Evolutionary Debate

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:38 AM

I am a non-scientific layman. I think in simple terms.

I had trouble with basic biology in High School, because my teacher kept telling me that viruses weren't alive, and that seemed wrong to me for reasons I couldn't completely explain.

Anyhow, I'm not a scientist. I don't claim any special understanding of the scientific process.

But I frequently find debate here about evolution. Some people argue it exists, other people argue it doesn't exist. Some people divide evolution up into 'macro' and 'micro' and dissect it thus. A lot of the arguments on both sides don't make a lot of sense to me.

I remember that in my frustrating biology class in High School, a small-scale example of evolution was presented to us. There were some light-colored moths in a forest. Then a factory started up near the forest. Soot from the factory turned all the trees dark. After a few years, the moths in the forest were all dark-colored.

The explanation was that all the light-colored moths got eaten (because their coloration made them stand out) and some random dark-colored moths proliferated (because their coloration allowed them to blend in) and so a species of light colored moths 'evolved' into a species of dark-colored moths.

This made sense to me. I could also imagine how, if other random traits came to determine the life-or-death of the moth, these traits might become the basis for new kinds of moths that we have never seen before. Like maybe a mutant moth with more aerodynamic wings could fly from danger faster, and thus survive to breed an entire species of aerodynamic moths.

But there are other things that make me wonder. There are insects that look like leaves or twigs, and this strikes me as much more complicated than light or dark colored moths. I am forced to wonder how many random mutations need to occur in a particular order to make an insect look exactly like a leaf. Or a twig. I mean, it seems rather improbable to me. It'd make a lot more sense if the insect could look at a twig and say, "Hey, I bet if I looked like a twig, I wouldn't get eaten." And then if it could somehow, over countless generations, WILL itself to become a twig... Well, that would feel more right. But an insect can't will the final result of its evolution. It's all supposed to be random. And so it seems like startlingly good luck for an insect to look like a twig. And this good luck seems to happen a lot.

I've heard of something called 'Intelligent Design' and have wondered if this sensation is the one that they're trying to capture. You know, the sensation that someone was WILLING the insect to look like a twig. Because it it was someone's active will, then the amazing good luck would be a lot more plausible.

So, I guess I'm in a tough spot on this evolution thing. Because while the basic concept of evolution makes a lot of sense to me, some of the end-results of evolution seem bloody unlikely.

Now, I believe in God, but I don't have any particular inclination as to how God operates. If he does his work by evolving his creatures, that's his business. The Bible says the world was a done deal in six days, but I don't need to take that at face value. I know too much about how the Bible came to be, and that certain books were included or excluded or edited or oddly translated at various points in history. At best, the Bible is the Will of God as Filtered through the Minds of a Thousand Idiots over the course of Millenia. I kind of just hope that the central themes survived intact.

On the other hand, I don't have anything AGAINST the idea that God Zapped things into being, and then provided them with a mechanism for adaptation called evolution. That way they wouldn't be like computers: Hopelessly outdated and doomed to replacement after a few short years. Rather, they could gradually become better.

I guess what I really want to know is this...

Is the entire community of Fireflyfans divided into "Evolution is It!" and "Evolution is Sacriligeous Crap?!"

I mean,

YINYANG

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:00 AM

I'm of the "it don't matter, 'cause we're here now" group, the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" group, and the "I don't believe in God" group, so there you have it.

Now, I'm just gonna set my lawn chair up over here and watch.

And no, Anthony, you're not retarded.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:12 AM

Quote:
AnthonyT-

Now, I believe in God, but I don't have any particular inclination as to how God operates. If he does his work by evolving his creatures, that's his business. The Bible says the world was a done deal in six days, but I don't need to take that at face value. I know too much about how the Bible came to be, and that certain books were included or excluded or edited or oddly translated at various points in history. At best, the Bible is the Will of God as Filtered through the Minds of a Thousand Idiots over the course of Millenia. I kind of just hope that the central themes survived intact.

i know ill get critized for this, but i believe the bible is the word of GOd(no point in debating, only time will tell). so that being said..

the Bible says that man is in a fallen state, a temporary, material state, where we are subject to lower level energies of negative influences. the significance of Jesus claiming to be God is that we will eventually be redeemed, to an immortal state, free from the cycle of death and decay of this age(which Lucifer is prince of). the zodiac actually tells this same story as the gospel- so to me, there is obviously some relation to horoscopes/numerology/lay lines etc- which leads me to believe that it cannot be discounted that real spiritual shifts or energy zones exist throughout the universe(and that this knowledge is known and held secretive by the elite, to mentally supress us us). the freemasons definately believe in these things, which is evident in that washington DC and the original cities of the revolution are built upon these lines.. and whose occult origins directly relate to the Enochian mystical doctrines and other polytheistic practices that go way back to Babylon, Egypt, and all this highly archetypical old world esoterism. what ties this all together are the references to the Sun god(Osiris), and a variety of Greek(and other) mythology in AMerican and European governments, as we are the ancestors of the pagan cultures, and have chosen to carry the proverbial torch of lucifer for this millenium.

i just think its crazy to throw out all of this anceint history, especially as it relates to 'gods', creation et al.. because there IS a conspiracy to turn AMerica into the "new Atlantis", and bring about their global new world order(of lucifer). the masonic and more illuminous new age philosophies share this common theme, which the secret societies have been working towards since the Templars, which is to seize upon this upcoming cycle of enlightenment to prepare for, and create their material Eden on earth(on the corpses of the old world and 2/3 of its population)to coincide with this new age(possibly aquarian).

anyways the theory of evolution contradicts this mess of historical speculation im talking about, and i personally feel that there is real profound truth there (but thats just my opinion)

MRIG

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I am a non-scientific layman. I think in simple terms.

I had trouble with basic biology in High School, because my teacher kept telling me that viruses weren't alive, and that seemed wrong to me for reasons I couldn't completely explain.

Anyhow, I'm not a scientist. I don't claim any special understanding of the scientific process.

But I frequently find debate here about evolution. Some people argue it exists, other people argue it doesn't exist. Some people divide evolution up into 'macro' and 'micro' and dissect it thus. A lot of the arguments on both sides don't make a lot of sense to me.

I remember that in my frustrating biology class in High School, a small-scale example of evolution was presented to us. There were some light-colored moths in a forest. Then a factory started up near the forest. Soot from the factory turned all the trees dark. After a few years, the moths in the forest were all dark-colored.

The explanation was that all the light-colored moths got eaten (because their coloration made them stand out) and some random dark-colored moths proliferated (because their coloration allowed them to blend in) and so a species of light colored moths 'evolved' into a species of dark-colored moths.

This made sense to me. I could also imagine how, if other random traits came to determine the life-or-death of the moth, these traits might become the basis for new kinds of moths that we have never seen before. Like maybe a mutant moth with more aerodynamic wings could fly from danger faster, and thus survive to breed an entire species of aerodynamic moths.

But there are other things that make me wonder. There are insects that look like leaves or twigs, and this strikes me as much more complicated than light or dark colored moths. I am forced to wonder how many random mutations need to occur in a particular order to make an insect look exactly like a leaf. Or a twig. I mean, it seems rather improbable to me. It'd make a lot more sense if the insect could look at a twig and say, "Hey, I bet if I looked like a twig, I wouldn't get eaten." And then if it could somehow, over countless generations, WILL itself to become a twig... Well, that would feel more right. But an insect can't will the final result of its evolution. It's all supposed to be random. And so it seems like startlingly good luck for an insect to look like a twig. And this good luck seems to happen a lot.

I've heard of something called 'Intelligent Design' and have wondered if this sensation is the one that they're trying to capture. You know, the sensation that someone was WILLING the insect to look like a twig. Because it it was someone's active will, then the amazing good luck would be a lot more plausible.

So, I guess I'm in a tough spot on this evolution thing. Because while the basic concept of evolution makes a lot of sense to me, some of the end-results of evolution seem bloody unlikely.

Now, I believe in God, but I don't have any particular inclination as to how God operates. If he does his work by evolving his creatures, that's his business. The Bible says the world was a done deal in six days, but I don't need to take that at face value. I know too much about how the Bible came to be, and that certain books were included or excluded or edited or oddly translated at various points in history. At best, the Bible is the Will of God as Filtered through the Minds of a Thousand Idiots over the course of Millenia. I kind of just hope that the central themes survived intact.

On the other hand, I don't have anything AGAINST the idea that God Zapped things into being, and then provided them with a mechanism for adaptation called evolution. That way they wouldn't be like computers: Hopelessly outdated and doomed to replacement after a few short years. Rather, they could gradually become better.

I guess what I really want to know is this...

Is the entire community of Fireflyfans divided into "Evolution is It!" and "Ev

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:08 AM

I've done some reading on Artificial Life, notably Steven Levy's book of the same title, and fooled around with some of the simpler computer programs detailed there.

While those programs are computer simulations of life, and are in fact incredible simplifications, some of them do mimic the mechanisms of real animals, to a sufficient degree to be used for prediction of real world events.

Many of them have shown evolution-- a mutation introduced into the computer DNA, in a very low percentage of a very large sample, can, over many generations, become a dominant trait. This is much the mechanism that evolution suggests in animals- many small changes in a few individuals, spread thru the whole population over a very long time.

This is why evolution doesn't show over the period we have studied it-- 1000's of years are too short a time frame. If I remember correctly, the most current date on the pre-humanoid remains from Africa is 4 million years. It usedta be about 1 million.

On another level, Levy suggests that computer viruses are very close to life forms-- even simple ones can be programmed to reproduce and spread and to defend themselves against extermination-- and they often cause results unpredictable to their creator, as their designs contain imperfections. That's why they're such a nuisance, cause so much damage, and are so hard to get rid of.

CHARLIETHEBLOODY

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 1:58 PM

great post Mrig, you laid it all out really well.

anthonyT your post was very interesting and not at all retarded, I think there are a lot of people somewhere in the middle, we don't (at least I don't) fully understand the evolutionary process, it can seem quite mind boggling, but I've seen enough evidence to lead me to accept it as real.

Mrig pointed out that there are plenty of religious scientists who believe in both evolution and god, and it's worth noting that darwin himself (I believe) did not see his theories as conflicting with his faith, there's a myth about him retracting it on his deathbed but that was made up by people wanting to discredit him and make it into a science vs religion thing, which it really isn't...

--------------------------------------
"I'm an artist, with an e and a beret."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:40 PM

I am also a layperson on this issue, and have no formal degrees related to this topic. However, this is how I see it....

Folks who don't study evolution for a living tend to simplify this issue into either
A. God did it, evolution is a lie by Satan ,- the 'Young Earth Creationist'....or,
B. Life sprang and evolved purely from real world, natural events, and progressed, over time , to what we have today.

There is another group which feels life evolved, but with in the frame work of some intelligence. THOSE folks are more accurately described at Theistic Evolutionist. These folk are not to be confused w/ the Intelligent Design folks, who are little more than re-packaged Creationist.

When it comes to things like the Bombadier Beetle, the Sea Dragon ( leafy lookin Sea Horse ), etc... I'm a bit perplexed. And yet from studying paleontology on my own for over 20 yrs, I come to realize that this planet has seen far more variations of life than most could even imagine. In fact, much of our imagination has invented creatures which owe some basis of fact in this planet's past. I'm fully convinced, for example, that many of the creatures from mythology come from man's inability to understand the fossilized animals they stumbled across. The Gryphon, for example, was seen as a cross between a lion and a bird, with wings. Turns out, there was an creature which looks very similar to that mythical animal,( w/ out the wings ). A dinosaur, which fossils can be found in exactly the same area that the legendary Gryphon hails from. That animal, is a type of Ceratops, cousin to the much larger Triceratops.

Anyway, there's all sorts of facts and stories which most of us are never taught in HS or even college biology courses. And it's because of this lack of knowledge, ( and yes, a likely case of lack of interest by most folk ) which leads to such a misunderstanding and incomplete picture of the issue. Pretty much like anything else, it's often not stupidity on the part of the individual, but simply a lack of knowledge ( ignorance ) which develops how folks see the world.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:14 PM

Just as an aside, I look at all the mis-designed, useless (vestigial) pieces of our anatomy and I think... "This was supposed to be designed by God??? " God sure is practical joker!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I had trouble with basic biology in High School, because my teacher kept telling me that viruses weren't alive, and that seemed wrong to me for reasons I couldn't completely explain.

You're teacher wasn't very good, whether Viruses are Alive or merely complex chemicals, RNA operating as it does, but not alive in it's own right, is still debated. Stating it in a class room, in a Science class no less as fact when it's still debated is pretty poor. In my science class the teacher told what a virus was, how it functioned and told us people weren't sure if it was alive or not.

Personally I think it is alive, just missing the DNA mechanisms that allow it to reproduce autonamously, though it's clear it does reproduce because of it's own 'desire' to do so, i.e. the Virus sets its reproduction in motion. I think Viruses are probably a lot closer to some of the earliest distinct life forms than modern bacteria.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 6:49 PM

Some real intelligent posts on the topic for once, I guess miracles do happen - might by a lottery ticket today

I file the whole durned shebang in my mental back burner labelled "Who the fuck knows?!".

I will say though, that if Cats ever develop opposable thumbs, the human race is totally screwed.

-F

TRENCHMONKEY

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:43 PM

just a couple of points,

Quote:
In Evolution, any mutation has to work *right now,* in the short run.

Not quite true in darwin and elsewhere the mutation merely shouldnt prove a disadvantage, it doesnt necesserily need to provide an immediate advantage, as an aside the Science of the Discworld books, by Terry Pratchet (and a couple of others cant remember who), give a good accessable overview in places

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

RUE

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:21 PM

I can be shown that a mutation that's not under evolutionary pressure (neither advantage nor disadvantage) remains in the population at the same level.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:12 PM

Anthonyt - "so a species of light colored moths 'evolved' into a species of dark-colored moths."

There is no evolution on the moths in that example. It is the same species as before. It has the same chromosomal make-up. There is zero proof that any species has ever evolved into another....zero. That is why it is "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION". Anyone who tells you different, is full of sh*t..............

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:48 PM

The white moths lost habitat to the black moths because the black ones were better adapted to the new conditions. This is used as an example of natural selection, not one of evolution. To get a verifiably new species requires a significant genetic change, too big a step to ever be seen at one time.

DARKJESTER

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 9:59 PM

Ask away, Anthony! The only ones who think asking a question is retarded are the ones who are convinced they have the answers. And quite often, they'll end their arguement/argue-rant with a variation of the old clincher "If you don't believe like me you're a poopy-head!"

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:59 PM

Thanks for all the input, guys.

Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

Not even bugs or rats or such? I mean, they reproduce like crazy, so I'd imagine they're the most likely candidates for observed evolution? I'm supposing you need thousands of generations.

What about my chijuajua (sp?) Or a toy poodle? Or one of those long, short dogs with the floppy ears? I've often heard that humans have bred these dogs from a common stock animal, selecting desirable traits. There sure are a lot of different and distinct kinds of dog with very different physical attributes.

Are they all the same species as a wolf? Just how different do you need to get from your source animal before you can be said to have 'evolved' into something new?

Is it at all possible to ever observe an evolutionary process, or will evolution always be a theory just because we can't see it from start to finish? (Takes too long, even for little critters?)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KHYRON

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:07 AM

I suggest to everyone to look up what a theory is in a scientific context. It's not what you seem to think.

And natural selection occurs all the time, and this is, after all, the driving mechanism behind evolution. But I don't know what criteria are used to determine when a new species has evolved due to natural selection.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CHARLIETHEBLOODY

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:51 AM

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?

Not even bugs or rats or such?

I don't know about whole species (though as khyron said, where do you draw the line between species?) but strains of bacteria show evolution, like MRSA which is rampaging through hospitals, methicilin resistant staphylococcus aureus, that has evolved it's resistance to antibiotics.

but then anti-evolution people draw a distinction between micro and macro, because they can't deny micro evolution but still want to deny larger scale stuff. I don't see that distinction myself, it just takes an awful lot longer to get to humans than it does to a different type of bacteria.

and dogs, while obviously not natural selection still show how advantagous (for whatever reason) traits are developed, it's just orchestrated by humans rather than the environment, either way the dog doesn't get to breed if it doesn't have the right ('fit') characteristics.

--------------------------------------
"I'm an artist, with an e and a beret."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 4:51 AM

If course, theocrats are busy burying their heads in the sand to avoid the evidence....

Quote:
Deep in the dusty, unlit corridors of Kenya's national museum, locked away in a plain-looking cabinet, is one of mankind's oldest relics: Turkana Boy, as he is known, the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human ever found. But his first public display later this year is at the heart of a growing storm -- one pitting scientists against Kenya's powerful and popular evangelical Christian movement. The debate over evolution vs. creationism -- once largely confined to the United States -- has arrived in a country known as the cradle of mankind.
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room -- along with some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a number of theories.

¡pobrecito!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

MRIG

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
just a couple of points,

Quote:
In Evolution, any mutation has to work *right now,* in the short run.

Not quite true in darwin and elsewhere the mutation merely shouldnt prove a disadvantage, it doesnt necesserily need to provide an immediate advantage, as an aside the Science of the Discworld books, by Terry Pratchet (and a couple of others cant remember who), give a good accessable overview in places

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

Yeah, that makes sense. A mutation doesn't have to be positive, it just can't be negative. However, it's hard for me to imagine a mutation that isn't one or the other, because anything that wastes energy is negative. Thus, if a mutation makes some minor, inconsequential change for a small increase in energy cost, it is still negative and detrimental to survival.

My main point, though, was that it can't be something that doesn't help in the short term but might help a few generations down the line. A species can't have half an eye now and hope to evolve the other half a million years later. ID proponents like to pretend that Evolution is supposed to work that way. It's not.

"Well, here I am."

MRIG

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Thanks for all the input, guys.

Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

Not even bugs or rats or such? I mean, they reproduce like crazy, so I'd imagine they're the most likely candidates for observed evolution? I'm supposing you need thousands of generations.

What about my chijuajua (sp?) Or a toy poodle? Or one of those long, short dogs with the floppy ears? I've often heard that humans have bred these dogs from a common stock animal, selecting desirable traits. There sure are a lot of different and distinct kinds of dog with very different physical attributes.

Are they all the same species as a wolf? Just how different do you need to get from your source animal before you can be said to have 'evolved' into something new?

Is it at all possible to ever observe an evolutionary process, or will evolution always be a theory just because we can't see it from start to finish? (Takes too long, even for little critters?)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Sorry for double-posting, I'm still figuring out the details of how this forum works.

I don't know of any examples of seeing one species branch out into another within recorded human history. Considering how long it takes, and how recent we are, there might not be any. Speciation takes not only the ordinary mechanisms of evolution but also geographic isolation. Darwin saw different species of finches on different islands in the Galapagos, which had clearly originated from one common ancestor. Because the islands prevented them from interbreeding, they became seperate species. Most of the evidence for evolution we don't see firsthand. Scientists piece together a picture of what happened with clues left behind in the same way that forensic investigators do to a crime scene.

However, nature doesn't have a precise line for "species." Dogs, for instance, used to be classified as all the same species, Canis familiaris, which evolved by human breeding from wolves, Canis lupis. Apparently it's since been renamed a "subspecies" of wolf. However, each breed shows more variation, so my dachshunds(the long ones with the floppy ears--I have two) are the same species as your chihuahua (I can't spell it either, I looked it up. Same with "dachshund"). However, there are clearly differences between the two. Both of them are also the same species as a wild dog or a gray wolf.

