Evolutionary Debate
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 17 of 20
I like my evolution (both macro and micro), but I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I kind of stop there. I'm still on the fence about how I feel about a higher power and once I figure that out, it will possibly affect my specific thoughts on evolution (never banishing evolution though).
Your bio teacher probably said that viruses aren't alive per se because they are not considered organisms (i.e. cannot maintain there own existence and need to invade/destroy another cell to reproduce), but they are considered a microbe, which is a "living thing we can see". At leas that's what my bacteriology prof. says and I can accept that.
A book series that I think may interest you is "Ring", "Spiral", and "Loop". The books are translated from Japanese and were the basis for the Japanese movie "Ringu". They deal with viruses, mutation, cancer, and some other things addressed in this post. Go read them and love them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?
It can be argued that the finches on the Galapagos Islands evolved into the different species found there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sass, No it can't. Well, at least not a serious argument.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oooh, I forgot about the cichlids in Lake Victoria!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But God is Metaphysical, ergo God has NO place in physical Science, see how I'm having to repeat myself?
what were we supposed to debate about in this thread? or was it a trap?
i remember DreamTrove saying you cant debate something that is 'proven', it would be like debating whether the sun would rise; it must have been to bait Creationists out into the open or something, and i bit! i wish i was the one who could prove a Creator exists, but im not really suited to this type of 'forum'.. im not a scientist, or even claimed to be particularly inclined either, and i admit that what i do know are things ive learned cross referencing the occult, and old world theology et all(which is my main focus). but it doesnt mean there isnt some debate going on out there about it all. it 'might' be possible to prove the existence of a Creator- we dont know that its impossible yet.. do we? techinically it would have to manifest things visibly somehow? i have to say that i appreciate this comment right here though
Quote:
UNCOMPREHENDING-
I am not a religious person, but I think that the origin of life has no place in a science curriculum because it a) cannot be scientifically proven, and b) has no concrete relevance. This is not to say that the matter should not be discussed-- it's very important that we talk about these things, as the ability to ask this kind of question is part of the very nature of being human. However, the issue of the origin of life, as well as intelligent design and evolutionary theory, belongs in a philosophy or ethics classroom, not a science classroom. Basically, it's a question we can ask and discuss and debate, but to which we can never have a solid answer unless we embrace religious or philosophical ideals. It's a matter of worldview, not of science.
atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate.. even if it happened millions of years ago(which i dont realy believe-admitedly out of bias). just from what i know of the ID view, they believe the creation itself indicates design, within nature, or DNA itself..its just possible we dont know what we're looking for yet
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
it 'might' be possible to prove the existence of a Creator- we dont know that its impossible yet.. do we? techinically it would have to manifest things visibly somehow?
Science is based off of natural rules and natural tools, if a scientist looks at a supernatural subject (god) using natural tools, since the supernatural ignores the natural the scientist can no longer trust their tools. Because of this any time that a scientist would attempt to verify the supernatural they would get incorrect results in their tests and the tests would be invalid.
Quote:
atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate..
It is, but like I keep saying it has no bearing on evolution, regardless of how life started all the evidence points to evolution afterwards.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AP, Feb 13,2007.
Quote:
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Science would be looking for answers that are (a) grounded in the observable and (b) consistent with our current models. If you think that science is going to find "proof" that god exists or suddenly jump tracks to the supernatural then you're sadly mistaken.
atleast im not out of line suggesting that abiogensis, which is still considered an hypothesis, might also be aligned with an existing religious theology. i believe the origin issue is up for debate.. even if it happened millions of years ago(which i dont realy believe-admitedly out of bias). just from what i know of the ID view, they believe the creation itself indicates design, within nature, or DNA itself..its just possible we dont know what we're looking for yet
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
AP, Feb 13,2007.Quote:
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
I thought that was over with a long time ago.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME