they don't accept the result. Nobody has been able to invalidate her experiment which is the important detail. Her experiment has been repeated many times and we always get the same result. Dodd did it on fruit flies and it's been done many times after that with other creatures and plants.

And then she went on about how sick she is of religious fanatics and militant vegans, which are a nuisance in her field. She also said that most of their results get miss-quoted in the press to make better head-lines. You really need to read the reports themselves to get a fair picture of what they are doing. Admitedly you also need to have studied the field to understand the terminology.

She didn't write this in the letter but I know from earlier that she moved to Australia, (from Sweden) because it's the most liberal place to do genetic research. That and South Korea.

[TomOfSweden]

Interesting, but the argument lacks a foundation. The physical limits on possiblity would tend to argue agaiiiiinst evolution, not for it. There is a gap in our understanding in the process that has not yet been crossed, and until then all scientist can do is offer conjecture. I have no problem with that, as long as they clearly lable it as such.


You're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't underdtand your objection.

If you toss a coin into the air randomly and your dimensions is whether or not the coin lands on a flat side or an edge the chances are pretty good you'll get 100% on a flat side no matter how many times you do it. You still toss the coins randomly, but the result isn't random. It's the same situation with DNA. Physical constraints.



Not quite true, the money spent on proving the bible has been far outspent by those trying to disprove it. The one thing that clouds this is that so many people who decided to spend their time and money to disprove the Bible have ended up accepting it that they get counted as the ones trying to prove it.


All research that didn't suport the christian view of the world was illegal in all western countries for over a thousand years. It's an impressive feat of revisionism you're trying to pull off. I doubt even most christians will fall for that one. I'm guessing this little detail just slipped your mind. Christian fundamentalism has been the norm for so much of western history its easy to forget that it was only just recently we as a culture became free of its opression.

If you try to find a grant for your research, most grants are still religious all over the world. Christian scholars in particular are, compared to their secular counterparts still rolling in money.



Prove that statement.


Science can prove evolution. If you deny it, that means that you have another source for your truths of the world. In todays vocabularly we tend to call people who fanatically cling to religous texts above all else as religious fundamentalists. Its only down to linguistic use.



This proves my earlier argument about the ridicule that you dismissed so cavalierly. If someone disagrees with evolution, they are fundamentalists christians, and thus not credible.


According to my molecular biologist friend, (who also has a Phd) there is no controversy in the scientific comunity. All scientists in biology quoted for denying evolution have all been missquoted. The debate on evolution is on minor details about how it works, not if it works. The blunt truth is that the problems found by the religious comunities just don't exist. It's not a question about creationism being ignored unfairly. They don't have a case yet. They lack a theory. Utterly and completely. Creationsim is an idea for a theory. What needs to be done now is for a scientist who believes in ID, to sit down and make a cohesive theory and then test it. This has yet to happen.

I'm just speculating now, but it could also be down to money. The christian market for having their faith confirmed by a scientist is huge.



You mean other than the fact that it has only been seen in a limited ssense of adaptation to environment than in the sense of changing from a simple bacteria to a multi-celluar creature? Or evolving from a fruit fly to a bee? If we cannot see an example in life forms that we have the equivelant data of millions or even billions of generations, how gradual is this process? I know we have only been watching for a couple of centuries, but early experiments have all proven to be faulty, and even the reducing atmosphere that was supposed to provide the perfect environment for producing life is being question by reputable scientists.


My friend answered that one. Evolution just works and plenty of proof exists.



In the beginning God said "Let there be light, and there was light." Why deny it?

He he. That whole book is nothing but metaphors. You can justify and explain anything with the Bible. Anything.

[TomOfSweden]

I am not going to ask you to believe in ID, or even God, but let me make a quick point.

If I dedicate my life to God, which I am doing, and I die and find oput I am wrong, what have I lost? My life of somewhere around 100 years, if I am lucky.

If you dedicate your life to yourself and die and find out there is a God, what have you lost? Eternity. Just something to think about.

Why not do the maths instead. We know we have this life. This is all we know. We don't know if we have an afterlife. If we assume there may be, we have the problem of working out what this afterlife entails and how we can make it better. We have no clues. The existance of an afterlife is pure assumption. The existance of god is pure assumption. The belief in that there exists a god that has an intelligence and that god cares about earth and humans is equally assumption. If we sit down and make a compilation over the possible varieties of heaven our human brains can conjour up, (all on equal merit to the Bibles version) we will find that the result is one chance in an infinity.

So the scenario you presented is skewed. It's not a choice between two equal possibilities. They're not even almost equal. One is pure guesswork and the other is fact.

edit: Ninjad. NatalieD beat me to it. I bow to your great wisdom.

[Rhabbi]

Hey, it's Pascal's Wager.

It's been thoroughly discredited by many people more eloquent than me, but I can at least try to sum things up a bit by pointing out that it only "works" because you've carefully framed it as a consideration between two arbitrary possibilities that are in fact no more likely than any others. (Hint: "no gods or afterlife at all" and "my specific version of Christianity" are not the only two ways the universe could conceivably work.)

I have actually seen this response before, which is why I did not try to push my version of Christianity. But I should have added a third choice, as a subset to the first, to deal with this answer. It is actually possible that I am totally wrong about the way to serve God, whiloe being right about there being a God.

[Rhabbi]

A God worth spending eternity with would look more at the quality of life I've lived. What use did I make of the time I had - did I help my fellow creatures, etc., rather than merely judging me on lack of religious belief. So I will have lost nothing.

If God merely judges a person on their religious belief and not their good deeds, I've saved myself from spending eternity with a vain unworthy God.

I could not agree with you more, but you have to remember that that quaility of life would still be defined by Him. I do not believe that God judges people solely on their religious beliefs, but on their life and what they do with it. This is actually told to me in the Bible, so I have confidence in it.

That said, I wonder if you are living a qualioty life, or one that serves only yourself. I am not asking you this so that I will know, but so that you will think.


But if this 100 years is all you get, you have lost everything.

fantassy

I am going to answer both of these in one post because they kind of belong together.

That is my choice, and as long as I live life fully while serving God, I will have no complaints. I am happy with my life and who I am.

[Rhabbi]

agreed. and i agree with fantassy as well. very wise words hun.

there are a million different possibilities. nothing after death, heaven, reincarnation...all of which are just as plausible as the other.

but there is no way i could pretend to worship a god for my entire lifetime just because there is the possibility that i might go to hell if i don't. there is also the possibility that i might be reincarnated. ~shrugs~ like i said...i need that proof. i doubt i will ever get it. but i'm not belittling your choice to believe in what you do, Rhabbi. there are so many different faiths around the world, it just blows my mind that any one could think they are the one true religion....ya know?

I agree with that sentiment, it does blow my mind as well. The most surprising thing in my life was the day I came to believe in God. If you are curious about the way this feels, there is actually a book that describes it better than I could, because if I tried to I would end up using his ideas and descriptions. If you do not mind reading a book that is about religion and one man's journey from atheism to belief I recommend "Surprised by Joy" by C. S. Lewis.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually Tom, I have not found this. I would like to point out that though I am a Christian, you are the one that keeps bringing up Christianity. I have found that most 'christians' are closed minded bigots. I am a believer in a God that is bigger than I am, so I do not have to defend him at the expense of truth. This allows me to apply all of my mind to a discusssion and not be offended when someone disagrees. I know that eventuall the truth will be found out, whatever it is.

I bring up christianity because you are christian. You made a statement where you claimed that philosophers have more rigid mind-sets than men of faith.

"I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type."



Which means that you believe that more than half of all people are closed minded biggots. Or put in a more mathematical terms.

L = Level of closed minded biggotry
(L*philosopher)>(L*men of faith) && (L*men of faith)> (all people*L biggotry/all people)= Rhabbi's view of biggotry

So if the most men of faith are closed minded biggots but are:

"Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth."

Please explain how a person of faith adapt to the truth if they at the same time are "closed minded biggots"?

I believe all people are social creatures. We like to share beliefs with people around us. No matter what. It's not a question of being closed minded, it's a question of from which sources of facts we are open to. Nobody is trully closed minded. I think it goes against our primeival instincts. No matter how rigid we are in our beliefs in certain situations, we will never see ourselves as closed minded, because none of us are. It's good that we are selective in where we get our information or our whole heads would also be filled with questionable truths given to us by TV-shoping channels.

At least it explains why a particular religious faith is geographically contained.

[TomOfSweden]

That is my choice, and as long as I live life fully while serving God, I will have no complaints. I am happy with my life and who I am.



It is actually possible that I am totally wrong about the way to serve God, whiloe being right about there being a God.


So how do you reconcile these two statements?

Here's a Roman quote that I think is very apt:
"If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favourable."
- Seneca

[Rhabbi]

I do not have to, the simple things is that i can admit that I could be wrong, something that you seem unable to see in yourself.

[Rhabbi]

Sorry Rhabbi, I'll get back to answering your earlier posts. I'm a bit pressed for time. I thought I'd add this real quick since it's relevant. I got an answer from my PhD friend in molecular biology and I'll have to interpret since she's Swedish.

There's a long list of observed speciasation that has occured both in laboratory and in nature. She didn't go into detail but Diane Dodd proved it without a doubt in 1989. There's always critique about every experiment, especially if it gets this much attention. Just because a scientist words some critcism about a method doesn't mean that they don't accept the result. Nobody has been able to invalidate her experiment which is the important detail. Her experiment has been repeated many times and we always get the same result. Dodd did it on fruit flies and it's been done many times after that with other creatures and plants.

And then she went on about how sick she is of religious fanatics and militant vegans, which are a nuisance in her field. She also said that most of their results get miss-quoted in the press to make better head-lines. You really need to read the reports themselves to get a fair picture of what they are doing. Admitedly you also need to have studied the field to understand the terminology.

She didn't write this in the letter but I know from earlier that she moved to Australia, (from Sweden) because it's the most liberal place to do genetic research. That and South Korea.

Citations please.

[Rhabbi]

You're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't underdtand your objection.

If you toss a coin into the air randomly and your dimensions is whether or not the coin lands on a flat side or an edge the chances are pretty good you'll get 100% on a flat side no matter how many times you do it. You still toss the coins randomly, but the result isn't random. It's the same situation with DNA. Physical constraints.

That is a persuasive argument, but as of yet no one has proved that certain compounds have to combine in certain ways. Chemical reactions are predictable, but the leaps of faith that I need to go form complex chains of molecules, to the interactions that drive life seem to be almost impossible. To take your anology, that quarter seems to be coming down on its edge way to much to be random.


All research that didn't suport the christian view of the world was illegal in all western countries for over a thousand years. It's an impressive feat of revisionism you're trying to pull off. I doubt even most christians will fall for that one. I'm guessing this little detail just slipped your mind. Christian fundamentalism has been the norm for so much of western history its easy to forget that it was only just recently we as a culture became free of its opression.

If you try to find a grant for your research, most grants are still religious all over the world. Christian scholars in particular are, compared to their secular counterparts still rolling in money.

I can find a number of researchers that would disagree with that. You are letting your bias show here. If Christians controlled the purse strings the way you think they do i could name at least one major grant that exists in the US that would cease to exist.


Science can prove evolution. If you deny it, that means that you have another source for your truths of the world. In todays vocabularly we tend to call people who fanatically cling to religous texts above all else as religious fundamentalists. Its only down to linguistic use.

This does not sound like Fundamnetalist language. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6990490285705090233&q=owner%3Aarn


According to my molecular biologist friend, (who also has a Phd) there is no controversy in the scientific comunity. All scientists in biology quoted for denying evolution have all been missquoted. The debate on evolution is on minor details about how it works, not if it works. The blunt truth is that the problems found by the religious comunities just don't exist. It's not a question about creationism being ignored unfairly. They don't have a case yet. They lack a theory. Utterly and completely. Creationsim is an idea for a theory. What needs to be done now is for a scientist who believes in ID, to sit down and make a cohesive theory and then test it. This has yet to happen.

There is only one way to answer that, it is total rot.

Actually, you might be surprised about the level of controversy that exists inside the scientific community outside of the western world over Darwin's theories. We do not have the freeedom to challenge the icons of science here in the west the way they can in China, for example.

[Rhabbi]

I bring up christianity because you are christian. You made a statement where you claimed that philosophers have more rigid mind-sets than men of faith.

"I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type."



Which means that you believe that more than half of all people are closed minded biggots. Or put in a more mathematical terms.

L = Level of closed minded biggotry
(L*philosopher)>(L*men of faith) && (L*men of faith)> (all people*L biggotry/all people)= Rhabbi's view of biggotry

So if the most men of faith are closed minded biggots but are:

"Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth."

Please explain how a person of faith adapt to the truth if they at the same time are "closed minded biggots"?

I believe all people are social creatures. We like to share beliefs with people around us. No matter what. It's not a question of being closed minded, it's a question of from which sources of facts we are open to. Nobody is trully closed minded. I think it goes against our primeival instincts. No matter how rigid we are in our beliefs in certain situations, we will never see ourselves as closed minded, because none of us are. It's good that we are selective in where we get our information or our whole heads would also be filled with questionable truths given to us by TV-shoping channels.

At least it explains why a particular religious faith is geographically contained.

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

[anonymouse]

True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, including their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Søren Kierkegaard described this as a 'leap to faith'. He said that for a person to have faith, whether in God or any other intangible, one must simultaneously have doubt in its existence.

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

Søren Kierkegaard described this as a 'leap to faith'. He said that for a person to have faith, whether in God or any other intangible, one must simultaneously have doubt in its existence.

anonymouse

Interesting way of putting it, and it sums it up for me. The people who scare me are the ones that are sure they are right, those are the ones that start little tussles like the inquisition.

[anonymouse]

Interesting way of putting it, and it sums it up for me. The people who scare me are the ones that are sure they are right, those are the ones that start little tussles like the inquisition.

That's the same for me. I rather like Leo Tolstoy's 'Christian anarchy' idea as well. It was actually Tolstoy who inspired Ghandi and his peace movement.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

Citations please.

It's Swedish so a translation is the best I can do. Beside Diane Dodd she didn't give me any references. She wasn't hard to google either. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_45

My friend was pretty dismissive though. As if the whole US evolution debate is a non issue, not worthy of her time to explain. A completly synthetic discussion.

It makes sense though, since I haven't heard the same debate in any other country anywhere. It's as if nobody else understands where the ID people get their scientific suport. If we trust my friend, it's because they maybe don't have any.

edit: to be perfectly clear here. I only asked my friend about speciasation. Nothing else. There may be other problems with evolution. Speciasation just isn't one of them.

[TomOfSweden]

You are missing my point. I can easily say that most "Christians" are close minded bigots because they are. True men of faith acknowledge their falliblity in everything, includoing their belief. Their faith is not something that depends on themselves, it depends on God, and thus is firmly embedded in a truth that most people do not see.

Do humans have free will or not?

[anonymouse]

Do humans have free will or not?

It's a very interesting question, Tom, as it's a cornerstone of democracy. My short answer is 'no' and it's based on something I read many years ago in the (fictional) book by John Ireland, "The Unknown Industrial Prisoner". I don't have it at hand to quote directly but essentially, he remarked, "people aren't even free to be poor. There are vagrancy laws against that."

To digress slightly, the human population is still currently 'free to think' whatever it likes. This freedom is based in language/linguistics. For example, I'm free to invent any language (or words/expressions) I like to give meaning to my thoughts. There is an internal dialogue with myself at play that doesn't need decyphering ('meaning') for an external audience. However, if I want to convey 'meaning' I must resort to a more commonly used language -- whatever language that might be within my own social or whatever confines.

Language, especially a commonly used one such as English, isn't equipped to describe such things as the ritual knowledge inherent in such things as the naming of a ship:

"I Christen thee the Queen Mary!"

Formidable research traditions may try and describe this however, no amount of evidence or observation will dispute the fact that that utterance is, in and of itself, empirical to the truth that the ship has been changed -- not in any physical sense, but in the perception people generally will have of it.

The same can be said of Christian ritual in Catholicism: 'this is the body of Christ'. No amount of of empirical or observational evidence will contradict the fact that this utterance conveys all that is needed insofar as 'truth' (as a perceptual thing) is concerned.

Do I believe it? Is it a 'universal'? Most likely not however, just because the human body is capable of swimming in water, even though there's likely to be all kinds of scientific evidence to say many people can't swim, doesn't negate the truth that humans can swim.

I apologize for not having reference/citations for any of this however, with regards to 'utterances' as a research tool, it's a recent thing that comes out of 'speech theory'. I think it's called 'performative research'.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

Yeah, I know. I'm just fucking with Rhabbi. It doesn't take a lot of philosophical study to figure out we don't have free will. People who believe we do just haven't given it enough thought.

It's just another one of those christian bullshit issues that really don't exist outside the church.

I think what you are refering to is the Sapir-Whorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir%E2%80%93Whorf_hypothesis) hypothesis?

[anonymouse]

I think what you are refering to is the Sapir-Whorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir%E2%80%93Whorf_hypothesis) hypothesis?


Actually, my mistake. It's knows as 'speech-act' theory. Wiki introduction HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech-act_theory).

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

It's Swedish so a translation is the best I can do. Beside Diane Dodd she didn't give me any references. She wasn't hard to google either. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_45

My friend was pretty dismissive though. As if the whole US evolution debate is a non issue, not worthy of her time to explain. A completly synthetic discussion.

It makes sense though, since I haven't heard the same debate in any other country anywhere. It's as if nobody else understands where the ID people get their scientific suport. If we trust my friend, it's because they maybe don't have any.

edit: to be perfectly clear here. I only asked my friend about speciasation. Nothing else. There may be other problems with evolution. Speciasation just isn't one of them.

Interestingly enough, I read the article you cited, and it was pure speculation and admitted it. Although adaptation to environment and food occurs, I still do not see a distinct species.

[Rhabbi]

It's a very interesting question, Tom, as it's a cornerstone of democracy. My short answer is 'no' and it's based on something I read many years ago in the (fictional) book by John Ireland, "The Unknown Industrial Prisoner". I don't have it at hand to quote directly but essentially, he remarked, "people aren't even free to be poor. There are vagrancy laws against that."

To digress slightly, the human population is still currently 'free to think' whatever it likes. This freedom is based in language/linguistics. For example, I'm free to invent any language (or words/expressions) I like to give meaning to my thoughts. There is an internal dialogue with myself at play that doesn't need decyphering ('meaning') for an external audience. However, if I want to convey 'meaning' I must resort to a more commonly used language -- whatever language that might be within my own social or whatever confines.

Language, especially a commonly used one such as English, isn't equipped to describe such things as the ritual knowledge inherent in such things as the naming of a ship:

"I Christen thee the Queen Mary!"

Formidable research traditions may try and describe this however, no amount of evidence or observation will dispute the fact that that utterance is, in and of itself, empirical to the truth that the ship has been changed -- not in any physical sense, but in the perception people generally will have of it.

The same can be said of Christian ritual in Catholicism: 'this is the body of Christ'. No amount of of empirical or observational evidence will contradict the fact that this utterance conveys all that is needed insofar as 'truth' (as a perceptual thing) is concerned.

Do I believe it? Is it a 'universal'? Most likely not however, just because the human body is capable of swimming in water, even though there's likely to be all kinds of scientific evidence to say many people can't swim, doesn't negate the truth that humans can swim.

I apologize for not having reference/citations for any of this however, with regards to 'utterances' as a research tool, it's a recent thing that comes out of 'speech theory'. I think it's called 'performative research'.

anonymouse

Actually, the debate about free will goes beyond language. I personally do not have an authorative answer to the question, and will argue either side based on my whim of the moment. From a Christian perspective, I will tell people that if we have free will, then God is not omniscient, nor does predestiantion exist. I have seen so many convoluted arguments and rationalizations that all I can say is, "I don't know."

[TomOfSweden]

Interestingly enough, I read the article you cited, and it was pure speculation and admitted it. Although adaptation to environment and food occurs, I still do not see a distinct species.

I think it has more to do with the authors careful use of language rather than any personal convictions. Maybe your only seeing what you're looking for.

[Rhabbi]

I think it has more to do with the authors careful use of language rather than any personal convictions. Maybe your only seeing what you're looking for.

The author speculates on the possiblity od allotropic speciation, and indicates that if it happens, the lab experiments involving fruit flies would be the first step of that process.


Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.

Although this is carefully couched in a scientific way, it is nonetheless speculation. IOf anyone is reading into this, it is you and all the others who are so anxious to believe in evolution that they accept even the flimsiest of evidence as proof.

[TomOfSweden]

Although this is carefully couched in a scientific way, it is nonetheless speculation. IOf anyone is reading into this, it is you and all the others who are so anxious to believe in evolution that they accept even the flimsiest of evidence as proof.

It's not a question of wanting to believe. It's what we have to chose from. I don't know how many times I've said it in this thread. ID isn't a theory. It's evolution or nothing.