The definition I've heard is that two animals are considered the same species if they can mate and produce fertile offspring. Thus, two breeds of dog are the same species, but horses and donkeys are not, because mules are sterile. But, of course, this line is quite blurry and difficult to categorize.

Evolution will always be a theory, but that's not a bad thing. In science, a theory is a step up from facts, because theories explain facts. The question is how well-supported a theory is. Evolution is an example of a well-supported theory. Intelligent Design is also a theory, but it's not a very good one, because it isn't well-supported.

Another key element that all scientific theories must share, but ID doesn't have, is called falsifiability. What this means is that if the theory is wrong, there is some way to show that it is wrong. If we found a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian, that would falsify Evolution. However, if similar evidence comes up against Intelligent Design, a proponent of ID can always say "the Designer put it there," or something similar, meaning that ID can't be falsified.

The fact that we can't see Evolution happen from start to finish doesn't mean we can't figure out what happened, in the same way that fingerprints and DNA evidence can catch a murderer even without witnesses. So if someone says that Evolution is "only" a theory, they aren't using the word "theory" properly.

Whew. I really need to stop caring so much about evolution, so tha

FLETCH2

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MRig:

Yeah, that makes sense. A mutation doesn't have to be positive, it just can't be negative. However, it's hard for me to imagine a mutation that isn't one or the other, because anything that wastes energy is negative. Thus, if a mutation makes some minor, inconsequential change for a small increase in energy cost, it is still negative and detrimental to survival.
.

I can give you an example. Sickle Cell anemia is a genetic mutation that can be very painful and before modern medicine highly fatal. These days most folks that have it have an ancestors that come from Africa, where the mutation is quite common. Why is this? Well Sickle Cell gives some protection against the Malaria parasite. Malaria tends to attack the weaker members of societies, principally the very young and the very old where as Sickle Cell tends to become more debilitating the older a person gets.

As a result we have the following situation. Children born without the mutation have an increased chance of dying young because Malaria kills the young and the Sickle Cell mutation offers some protection. This means more kids with the mutation manage to grow up and survive to produce children than kids without it. Of course those survivors with Sickle Cell won't live as long as the survivors without it, but since they live long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation that doesn't matter.

So here we have a mutation that while decreasing the lifespan of the organism actually increases it's chance of breeding successfully. It has both positive and negative effects.

TRENCHMONKEY

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 5:06 PM

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?

I have Some memory of an article in New scientist in the later half of last year that talked about a verifiable case not sure though will look it up over the weekend (New scientist is weekly so migfht take some time)

I dont suffer from madness, I enjoy it.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:12 PM

Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

I dunno, you could make a good case for some of our posters for human evolution (or would that be devolution?) into Troglodyte.

-F

CITIZEN

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:20 PM

Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?

Why would that be hard to believe? We've only been here five minutes.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHARLIETHEBLOODY

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:

I have Some memory of an article in New scientist in the later half of last year that talked about a verifiable case not sure though will look it up over the weekend (New scientist is weekly so migfht take some time)

that sounded familar so I had a search and this came up from the review of the year:

Review 2006: Evolution in action
23 December 2006
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Bob Holmes

STUDYING evolution is a lot like studying tigers. You know your subject is there by the traces it leaves, but you don't often see it in the flesh. This year, though, evolutionary biologists were treated to not one but several glimpses of evolution in action right before their eyes.

Take the little lizard known as Anolis sagrei. When researchers introduced a larger, predatory lizard onto the tiny Caribbean islands where they live, A. sagrei immediately began to evolve longer legs for speedier escapes. But then the little lizards learned to flee into the branches of shrubs, where the predator could not follow - and within six months evolution had changed tack again to favour shorter-legged lizards, which are better climbers.

However, such changes are small beer compared with the hard stuff of evolution: making new species. Yet here too evolution put on a show in real time. Biologists reported not one, but two butterfly species that arose abruptly from hybridisation between existing species, a form of instant speciation formerly known only in plants.

Biologists also witnessed evolutionary misfires, where new species in the act of diverging from a parent species failed to retain their distinct identity and merged back again through hybridisation. These failed speciations are probably common - indeed, our own genome bears traces of a failed divergence from chimpanzees before the split finally happened. However, some experts suggest that human activity may make such failures more common by homogenising habitats and erasing ecological differences that once kept new species distinct.

From issue 2583 of New Scientist magazine, 23 December 2006, page 13

--------------------------------------
"I'm an artist, with an e and a beret."

RUE

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:55 PM

Thanks both.

There was an article (probably too long ago to be googled successfully) about a North American (?) bird that was evolving into two distinct species at the eastern and western ends of its range (species that could not interbreed), whereas the middle range was an intermediate between both.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 11:07 PM

Evolved into a duplicate post...

--Anthony

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Is it really true that no species has ever evolved into another species within the verifiable scope of human observation?
Why would that be hard to believe? We've only been here five minutes.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Well, it's hard to believe because of scale. Sure, I don't expect to be able to witness evolution on something like a tiger or a moose, because these are long-lived creatures.

But I hear there are bugs whose entire lifecycle is like a couple of days. I'd think a scientist or team of scientists should be able to simulate evolution in such bugs by selective breeding (pretending that their choices are 'natural selection') and manually forcing the hand of hundreds of thousands of generations of bugs.

I mean, like you said, humans have only been here for five minutes. So something that lives a lifespan 1/15,000 as big as ours ought to show its evolution 15,000 times faster. 70 years of breeding little bugs that live for a couple of days would be like nearly a million years of human evolution. Which means like maybe we can go completely from one species to another in a single human lifespan.

So is there any work being done to go from one species of X to another in order to create definitive verifiable proof of what some people call macro-evolution?

I think it'd be cool.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ERIC

Thursday, February 8, 2007 1:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But I hear there are bugs whose entire lifecycle is like a couple of days. I'd think a scientist or team of scientists should be able to simulate evolution in such bugs by selective breeding (pretending that their choices are 'natural selection') and manually forcing the hand of hundreds of thousands of generations of bugs.

Don't need a team of scientists- I once did exactly this in elementary school on a science field trip with a plastic vial of fruit flies. It's a classic exhibition activity in kid-oriented scientific institutions.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 8, 2007 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But I hear there are bugs whose entire lifecycle is like a couple of days. I'd think a scientist or team of scientists should be able to simulate evolution in such bugs by selective breeding (pretending that their choices are 'natural selection') and manually forcing the hand of hundreds of thousands of generations of bugs.

Don't need a team of scientists- I once did exactly this in elementary school on a science field trip with a plastic vial of fruit flies. It's a classic exhibition activity in kid-oriented scientific institutions.

You created a new evolution of fruit flies?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, February 8, 2007 2:13 AM

If you want one bird (or lizard) species X into another bird (or lizard) species y then it's already there.

If you want bird into snake, or bacteria into algae it probably isn't going to happen.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 8, 2007 4:42 AM

Well, that other guy said it doesn't count if one moth turns into a different color/shaped moth, so I'm guessing different kinds of lizards or birds or dogs don't count either.

Unless they can't have sex, apparently. If they can't have sex then they count as a new species.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ERIC

Thursday, February 8, 2007 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

You created a new evolution of fruit flies?

Well, we tracked mutations across several unnatually selected generations. Fruit flies only have a 24 hour life span, making them very useful for kids with much shorter attention spans

MRIG

Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by MRig:

Yeah, that makes sense. A mutation doesn't have to be positive, it just can't be negative. However, it's hard for me to imagine a mutation that isn't one or the other, because anything that wastes energy is negative. Thus, if a mutation makes some minor, inconsequential change for a small increase in energy cost, it is still negative and detrimental to survival.
.

I can give you an example. Sickle Cell anemia is a genetic mutation that can be very painful and before modern medicine highly fatal. These days most folks that have it have an ancestors that come from Africa, where the mutation is quite common. Why is this? Well Sickle Cell gives some protection against the Malaria parasite. Malaria tends to attack the weaker members of societies, principally the very young and the very old where as Sickle Cell tends to become more debilitating the older a person gets.

As a result we have the following situation. Children born without the mutation have an increased chance of dying young because Malaria kills the young and the Sickle Cell mutation offers some protection. This means more kids with the mutation manage to grow up and survive to produce children than kids without it. Of course those survivors with Sickle Cell won't live as long as the survivors without it, but since they live long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation that doesn't matter.

So here we have a mutation that while decreasing the lifespan of the organism actually increases it's chance of breeding successfully. It has both positive and negative effects.

Aha! You seem to understand this better than I. Richard Dawkins talks about a parasite in snails that increases their lifespan, but is harmful to their genes because it prevents them from reproducing.

As for fruit flies, it is pretty easy to breed for certain eye colors and such. I wish I had done those experiments in elementary school myself.

"I have to understand the world, you see."
~Richard Feynman

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:33 AM

AnthonyT - Great question. I can't believe that I read through this whole thing and nothing even resembling a flame war has taken place yet.

I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution or God. It's very possible that either or both or neither was the case. I mentioned this in another thread and was asked, "How can you believe that maybe neither took place?" My answer to that is a resounding OPEN MIND. Maybe we DON'T have ANY of the answers. Anything we've heard about evolution is an educated guess at the very best. Scientists still can't agree if milk from a cow is good or bad for me, so why would I agree with and suffer from blind faith of anything they have to tell me.... particularly when their studies are used so often to sell us pills that we don't need which modify our behavior and others convince people that not only is my cigarette smoke killing them, but it also is a leading contributor to the ozone layer evaporating and a reason babies die of SIDS. Great... I need that on my conscience right? Go to hell with the anti-smoking campaign and their paid-for and manipulated "studies".

Anyhow.... as I was saying, it is very possible that evolution is real, especially in the light you put it in. Your entire question is pretty much the way I think evolution could have come about.

