Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[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.

[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]

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;258897]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?

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.

[QUOTE]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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.