And on top of that evolution is suported by massive amounts of evidence. There are no holes. The more I read about this the more asstounded I get that this is at all an issue in USA. ID doesn't exist. It's a big debate about a non-issue. It's desperate fundamentalists who not only ignore common sense, but also facts to find suport of their religious text. What this thread has taught me is that Christians are a lot more dangerous I previously thought. They need to be taken a lot more seriously, and fought every step of the way, or we'll never be rid of them.

But good luck with being a fundamentalist. It seems to make you happy. I'm out of here now.

[Rhabbi]

It's not a question of wanting to believe. It's what we have to chose from. I don't know how many times I've said it in this thread. ID isn't a theory. It's evolution or nothing.

Actually, my point is that evolution is anything but a theory. I only pointed out that ID is a possible alternative, yet you want to think that that is what I believe. The fact that there is not an alternative to evolution does not make it true.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, my point is that evolution is anything but a theory. I only pointed out that ID is a possible alternative, yet you want to think that that is what I believe. The fact that there is not an alternative to evolution does not make it true.

The only proponents of ID are the religious. What does that tell us about the theory? Seriously now. If it would be a real theory it would hold water no matter what perspective or prior faith you have. But it doesn't because it makes no claims.

The sooner you realise that they're the Talibans of America the better. It's a dangerous road you're travelling down and a dangerous door you're keeping open.

Anything is possible. Space aliens could have placed all the fossils on earth and Diane Dodd, (and all the other scientists who've reproduced her experiment) could all have been controlled by comunist orbital mind-control lasers. This is the level ID is on. It's pure farce.

edit: And just to be perfectly clear here. I'm not anti-christian or anti-religious. It's only the magic I question. Christianity and the Bible is and can be a great ethical and moral guide for people. I'm sure it is of the simple reason that so many are christian. I'm convinced that these are the real reasons people turn to the church. I think the hokus pokus and the rituals is just the stage show to keep the 1-minute-atention-span crowd from losing their focus.

Go jesus!

[anonymouse]

Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics.


Apologies, Rhabbi, for this pasted quote from your sig. (I've just changed my own viewing settings and hadn't seen it before now)

I agree to a point with the sentiment of it however, I am also reminded of something (I think it was Voltaire) said, "Anything too stupid to be said, should be sung." It's kinda a bookend for your own quote :) The math/art dichotomy...

anonymouse

[Rhabbi]

Apologies, Rhabbi, for this pasted quote from your sig. (I've just changed my own viewing settings and hadn't seen it before now)

I agree to a point with the sentiment of it however, I am also reminded of something (I think it was Voltaire) said, "Anything too stupid to be said, should be sung." It's kinda a bookend for your own quote :) The math/art dichotomy...

anonymouse

Since I am quoting someone, I do not think I can object to you quoting me. The truth is though that my math knowledge is what convinces me that evolution is wrong. I could be misunderstanding the acual oddds because we do not know all the dynamics of the chemical proccesses involved, but the known combinations make the odds agains even simple unicelluar life so lng that I cannot accept it.

[Rhabbi]

The only proponents of ID are the religious. What does that tell us about the theory? Seriously now. If it would be a real theory it would hold water no matter what perspective or prior faith you have. But it doesn't because it makes no claims.

Actually, the first propnents of ID were people who proposed that the Earth was seeded my aliens who are conducting a vast experiemnt. Idiots, to be sure, but not religious.

ID has flaws, the biggest of which is that we have to explain where the designer came from. As science it is acceptable to me only because it shuts up the creationist who want me to believe that the Earth was created in 7 days 5000 yeras ago.


edit: And just to be perfectly clear here. I'm not anti-christian or anti-religious. It's only the magic I question. Christianity and the Bible is and can be a great ethical and moral guide for people. I'm sure it is of the simple reason that so many are christian. I'm convinced that these are the real reasons people turn to the church. I think the hokus pokus and the rituals is just the stage show to keep the 1-minute-atention-span crowd from losing their focus.

Go jesus!

Actually Tom, I never really thought you were anti-christian, though I do appreciate you saying so. Most people who call themselves christaians have no more idea wht the Bible says than a 2 year old child. That is why churches need to use the hocus pokus to keep peoples attention, they do not want them to know the truth.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, the first propnents of ID were people who proposed that the Earth was seeded my aliens who are conducting a vast experiemnt. Idiots, to be sure, but not religious.


I love Raëlians. They're doing what the Flying spaggheti monster never can.