Here's my problem with evolution though. Being that there are still a lot of people who don't buy into the whole evolution thing (not only religious people, btw), I do tend to get annoyed with the arrogance of scientists and so-called enlightened individuals who push evolution on us everyday, just as a priest would push God on us. At least with religion, for the most part, I actually have to make a trip to the church to get a lesson in theology. Scientists have become preachy and pretentious, and they're able to effect our lives and way of thinking everyday through schools, newspapers and particularly the daily News on TV. Personally, I don't believe that evolution has any more a place in school than religion of any kind does. I think, just like a belief in god, evolution should only be taught to those who actively seek it. If for no other reason than the fact that neither one is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt and one is more often than not at odds with the other. No one will ever give me one good reason to believe that it is necessary to make the child of God fearing parents sit through something everyday at school that is so anti-religion (at least the way it is portrayed and taught in school today anyhow).

Quote:
BY MRIG: One of the reasons that's so hard to fathom is that our brains haven't evolved to think in that sort of timeframe or probability. We're "designed" to assess risks like "what are my chances of getting killed by this mastadon I'm about to throw a pointed stick at," and other such risks that are worth worrying about in a human lifetime. Thinking about million-year periods is like thinking in the fifth dimension; we just can't do it.

I think that's an interesting take, but I don't believe it at all. I think there are people who are very outside of the box who can unquestionably think along these terms. Aldus Huxley, George Orwell, Issac Assimov, Phillip K Dick... all certainly among them. I won't argue though that most people I've ever met think the way you describe us... short-sighted, self-serving and tunnel-visioned, but I'm betting that this way of thinking is due more to social engineering, you know.... what people see on TV, read in magazines, hear in music, etc., than any sort of inherant traits. Most often, thinking about the very distant future entails putting how you live your own life into a perspective that you might not want to dwell on for too long, what when you consider the pollution your car puts out, the landfills that are overflowing with your trash, the diminishing ozone layer... etc. No... it's much nicer just to live in the materialistic "here and now".

What you're suggesting here has ties with the evolutionary theory itself and you're going t

MALACHITE

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:32 PM

I noticed that people keep talking about the peppered moths. What do people make of the article entitled "Not black or white" in Nature Magazine Nov 5, 1998, which, if I'm remembering right, stated that methodological flaws in that study made the results invalid? Has anyone read this article? I just did a search for it on the internet and couldn't find it -- I obtained a hard copy from my local library. Just curious.

Edit: I found a link for it.
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Melanism/Coyne-Nature.pdf

SAHARA

Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:22 PM

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

There are a number of common misunderstandings about evolution, some of which have hindered its general acceptance and form the basis of various objections to evolution.[47][48][49] Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory", a misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context: whereas in colloquial speech a theory is a conjecture or guess, in science a theory is "a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make".[50] Critics also state that evolution is not a fact, although from a scientific viewpoint evolution is considered both a theory and a fact.[51][52][53]

Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.[54]

Evolution is also frequently misinterpreted as stating that humans evolved from monkeys; based on this, some critics argue that monkeys should no longer exist. This misunderstands speciation, which frequently involves a subset of a population cladogenetically splitting off before speciating, rather than an entire species simply turning into a new one. Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms.[55]

It is also frequently claimed that speciation has only been inferred, never directly observed. In reality, the evolution of numerous new species has been observed.[56] A similar claim is that only microevolution, not macroevolution, has been observed; however, macroevolution has been observed as well, and modern evolutionary synthesis draws little distinction between the two, considering macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger scale.[57]

Whew, I'm glad that's settled.
Next topic?

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

KHYRON

Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sahara:
Whew, I'm glad that's settled.

Lol, if only. Now the claim will be that that article in Wikipedia was clearly written by somebody who is pro-evolution and it therefore has no place in an objective debate of the matter.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

SAHARA

Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:50 PM

Rats!

Anyway, it sounds pretty objective to me. It's science, it's SUPPOSED to be objective.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

MILFORD

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:41 PM

AnthonyT, the entire FFF community is just like any other community, meaning that we're all mostly somewhere in the middle on most issues. In terms of evolution, I'm with you, but coming from the other side. I'm a Christian, meaning I certainly believe in the Bible, but not necessarily how it was presented there. I've heard arguments that the creation story is there to teach a lesson more than relate what happened. Either way, I'm with you: there's just some stuff that doesn't make sense on both sides. We'll let the noisy ones rail against each other all day, I say we just sit back and watch it all unfold.

By the way, there's a dynamtie article about a scientist with the same type of questions you have that works with the Human Genome Project in this month's National Geographic. No answers, but interesting discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.

Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 8, 2007 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
BY CHARLIETHEBLOODY: but strains of bacteria show evolution, like MRSA which is rampaging through hospitals, methicilin resistant staphylococcus aureus, that has evolved it's resistance to antibiotics.
Everytime you get a cold and don't die from it you build an immunity. I wouldn't go as far as to call that evolution.

That's specious reasoning, at best.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:33 AM

Call it whatever reasoning you'd like Cit. Seeing as how I don't buy into any of it myself, I find the entirety of the evolution arguement specious, at best. That is not to say that it's wrong, but no one has ever come close to making a believer out of me on either the Evo issue or the God issue. I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

I'm quite impressed that with everything I said in that post, that this is all you had anything to say about. I must be getting better at this debate thing.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:07 AM

I see the right-wing-nut process of triangulation has worked well on the Amerikanskis. It goes like this:

You start with something very moderate:
evolution is the current leading scientific theory
If your agenda is to change the debate, you hammer on an extreme opposing position:
id is an equally valid scientific proposal
Then the 'moderates' declare that the position in the middle of both 'extremes' is probably right:
Both theories are equally valid, or invalid

----------------------

"Being that there are still a lot of people who don't buy into the whole evolution thing ... " Only in fundamentalist countries like the US and Pakistan. It's non-controversial everywhere else.

As to evolution being a theory that should not be taught in schools b/c it's 'only' a theory - should we not teach about gravity? Electricity? DNA? All of these are mere 'theories'.

BTW, there are penalties to be paid for being scientifically illiterate, personally and socially. Look at Pakistan, where most are taught in madrassas. The unemployment rate is phenomenally high b/c no one literally knows anything modern. So, if the choice is leave out science (with all its 'theories') and lose jobs in the here and now, but potentially gain some eternal something or other, I'd go with keeping the jobs.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:19 AM

Quote:
I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

Jack ?
That's generally known as Pascal's Wager.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

-F

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:25 AM

to be fair.. there is some science in Creationism, it just envolves scrutinizing evolutionary theory a little more then most people

a couple objections im aware of

-we have no fossil evidence of any living organisms below the Cambrian layer of earth(or roughly '500 million yrs ago). if you believe that each layer of sediment represents a certain amount of time.. then within the Cambrian period we find a whole range of incredibly complex, fully evolved species, seemingly out of nowhere. i have to wonder what the catalyst was that suddenly facilitated the perfect evolution of millions of species(randomly?). is it not strange that millions/billions of species evolved incredibly rapidly within this time frame, before which there was nothing?

-are the laws of thermodynamics still recognized? the first law states that energy is not created, but changed or transferred- if this is true, wouldnt that mean that energy had to exist before the big bang, witch then transferred it into the visible universe? this also goes for the first living organism on earth or in the universe.. didnt it require some kind of 'life' to proceed it? or is the universe some kind of living creative field(which sounds a little bit like GOd)

-using our own experiences as an example, small changes to an ecosystem have pretty drastic effects, since everything is dependant on eachother to survive and function in harmony. that being said, how did all these species evolve seperately, yet randomly, and still manage to sustain this intricate balance of interdependence?

-supposedly 90-99% of mutations are negative changes, defects or abnormalities, or otherwise. if this is true, why are their no known mutations in the fossil record? by that i mean something that would contribute the to the 'missing link' of mankind

-how is a fossil formed? anything that dies above ground is subject to the elements, and would not likely have withstood the vast periods of time for sediment to cover(and still preserve)it, within a distinct geologic age. what is likely is a species(example) becomes rapidly inundated, such as in a flood or mudslide, with soil, water or debris, which would preserve the animal relatively intact. there is evidence for this, since many fossils, allegedly from different eras, have been found within the same area of ground(google it). this casts a lot of doubts on dating methods, since carbon dating is only accurate up to a few hundred thousand years; without carbon dating, they are reduced to circular reasoning, arguing that the age of the fossil determines the earth, and vice versa

the point in all this being that the earths age is far from being an established immutable truth

i could list a few more arguements of the Creationists, but im sure ill get a barrage of comments on these few alone. it never hurts to hear the other side though..

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:30 AM

If anyone ever offers an arguement that Evolution isn't real go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html They've got more rebuttals of anti-evolution arguements than you are likely to ever need.

I can't really add much to this thread except to say that evolution is one of the most heavily tested theories ever and has weathered everything that has been thrown at it. If you want an excellent explanation get The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, he lays it all out (though as someone else mentioned he is somewhat militant in his atheism). The title of your post indicates that you think there is actual debate, I can't speak for the forum (I've been gone for a while) but as far as nearly every biologist is concerned there is no question regarding the factuality of evolution, just questions as to specifics. That being said evolution neither explains nor tries to explain the origin of life so believing in god does not in any preclude belief in evolution it simply means that literal interpretations of religious texts get a little harder.

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:33 AM

a militant atheist? what does that mean? wheres Citizen when you need him?

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:43 AM

"we have no fossil evidence of any living organisms below the Cambrian layer"
Soft, single-celled organisms would not leave fossils except in very specific conditions.

"are the laws of thermodynamics still recognized? ... wouldnt that mean that energy had to exist before the big bang, witch then transferred it into the visible universe?"
Yes.
"this also goes for the first living organism on earth or in the universe"
Not necessarily. If you look at life as another manifestation of energy flow, then its appearance from other types of energy makes sense.

"how did all these species evolve seperately, yet randomly, and still manage to sustain this intricate balance of interdependence?"
They didn't. There were many mass extinctions on earth.

"if (90-99% of mutations are negative) is true, why are their no known mutations in the fossil record?"
Because fossil formation is extremely rare. Of all the billions of dinosaurs that existed over roughly 200 million years, how many fossils are there? Why would you think that a single individual with a random mutation - even if it survived - would be represented in the fossil record?
"by that i mean something that would contribute the to the 'missing link' of mankind"
There are all sorts of missing links, you just don't recognize them.

"how is a fossil formed?"
How do you put hand prints in cement?

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
to be fair.. there is some science in Creationism, it just envolves scrutinizing evolutionary theory a little more then most people

a couple objections im aware of

-we have no fossil evidence of any living organisms below the Cambrian layer of earth(or roughly '500 million yrs ago). if you believe that each layer of sediment represents a certain amount of time.. then within the Cambrian period we find a whole range of incredibly complex, fully evolved species, seemingly out of nowhere.

The evolution of hard bits that actually fossilize, soft tissues do not fossilize so any creature made up of soft tissues will almost certainly leave no trace.

Quote:
-are the laws of thermodynamics still recognized? the first law states that energy is not created, but changed or transferred- if this is true, wouldnt that mean that energy had to exist before the big bang, witch then transferred it into the visible universe?

Evolution has no bearing on the origin of the universe, nor do evolutionists claim that it does (except for a few crackpots probably)

Quote:
this also goes for the first living organism on earth or in the universe.. didnt it require some kind of 'life' to proceed it? or is the universe some kind of living creative field(which sounds a little bit like GOd)

Evolution never claimed to explain the origin of LIFE, merely the Origin Of Species, it is entirely possible that a creator kicked off the whole show, but evolution took over soon afterwards.

Quote:
-using our own experiences as an example, small changes to an ecosystem have pretty drastic effects, since everything is dependant on eachother to survive and function in harmony. that being said, how did all these species evolve seperately, yet randomly, and still manage to sustain this intricate balance of interdependence?

A timeframe that humans are not equipped to deal with.

Quote:
-supposedly 90-99% of mutations are negative changes, defects or abnormalities, or otherwise. if this is true, why are their no known mutations in the fossil record? by that i mean something that would contribute the to the 'missing link' of mankind

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The fossil record is rife with mutations, indeed a human skeleton from 6000 years ago is noticably different than a modern one.

Quote:
-how is a fossil formed? anything that dies above ground is subject to the elements, and would not likely have withstood the vast periods of time for sediment to cover(and still preserve)it, within a distinct geologic age. what is likely is a species(example) becomes rapidly inundated, such as in a flood or mudslide, with soil, water or debris, which would preserve the animal relatively intact.

peat bogs, tar pits, river deltas. This is why we aren't hip-deep in fossils, fossilization is an exceedingly rare occurence.

Quote:
there is evidence for this, since many fossils, allegedly from different eras, have been found within the same area of ground(google it).

And a competent geologist could probably explain every single one of them, the Earth is not static there are fossils of sea-life in the peaks of the Himalayas beacuse at one point they were at sea level.

Quote:
this casts a lot of doubts on dating methods, since carbon dating is only accurate up to a few hundred thousand years; without carbon dating, they are reduced to circular reasoning, arguing that the age of the fossil determines the earth, and vice versa

No, they are forced to use one of several other dating methods (isochron, for instance)

Quote:
the point in all this being that the earths age is far from being an established immutable truth

Certainly but we know it's older than young earth creationists believe.

Once again, virtually every arguement that creationists can come up with can be answered here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
a militant atheist? what does that mean? wheres Citizen when you need him?

Someone who is not shy to tell a non-atheist that they are wrong, someone who pushes atheism like a fundamentalist evangelical pushes creationism.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Jack ?
That's generally known as Pascal's Wager.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Heh... I'm taking it you don't agree with my way of thinking here. That's freedom, ain't it?

Thanks for the article. I really had no idea that there was already a name for this particular way of thinking. Just goes to show what I always say about none of us ever having an original thought.

Now, if we can all get past the part about him being French, I think it's a pretty sound theory. I'm not a gambler by trade, but I do play quite a bit of poker, and this just seems like the smart gamble to me.

I am in no way saying that I'm doing such a thing now. I don't buy in either scenario, though I won't deny their legitimacy either. I don't see why one should have to chose to believe in either, or the possibility of both. I won't go on living my life differently for either one. I'm just saying that perhaps in my old age, when my body has been failing me, if I still haven't seen anything that makes me believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, whether it has been scientifically proven that we evolved from animals or not, I will probably take the "Hell Avoidance Insurance".

As far as Mr. Science jerk-off is concerned, you're god damned right that evolution has no place in public schools. No God in public schools, no evolution in public schools... period. If you want to know about either, then pick up a book on your own damn time.

Don't even try to argue with me that you can't get a decent job without a knowledge of evolution. You know my real reason behind me saying that evolution does not belong in schools anymore than God does. Do not try to cleverly twist my words, because you look like a mindless shithead when you do.

As far as everybody believing in evolution except for Pakastan and America.... whatever. You're never going to prove that to me and I don't live there to know myself one way or the other. Even if this were the case, I would just tell you that it's because people in America and Pakastan aren't as easily shepparded around by the scientists and the elite who tell them what to think. Show me an entire country where every single citizen believes in either God or evolution and I will show you a country full of brainless slaves.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

YINYANG

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
if I still haven't seen anything that makes me believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist

No one can prove that, which is why science doesn't even touch the supernatural! Anything above the five senses is more or less speculation.

And, overall, science doesn't claim to know everything (or, anything, really, if you want to be deep*) - it merely tries to explain things as is observable and testable.

One last thing, and then you can proceed to eat me. There are always crazies. Just because the athiest scientists get the most hype - or whatever - doesn't mean there aren't plenty of religious ones (like my biology teacher in junior high, for example). Or, y'know, Catholics? Hasn't the pope or somebody given it the okay?

Knowledge, language, mathematics, etc. are tools, nothing more. The only real "truths" are what we percieve and accept.

*Are we really all just in the Matrix?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
No one can prove that, which is why science doesn't even touch the supernatural! Anything above the five senses is more or less speculation.

I don't think we as a species are nearly as smart as we give ourselves credit for. Surely science will never prove that there isn't a God. This is only something that you can decide for yourself, but I think that it's unfortunate that militant atheist pricks like Dawkin's are actively trying to make people lose their faith. I don't like people coming to my door telling me to find God either. Johova's Witnesses are notorious for that where I live.

Quote:
And, overall, science doesn't claim to know everything (or, anything, really, if you want to be deep*) - it merely tries to explain things as is observable and testable.

Perhaps Science doesn't claim to know everything, but it never thinks twice about trying to prove somebody wrong with its facts and theories and make them look like they're ignorant if they don't just buy something because the "experts" say it's true on a 10 second clip on the nightly news.

Quote:
One last thing, and then you can proceed to eat me. There are always crazies. Just because the athiest scientists get the most hype - or whatever - doesn't mean there aren't plenty of religious ones (like my biology teacher in junior high, for example). Or, y'know, Catholics? Hasn't the pope or somebody given it the okay?

I'm not aware of the Pope doing that, but I wouldn't be suprised. I see no reason why evolution couldn't have happened and it was simply the way that we explain how God has done it all from the start here. I think, considering this very valid possibility, the Pope has shown a lot of class by coming out and saying that it is possible for evolution and God to co-exist. My arguement is not against the science itself. My arguement is against Big Gov forcing it down everybodys throats and not allowing God to be taught in school at the same time. The whole thing just reeks of agenda. Read "Brave New World" and you might grasp what I'm trying to say here.

I feel that neither have place in a public, government sponsored, school. If you pay to go to a school that teaches evolution... then fine. My youngest brother is going to a science and math school for smart kids for his last 2 years of high school. It's pretty much him and a ton of Asians there. I'm sure he'll learn a lot about evolution there, but that's okay because it's his and my parents choice. If you want to pay to go to a religious school, more power too you. That is your choice as well.

Quote:
Knowledge, language, mathematics, etc. are tools, nothing more. The only real "truths" are what we percieve and accept.

I couldn't agree with you more. Well said.

Quote:
Are we really all just in the Matrix?

Another equally valid explanation for it all. Seriously. What the scientists and religious zealots fail to consider is the possibility that neither one of them are even close to being right.

I wouldn't dream of "eating" you..... unless you looked really tasty. :) I only snapped a bit earlier on somebody because they are rude with their replies and I don't take very kindly to that. Your post was nothing of the sort and I thank you for keeping a debate type approach rather than be condescending and accusatory.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:15 AM

Quote:
Perhaps Science doesn't claim to know everything, but it never thinks twice about trying to prove somebody wrong with its facts and theories and make them look like they're ignorant if they don't just buy something because the "experts" say it's true on a 10 second clip on the nightly news.

Um...that's what science is about...disproving false theories and proving correct ones. The media is frequently overzealous in its hyping of new theories and no one should take a 10-second clip as gospel, but ignorance is ignorance, if you've never taken a chemistry class you are likely ignorant of the principles of chemnistry, pointing that out is simply stating a fact.

Quote:
I'm not aware of the Pope doing that, but I wouldn't be suprised.

The last pope said something along the lines of that evolution is real and that science ans religion can co-exist.

Quote:
My arguement is not against the science itself. My arguement is against Big Gov forcing it down everybodys throats and not allowing God to be taught in school at the same time.

Um...science is science, by your reasoning we shouldn't be teaching physics, chemistry, geology etc. in school. Few people are FORCED to take a class that includes evolution, evolution is taught as part of biology because it is an integral part of biology, it is the foundation of modern biology and the glue that holds biology together. If you don't want to learn about evolution just avoid biology classes.

Religion is not a science and thus is not taught in science class, I have nothing against religious classes but they should be in social studies not science.

Quote:
The whole thing just reeks of agenda. Read "Brave New World" and you might grasp what I'm trying to say here.

I've read it and I don't get what you are saying, like I said before evolution is science and is therefore taught in science classes, it is no different than physics or chemistry (except that it's a bit harder to observe)

Quote:
I feel that neither have place in a public, government sponsored, school.

Evolution has a integral place in any classroom that teaches biology.

Quote:
What the scientists and religious zealots fail to consider is the possibility that neither one of them are even close to being right.

Actually scientists do consider that...frequently. Science is about disproving false theories, if evolution is wrong then eventually science will discover that and a new theory will take hold. However given the vast amount of evidence for evolution it is unlikely that anyone will be able to disprove it.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:34 AM

Quote:
Heh... I'm taking it you don't agree with my way of thinking here. That's freedom, ain't it?

Nope, but that's freedom, ain't it ?

I file this whole matter under the "WTFK" category.

As far as afterlives go, we don't know, we can't actually *know*, it's unpossible, so far as that goes ain't no sense in worrying about it, especially when some folk do so to the exclusion of here and now.

I figure of all the possible and potential afterlifes, were they all every bit as real as each other, it'd be Valhalla for me most probably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einherjar

And me being me, I'll probably try to feel up the Valkyrie when she comes to haul me off and get slapped silly for it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Are there any middle grounders out there like me, who enjoy a little from column A and a little from column B, and who are waiting for a column C to split the difference?"

Or is it very retarded of me to think this way?

I think it is a sign of intelligence to question everything.

I think it is pretty well established that micro-evolution is a fact. Those moths and bacteria and countless other populations have been observed directly to change their gene pools over time.

The debate really comes with MACRO-evolution. What do we REALLY know about what happened millions and billions of years ago? We have fossils and bones, geology and dating procedures. That's about it. We can extrapolate and make intelligent, educated guesses. But in the end, most of macro-evolution is speculation, and therefore debatable.

It is debatable whether life evolved out of some warm, wet soup, or out of semi-conducting rocks. It is still debatable whether humans evolved from some primate ancester or from an aquatic ancestor. It is still debatable whether macro-evolution occurs gradually or in sudden leaps following catastrophes. Some folks may say the body of knowledge is beyond these debates. But I say, how on earth do they KNOW for sure? Not a single one of us was there. It is all inference, and therefore subject to error.

I am religious, and I pretty much accept evolutionary theory. But I also know both belief systems rest on assumptions and I could very well be wrong on one or both counts.

Popular scientific opinion has changed enough times throughout history that we should know entire paradigms can be turned on their ears when just one assumption is proven wrong.

There is definitely room for all sorts of interesting twists in the coming evolution of evolutionary theory.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:42 AM

Quote:
Science good. Science the way. Science always right. No Science = Ignorance.

There's no winning with you people.

I'm going to file this under "WTFK" with Frem and let you uber-smart people can go on and disprove God for us. There's no way my undeveloped and ignorant brain can compete with or even keep up with your infinately superior brainpower.

So Pardon me while I take my leave now. I'm going to find me a monkey and get liquored up and start Devolving with it.

Edit: BTW... I saw your newest post Canttakethesky and I like it. Well said.

Frem feelin up the valkries.... that's cool. I wanna go to Valhalla too now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Science good. Science the way. Science always right. No Science = Ignorance.

What I was saying is that lack of knowledge is ignorance, it's a simple fact, I've never studied Art History, I am ignorant in the field of Art History, I have never studied Organic Chemistry, I am ignorant in the field of Organic Chemistry. Saying that someone who has never studied evolution is ignorant of evolution is simply stating a fact.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:50 AM

Yeah, well if I learn math, that information isn't going to change before I die.

They used to teach kids that the earth was flat in school at one point.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:50 AM

By the way, just out of curiosity why do you put a link to your myspace in your sig when it's set to private so that no one can see it?

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

They used to teach kids that the earth was flat in school at one point.

First, by the time that formal schools were built sailors had pretty much figured out that the Earth wasn't flat (from what I understand the extent of that belief was much smaller than is generally thought).

Second, like I said, when scientists discover new information that disproves old theories the old theories go away, some day we might hit the point where we truly know everything but that's a long way off.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By the way, just out of curiosity why do you put a link to your myspace in your sig when it's set to private so that no one can see it?

Sorry bout that. I never used to have it private, that's just recently. My friend is having a custody battle for his kid and the insane mom has been trying to friend me and talk to me on MySpace. I didn't want to give her ammo like bringing my profile to court and telling them that my friend has crazy friends like me. I'll remove the private when that's all over, but until then, maybe I should remove it from my sig.

'Course, you could always friend me if you wanted to know more.

As far as the whole school thing is concerned, I see my little brother who is only 12 years old who is convinced there is no god and has the spagetti monster up on his desktop. I don't think he has been around long enough to be making up his mind about such things, and I know for a fact that he is basing his decision not on researching the possibilities himself, but only making them based on the one sided information he gets at school and TV, compounded by the fact that the church has been in a horrible light since the kids have come out about preists molesting kids. This is my problem with evolution being taught in school, and I believe this is how we will all one day live in a world with only science, completely devoid of religion. Hence the "Brave New World" reference. It's like government is telling you to believe in one thing while completely sheilding you from another.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By the way, just out of curiosity why do you put a link to your myspace in your sig when it's set to private so that no one can see it?

Sorry bout that. I never used to have it private, that's just recently. My friend is having a custody battle for his kid and the insane mom has been trying to friend me and talk to me on MySpace. I didn't want to give her ammo like bringing my profile to court and telling them that my friend has crazy friends like me. I'll remove the private when that's all over, but until then, maybe I should remove it from my sig.

I always love it when I get dragged into other peoples problem...don't you? Good luck with that.

Quote:
As far as the whole school thing is concerned, I see my little brother who is only 12 years old who is convinced there is no god and has the spagetti monster up on his desktop. I don't think he has been around long enough to be making up his mind about such things, and I know for a fact that he is basing his decision not on researching the possibilities himself, but only making them based on the one sided information he gets at school and TV, compounded by the fact that the church has been in a horrible light since the kids have come out about preists molesting kids. This is my problem with evolution being taught in school, and I believe this is how we will all one day live in a world with only science, completely devoid of religion. Hence the "Brave New World" reference. It's like government is telling you to believe in one thing while completely sheilding you from another.

I understand where you are coming from, but evolution is the foundation of biology, you can't teach biology well without teaching evolution. Also evolution does not preclude religion, it just requires that religions adjust a little to fit the way the world works. The growth of knowledge through science explains away a great deal of what used to be in the realm of religion, whether this is good or bad depends on your opinion but the other option is suppression of knowledge, not usually something that should be aspired to.

As for religion in schools, as I said I have nothing agasint it as long as they are not taught as science. The problem is that teaching one religion to the exclusion of others is against the Constitution and isn't fair either. The only solution is to teach every religion or at least every major one, either way there would little time in a school year to learn any large amount about all the different religions without devoting an inordinate amount of time to it.

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 9, 2007 6:41 AM

Hey all,

I wanted to interject something.

Some people have said that evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

Others have said that religion shouldn't be taught in school.

When I was in school, I learned about philosophy. I learned about art. I learned about the religions of ancient Greece and Rome.

None of that helped me get a job, but all of it enriched my character.

I hate it when someone says that X shouldn't be taught at school.

We should be looking for ways to teach more things at school, not fewer things.

I'm still bummed they cut out Summer school.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:08 AM

"my little brother who is only 12 years old who is convinced there is no god ...I don't think he has been around long enough to be making up his mind about such things"

I was just a tad younger when I decided religion was a fraud.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I always love it when I get dragged into other peoples problem...don't you? Good luck with that.

Yeah... I hate it. I can't believe she had the nerve to contact me.

Funny thing.... reading that sentence, I thought you were refering to me dragging you into my problems. I had to read it a couple of times before I got it. So strange how when we write things the meanings can be so distorted from their original intentions. Easy to see how many avoidable fights get kicked off online.

Quote:
....Also evolution does not preclude religion, it just requires that religions adjust a little to fit the way the world works.

....the other option is suppression of knowledge, not usually something that should be aspired to.

...I have nothing agasint [religion in schools] as long as they are not taught as science.

Agreed, agreed and agreed.

This whole debate would be nullified in my eyes if the following conditions were met. I don't think they're all that unreasonable.

A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)

B) God (Allah/Buddah) be taught as a part of Social Studies, or Humanities and be given an equal amount of time devoted as evolution. If there are enough kids from non-christian religions at the school, they should also have time devoted to their religions as well. (We don't need PC laws telling us we need to teach the Koran to Christians and Athiests kids if there aren't any Muslims, and vice versa). The situation at each school will be unique and should be weighed accordingly.

C) Assholes like Dawkins don't get anymore spotlight. Dawkins is the Jesse Jackson of Evo/God. He exists simply to divide the two, enflame and enrage people and make sensational news stories. He's a big part of the reason why many religious people aren't going to accept evolution in the first place. I don't have a problem with somebody being Athiest. I have a problem with somebody telling everybody else about it and ramming it down their throats. Surely he's the main reason that my brother is an atheist at 12 years old, and he reads some of the most terrible passages of the Bible to people to show what a horrible person God was. At the same time he's never tried to actually read the bible. He pulls quotes off of the internet that people like Dawkins tell him to tell other people.

I think my Uncle said it best when he said "Let the homosexuals screw on the front steps of City Hall for all I care, I just don't need to hear about them everyday". I think that's advice that we could all live by.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:15 AM

BTW 6-string

You seem to think there is no downside to being non-scientific. That if there is a god you win but if there isn't you lose; whereas learning or not learning science is neutral.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a serious donwnside to not knowing science, and that is to be in a stagnant economy with low-paid jobs. Like Pakistan with its madrassa-educated population.

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:15 AM

OOOHHHH - I WIN ! I rolled a double!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"my little brother who is only 12 years old who is convinced there is no god ...I don't think he has been around long enough to be making up his mind about such things"

I was just a tad younger when I decided religion was a fraud.

Good for you Rue. I've decided quite a while ago from other posts that you are a government yes-man (woman?), and there's no suprise that you've made up your mind about this at such a young age. You come off as a very cold and robotic person and imagining a world in the future where all the kids grow up to be like you is very scary indeed.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:20 AM

"A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)"

I don't think science is creating the showdown. It's the religious folk who say 'my way or the highway.'

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)"

I don't think science is creating the showdown. It's the religious folk who say 'my way or the highway.'

This is because there is no religion in school and Science already won...

Next....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:23 AM

I keep most of my personal and professional life off of here for many reasons.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:24 AM

In all seriousness Rue, that is the most brilliant thing I've ever heard you say.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:28 AM

"This is because there is no religion in school and Science already won...

Next...."

There is no religion in school b/c, well, government funded-schools aren't supposed to teach religion. People can learn their religion from their church/ temple/ synagogue/ family/ whatever.

Bur science isn't taught in those places, so it's taught in schools. You know, science, that useful set of theories that makes your computer possible.

KHYRON

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:28 AM

Rue a government yes-woman? Lol. But I agree, a future where kids grow up to be questioning and independent thinkers would indeed be scary. We need more sheep.

I dismissed God when I found out there are no such things as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. It was a very traumatic day for me.

I think I was 21.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Rue a government yes-woman? Lol. But I agree, a future where kids grow up to be questioning and independent thinkers would indeed be scary. We need more sheep.

I dismissed God when I found out there are no such things as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. It was a very traumatic day for me.

I think I was 21.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Do you realize how rediculous you sound? You have closed your mind. Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind. Or vice versa. If you haven't been paying attention, I haven't made up my mind either way on any of this. To be a little kid and say there is no God is sad. I was probably around 19 when I stopped praying and now I don't know what I believe. But to come out and say that there is no God and then say you're not sheeple because of that belief is plain lunacy.

And Rue, evolution didn't do anything to make my computer work, unless of course, you're teaching the evolution of the typewriter to the modernday PC.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

KHYRON

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:37 AM

In that context, the "we need more sheep" comment was meant in reaction to your comment that it would be a scary future if kids grew up to be like rue.

But if you want to see it as a knock against believers, go ahead.

"To be a little kid and say there is no God is sad" - no, it was actually quite liberating. It meant I could finally be naughty without fearing any lightning bolts from above.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
In that context, the "we need more sheep" comment was meant in reaction to your comment that it would be a scary future if kids grew up to be like rue.

But if you want to see it as a knock against believers, go ahead.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Well, your post seemed very anti religious, so I really don't see how you expected me to think you meant anything differently.

Many apologies to Rue here if I made a mistake, and I will admit that I am a bastard if I am mixing up people here, but wasn't it Rue who not only said that we should all have mandatory vaccinations, but also that homosexuality is genetic and now that atheism = free thought.

Ohhh.... wait a minute. I see what's going on here. You aren't pro Government Rue. You're just a die-hard liberal. Well that makes all the difference.

I hate Demoncrats and Repuglicans alike. We can probably agree that George Bush will go down in history as our worst president ever. Anyone who comes in after him is going to look like gold. It's like singing karaokee after the worst singer in the bar goes. You're going to look good no matter how much you suck. Once the Demoncrats get back in they can resume selling our country out behind our backs so we aren't aware of it happening like Clinton did.

Rue stands for everything that is not free thinking. I don't see how believing that your sexuality is predetermined and you should have no input in wheather or not you or your children get vaccinations is any different than Christians who believe in predetermined destiny, other than it's the same approach from an opposite standpoint. That still ain't freedom. I'm willing to bet that you're an anti-smoke health Nazi too Rue. Prove me wrong here.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
"To be a little kid and say there is no God is sad" - no, it was actually quite liberating. It meant I could finally be naughty without fearing any lightning bolts from above.

Well that's fine. I do a lot of shit that would get me in a lot of trouble up there too, so I'd probably be pretty worried too. Sometimes your conscience alone ain't enough to keep people from doing wrong. Some much more wrong than others. I hope your gamble pays off for you. I'm surely not judging you here.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 9:10 AM

"And Rue, evolution didn't do anything to make my computer work, unless of course, you're teaching the evolution of the typewriter to the modernday PC."

Electrons - theories. Same for semi-conductors, orbitals, voltages and all the things that make your computer light up and run. The physics behind computers is no less theory than evolution.

I think what you're having a hard time with is when science is turned towards people - as in evolution. Which is an emotional reaction, as people would prefer to feel they're unique and prefectly free, and not governed by physical factors or happenstance.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 9:45 AM

Just tell me that you're an anti-smoke health Nazi Rue!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 9:58 AM

I don't care who smokes as long as I don't have to inhale it. Not b/c it's so damaging - both my parents smoked like chimneys and the damage is already done. I just can't abide the smell.

To paraphrase: your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my nose.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't care who smokes as long as I don't have to inhale it. Not b/c it's so damaging - both my parents smoked like chimneys and the damage is already done. I just can't abide the smell.

To paraphrase: your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my nose.

I really don't have any problem with that reply Rue. The smell is a much better reason to me than hearing that I'm killing you. My brother doesn't smoke yet he fights for smokers rights.

I dont' have a problem with the scene here at work. We have a smoke room and it's well ventilated. Contrary to non-smoker's beliefs, we don't smoke cigarettes to annoy non smokers. I think it's rediculous that many laws are being passed that don't allow somebody to smoke even in a smoke room in a building and even more outrageous that they have to walk out in the middle of the street because other laws say you can't smoke within 15 feet of a building. Especially when it's 10 degrees below like it is here now.

I have a problem with them telling us that we can't smoke in bars and I'm kind of torn on the resturants. I believe that this is just Big Gov coming into peoples businesses and telling them how to run them. Hell...even being a smoker I've entertained ideas of opening up a non-smoking club in downtown Milwaukee. I think I'd make a fortune off of it even while I have to duck outside of my own club to have a cigarette. I feel here that the market should decide. There would be smoking and non smoking clubs. It will be just like segregation of whites and blacks back in the day but everyone will be okay with it because everyone wins. They need to keep the hell out of it. 'aint their business, the way I see it.

And the $5, $6 even $10.00 a pack they're charging now due to taxes is a form of minority oppression.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

YINYANG

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:12 PM

I just have one thing to say for now: the government's trying to make us all athiest science-"worshippers"?

Hahahahahahaha!

Okay, funny time over. But, seriously - most people in the government, as most people in the world, follow some religion. They're the last people who would want to get rid of religion - and, in fact, it tends to make people easier to deal with if they're all united in belief. Theocracies were (are there still any left?) beasts of enormous strength. That would have been the second reason Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.

On an organized level, religion is mostly about power. On a personal level, I find religion to be a much nicer creature - Christians actually following Christ, and the like.

I'll come back to this when I don't have a malfunctioning mouse and have more time.

Rules and voting: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892

SAHARA

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:33 PM

The thing I like about your posts, Jack, is their consistency. Anyone who doesn't think like you and actually has the audacity to disagree with you even after you've so painstakingly and 'rationally' explained to them how wrong they are is a sheep and a government dupe that can't think for themselves.

Sweet.

Science and religion are not two sides of one coin. They are two very different coins. It's not an either or proposition. I would have no problem with my son learning about religion(s) in school. It just doesn't belong in science class.

And I've run into exponentially more religious people trying to convert me to their way of thinking than atheists.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

KHYRON

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution or God. It's very possible that either or both or neither was the case. I mentioned this in another thread and was asked, "How can you believe that maybe neither took place?" My answer to that is a resounding OPEN MIND. Maybe we DON'T have ANY of the answers. Anything we've heard about evolution is an educated guess at the very best.

You still haven't answered my question. Either the species we see today were made by god, or they evolved from other species. What other option is there? They just decided to exist one day? And don't give me that crap that maybe we don't have any answers, we have plenty of answers, just read a book on this stuff, or spend one minute on Google. Educated guess at best? So the fossil record is an educated guess? DNA analysis is an educated guess? Observed cases of microevolution are educated guesses?

For somebody who claims to have a "resounding open mind", you sure are closed off to any sort of evidence. Even worse, you seem to fully dismiss the need to accept evolution because you think scientists and "so-called enlightened individuals" are arrogant by telling others evolution is real. How is this a sign of an open mind? Dismissing scientific results out of hand because you don't like the proponents of the idea isn't a virtue. In fact, I think you dismiss most of the accepted results, on most topics, simply because you want to prove how much of an "independent thinker" you are by doing that, and by also constantly feeding us your anti-establishment garbage. This isn't a virtue either.

If you have a "resounding open mind", why don't you accept valid evidence when it's presented to you as valid evidence? Why say evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because you think it's not proven? Why say the children of religious parents shouldn't have to learn about evolution?

It's time to live up to your own hype, dude. At the moment you're just a deeply ignorant person telling everyone he's more open-minded than they are, and your routine is getting old.

EDIT: I see Sahara is already thinking along the same lines as I am.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)

Agreed, though I'm fairly sure that the anti-evolution people are worse than the pro-evolution people in this regard.

Quote:
B) God (Allah/Buddah) be taught as a part of Social Studies, or Humanities and be given an equal amount of time devoted as evolution. If there are enough kids from non-christian religions at the school, they should also have time devoted to their religions as well. (We don't need PC laws telling us we need to teach the Koran to Christians and Athiests kids if there aren't any Muslims, and vice versa). The situation at each school will be unique and should be weighed accordingly.

Sort of disagree, number one very few people are forced to take classes that include evolution (I never took biology and never heard the word evolution used in that context in school), and forcing people who take classes that include evolution to take religious classes IMO isn't right. At the same time forcing people who are taking a theology class to take classes in biology to learn about evolution isn't right either.

Number two, Theology classes should include a wide variety of religion, not just because of legal issues (teaching just one religion would be a clear violation of the Constitution), but also because a Theology class should be exactly that, a Theology class, not a Christianity class or an Islam class etc.

Quote:
C) Assholes like Dawkins don't get anymore spotlight. Dawkins is the Jesse Jackson of Evo/God. He exists simply to divide the two, enflame and enrage people and make sensational news stories. He's a big part of the reason why many religious people aren't going to accept evolution in the first place. I don't have a problem with somebody being Athiest. I have a problem with somebody telling everybody else about it and ramming it down their throats

I'll agree with this when I no longer have people insist that I'm not REALLY an atheist, that I don't really MEAN that I don't believe in God, etc. As far as I am concerned he is no worse than the people on the 700 club. Also, he is a scientist who publishes books about evolution, I agree that he should tone down his behavior a bit but his books (Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene etc) are highly nformative. I believe that his hard push for atheism hurts the acceptance of his information on evolution, but that's his business and it's his right to voice his opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
I don't think science is creating the showdown. It's the religious folk who say 'my way or the highway.'

This is exactly correct, while recently the situation has changed a little (Dawkins starting his crusade against religion, etc) throughout history Science has existed for the sole purpose of understanding the world, frequently this places it at odds with religion which wants to maintain the status quo (which used to have religion at the forefront of everyones mind). Early evolutionists rarely if ever attempted to use evolution to replace religion, they just observed that evolution happened and disseminated the knowledge. Religious people have been the antagonists throughout the history of evolution, and are usually the ones who insist that evolution is trying to replace religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind

True, but thinking beyond what you were taught as a child is.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
but wasn't it Rue who not only said that we should all have mandatory vaccinations,

We should, vaccinations keep health care costs down because for a small fee you can avoid a long hospital stay, also the more people who are infected with a disease the more likely that it will mutate into something worse, therefore it's in the best interests o

CITIZEN

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Call it whatever reasoning you'd like Cit. Seeing as how I don't buy into any of it myself, I find the entirety of the evolution argument specious, at best.

No, your reasoning WAS specious, whatever I call it is irrelevant. You said that Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process are equivalent, and even almost managed to pass it off as a reasonable assertion through word play, despite the fact that that assertion is clearly, to anyone who knows what they're talking about, complete and utter shit. The very definition of specious. Adversely disagreeing with evolution is not a grounds to call it specious reasoning, unless you really don't know what the term specious reasoning means.

Quote:
I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

Logical fallacy number one

Quote:
I'm quite impressed that with everything I said in that post, that this is all you had anything to say about. I must be getting better at this debate thing.

And logical fallacy number two.

Because I have not commented on every single bit of flawed reasoning in your post does not mean that you're reasoning is not flawed. Nor, as I suspect you attempt to imply, does the fact that I didn't reply blow by blow to every word in your post mean that anything I have to say on your post is irrelevant. Unless you're also willing to admit that nothing you say should be listened too or has any relevance whatsoever because you haven't replied to every word myself and every other poster here has ever seen fit too cast in to the virtual void.

It's fairly obvious you're not getting better at 'this debate thing' if anything it seems you're getting worse.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

YINYANG

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yeah, well if I learn math, that information isn't going to change before I die.

It would if somebody could prove that 1+1=3.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
This whole debate would be nullified in my eyes if the following conditions were met. I don't think they're all that unreasonable.

A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)

B) God (Allah/Buddah) be taught as a part of Social Studies, or Humanities and be given an equal amount of time devoted as evolution. If there are enough kids from non-christian religions at the school, they should also have time devoted to their religions as well. (We don't need PC laws telling us we need to teach the Koran to Christians and Athiests kids if there aren't any Muslims, and vice versa). The situation at each school will be unique and should be weighed accordingly.

In my experience, the ones doing the pressuring are conservative religious types. Besides, just because one is taught that evolution or creation are fact doesn’t mean they’ll accept it – it’s a personal decision that I don’t even think parents should be involved in.

(As an aside - I wish parents didn’t raise their children according to their religious or non-religious beliefs. I don’t mind philosophy, but having babies baptized and dragging four-year-olds to Sunday school bothers me.)

B) Actually, it’s an interesting thing – in my geography class last year, we learned about the major religions of each region (Hinduism and Buddhism for India; Christianity, Islam, and Jewish for other places) and how those beliefs helped to shape the cultures. Granted, it wasn’t a very good lesson, and I wish there was a theism class taught in public schools as well, but it is out there.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And the $5, $6 even $10.00 a pack they're charging now due to taxes is a form of minority oppression.

It's easier than outlawing cigarettes, and everybody involved in the decision makes a profit from it. Why wouldn't they charge so much?

Cigarette smoke is another form of air pollution. The smell gives me a headache, and I don't like breathing it in anymore than engine exhaust; but, banning people from smoking in their own homes? That’s something the neighbors, or the building owners, should take care of.

And, we expose ourselves to things equally as harmful all the time, from the foods we eat to the cars we drive. People seem to be too caught up in extending their life spans to actually live.

SAHARA

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

For somebody who claims to have a "resounding open mind", you sure are ignorant when it comes to any sort of evidence.

Yes, for such a "resounding open mind" things do seem to bounce off of it quite resoundingly. It's almost fun to throw things at it, just to hear them bounce off.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

BATTLESTARMINNESOTIA

Friday, February 9, 2007 10:41 PM

Mostly I wanted to compliment AnthonyT for is good thread and thoughtful (and glaringly compassionate) comment about teaching more--not less--in school

And Kudos to MRID for his excellent everview of evolution.

Personally, It's my opinion that the evolution war has been soundly won, and what we've seen with Intelligent Design "theory" and others is the intellectual equivalence of an insurgency--fanatical, scary, and almost impossible to stamp out. But that's okay.

The thing is that ID doesn't really DO anything besides validate a religious belief system. It doesn't really help explain life processes any better. So it's about protecting people's feelings, and that is for sure NOT science.

Truth be told, its the realm of COSMOLOGY--not biology--that really should be where God or a Designer is most aptly placed. Even Cosmologists will say they have now idea what "banged" the Big Bang. They have a few ideas but they are, like God, unprovable.

BSG-38 Minnesotia

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:24 PM

theres nothing scientific about speculation, especially when its imposed as truth. thats what evolution is.

interestingly, i watched this video of a creation/evolution debate, and suprisingly the evolutionist was inequipped to refute the so called 'scientific evidence', that life simply COULD NOT HAVE evolved on its own from nothing. maybe some of you around here can answer the questions that this particular evolutionist couldnt

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:

Personally, It's my opinion that the evolution war has been soundly won, and what we've seen with Intelligent Design "theory" and others is the intellectual equivalence of an insurgency--fanatical, scary, and almost impossible to stamp out. But that's okay.

whats ironic is there are a million things science doesnt know about our origins, but the junk theories that fill in the blanks are taken as gospel fact among you all... and then you claim this speculation, frankly philosophy, is hard science. its all just a little hypocritical to me.. if science is about what is proven and observable, then that leaves almost all of our origins in the 'theoretical' catagory.. not something you can flaunt as "proof"

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:32 PM

dbl post

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
interestingly, i watched this video of a creation/evolution debate, and suprisingly the evolutionist was inequipped to refute the so called 'scientific evidence', that life simply COULD NOT HAVE evolved on its own from nothing. maybe some of you around here can answer the questions that this particular evolutionist couldnt

Evolution was never meant to explain the origin of LIFE but rather the Origin Of Species. Neither Darwin nor anyone with a firm grasp of evolution claim that evolution explains how life originated, there are many plausible theories around such as proteins forming into self replicating groups or RNA strands mutating into self-replicating formats, but no one knows for sure.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:42 PM

anti "I know nothing about science yet I feel justified telling people what is and what is not scientific" mason:
The bible is metaphorical you arse, get over it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:52 PM

just pointing out the double standard Citizen- its only science when it proves your theory, if it somehow suggests otherwise it gets thrown away as "religious dogma". i didnt hear any answeres to his questions, nothin but a lot of theoretical garbage- no direct scientic rebuttals. maybe he was a bad candidate to present the strictly evolutionist viewpoint, but i would like to have seen the counter evidence

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
just pointing out the double standard Citizen- its only science when it proves your theory, if it somehow suggests otherwise it gets thrown away as "religious dogma". i didnt hear any answeres to his questions, nothin but a lot of theoretical garbage- no direct scientic rebuttals. maybe he was a bad candidate to present the strictly evolutionist viewpoint, but i would like to have seen the counter evidence

Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis, evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being. Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, so therefore he wouldn't have bothered to brush up on the topic.

The lack of ability to answer a question that is outside the scope of the arguement does not invalidate the arguement.

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
just pointing out the double standard Citizen- its only science when it proves your theory, if it somehow suggests otherwise it gets thrown away as "religious dogma". i didnt hear any answeres to his questions, nothin but a lot of theoretical garbage- no direct scientic rebuttals. maybe he was a bad candidate to present the strictly evolutionist viewpoint, but i would like to have seen the counter evidence

No, you're not pointing out the double standard. You WANT it to be a double standard because that validates your position so that's what you see, but it's not there. Science is based on evidence, you come up with a theory then test it. All this BS about ID and creationism being theories is merely the desperate straw grabbing by people who aren't content with religion filling it's niche but want to shoe horn it into everyone elses too.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE