A big problem for Evolution?

[the_unda_doggz]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Hey, stretchy... You mentioned a lot of religious terms in there, such as ''Jesus Christ, God's sake...etc.'' Just wondering... What religiong (if any) are you?

[Squeek]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Stretchy and Guido are both religious folks.

That doesn't mean they can't accept evolution or the big bang or whatever.

If all religious people blindly followed faith then we'd have very little scientific progress in the world.

It'd be like "hey i wonder what caus--" "jesus did it"

[the_unda_doggz]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Not trying to offend anyone, but I am not religious and believe in evolution.


Also, I can poop standing up sometimes. ^_^

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Mutations can cause changes, sure, but the point is that they cannot add information If humans did evolve from fish or whatever it is scientists are claiming nowaday, where would that information come from? Did the fish always have the ability to be humans? Or even go back to the single-celled organisms that evolutionists claim started everything. Single-celled organisms with just a few chromosomes multiplied their current DNA and/or added new chromosomes to eventually grow arms, legs, complicated organ systems, create ecosystems fully interdependant on its own creatures? One more point on this topic: If those single-celled organisms were only rearranging and losing information for, what, 6.4 billion years? (they keep changing that), don't you think that after 6,400,000,000 years they would have lost what little information they have and be down to one or two genes? Instead, evolutionists claim that they did, in fact, increase their information quite a bit, grow, and sprout arms and legs. [I, for one, would not want to be the in-between creature with legs, gills, and no arms.]

Problems with DNA aside, it seems very unlikely that co-dependant creatures could have evolved on their own. If they need each other to survive, how did they evolve in the first place? Also, take your organs. Many of them would be completely useless without all the data that they contain. Your liver could not fuction at all with some DNA gone. Your heart, depending on what was missing, would be severely cripped or would not work.

Suggested reading material: This with respect to this, since you clearly don't understand very simple concepts of natural laws.

The things you bring up (like the thing with gills and legs but no arms) are just retarded if you A) really think they happened and B) don't disprove a single thing.

You're just showing insurmountable ignorance if you actually think that you're giving legitimate arguments against evolution. Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor and go read a book by Michael Shermer or something.

If those single-celled organisms were only rearranging and losing information for, what, 6.4 billion years? (they keep changing that)

Is that a bad thing that that number keeps getting changed? No, not at all. You know why? BECAUSE SCIENCE IS SELF-CORRECTING! Is it such a stretch to understand that as we get more technological, develop better systems of dating, and compile more and more data that we're going to get more and more accurate?

"Hey, did you hear about the new development in quantum physics?"
"Pfft, like there's any weight to that. First light travels through the aether, THEN electricity and magnetism are the same thing, and THEN there's no such thing as relative time? Clearly physicists are so unsure of what's actually happening that there's no credibility to what they say."

That's exactly what you're sounding like, ddrkid.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[stretchypanda]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

On a slightly related note that doesn't send me into a rage, I recently learned that whales have at least traces of a pelvis and femur.

I thought that was cool.

[evilbutterfly]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I don't see why people have such a hard time not at least considering that maybe evolution is just God's vessel for intelligent design. Hell, there is no scientific anything explaining why anything exists, so it's not like they're trying to disprove God. Science and faith don't have to be mutually exclusive. =\

I'd say a huge problem is that most religious people completely shut down in biology class when they're taught about evolution. The majority of Christian people I've talked to don't seem to understand at all the basic concepts of evolution that they should've learned early in high school. I heard a senior in high school say "well if evolution is real, then you'd see apes giving birth to human babies!!" I was shocked that anybody could know so little about what evolution is. =\

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Science and faith don't have to be mutually exclusive. =\

They aren't. By definition, they cannot overlap.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Tisthammerw]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

By the way, I feel the need to mention this anytime someone talks about Evolution. Evolution is a fact. It merely denotes that species have changed over time, which is incredibly obvious to even the youngest of children.

If that is how you define evolution, then even creationists accept evolution. The debatable part is if macroevolution (evolution of new basic types) can happen. Everyone accepts microevolution (evolution within basic types).

This is where Natural Selection and Intelligent Design come into play.

The reason scientists continue to pursue the truth is because accepting Intelligent Design means there's no reason to study anything.

That's not true at all. Intelligent design says that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of some aspects of biology (e.g. origin of life, the creation of basic types--it varies depending on the theory). Whether ID (intelligent design) is a true theory in biology, there's clearly nothing inherently wrong with the concept of design itself. Many artifacts are certainly designed, but that doesn't imply "there's no reason to study anything." Similarly, if ID were true in biology (e.g. origin of life) the "there's no reason to study anything" wouldn't hold true either. The best way to falsify ID theory is to demonstrate (or argue) that natural processes can do the job and thus a designer isn't needed.

Science is the study of things. To say "well, the solution is that it's something we can't understand no matter how hard we try" is against the rules of science. So, no matter what, this is going to stick around for a long, long time.

Sometimes naturalistic processes have to be rejected in favor of design. Imagine a geologist claiming the design theory for Stonehenge "goes against the rules of science" and thus we should instead accept the natural-origins theory instead.

[Tisthammerw]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I don't see why people have such a hard time not at least considering that maybe evolution is just God's vessel for intelligent design.

You have to understand that some people are intellectually convinced that evolution (in its current form) is not a scientifically satisfactory theory. Take for instance the biochemist Michael Behe. He is a Catholic and used to accept evolution, until he did some digging after he read an anti-evolution book and became intellectually convinced that certain aspects of evolution did not hold water. I'm not a biochemist and thus cannot evaluate the soundness of his arguments, but Behe is hardly alone in rejecting evolution on the basis of (perceived) scientific reasons, instead of religious ones (as a Catholic, Behe has no religious objection to evolution at all). Some of those in the minority (who accept intelligent design over orthodox evolution) have advanced degrees from prestigious universities in relevant areas. They are the minority however, and we might have to wait a while to see where this goes.

Some people have the image of scientists who are willing to immediately abandon a theory if it's shown to be defective. In real life that doesn't happen if the theory in question is a deeply rooted paradigm. That's why I say we might have to wait.

I'd say a huge problem is that most religious people completely shut down in biology class when they're taught about evolution. The majority of Christian people I've talked to don't seem to understand at all the basic concepts of evolution that they should've learned early in high school. I heard a senior in high school say "well if evolution is real, then you'd see apes giving birth to human babies!!" I was shocked that anybody could know so little about what evolution is. =\

It is indeed unfortunate. However, there are a very large number of misconstruals of creationism as well. I recommend you read Del Ratzsch's Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. It's probably the best available book on the controversy.

[TheTypist]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

O come on... I mean, maybe I just went to an awesome public school, but I thought it was pretty easy to listen in biology and learn what they had to say, even if I don't go for macroevolution.

Combining God and evolution would mean that the six days represented a really long amount of time. Except, it says on the seventh day, God rested. It indicates that Creation was finished. Yet, evolution is on an ongoing thing, so...

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

That's not true at all. Intelligent design says that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of some aspects of biology (e.g. origin of life, the creation of basic types--it varies depending on the theory). Whether ID (intelligent design) is a true theory in biology, there's clearly nothing inherently wrong with the concept of design itself. Many artifacts are certainly designed, but that doesn't imply "there's no reason to study anything." Similarly, if ID were true in biology (e.g. origin of life) the "there's no reason to study anything" wouldn't hold true either. The best way to falsify ID theory is to demonstrate (or argue) that natural processes can do the job and thus a designer isn't needed.

The problem with creationism is that it's not science. If we reject mountains of evidence in favor of a scientific construct, then what's next? Reverting back to geocentrism?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Squeek]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I swear I said this before.

Intelligent Design and Natural Selection are in the same category: explanations of HOW evolution took place.

EVOLUTION IS A FACT. CREATIONISTS AND SCIENTISTS ALIKE AGREE ON THIS. THE MEANS BY WHICH IT OCCURRED IS WHAT IS UNDER DEBATE.

Also, why are you trying to disprove it? What is there to study with Intelligent Design? Seriously, what? Wanna find out who the creator was? Too bad since they all exist outside of our concept of existance. Intelligent Design just means "ok we give up lets just assume it was divine intervention" Pursuing something else (science) means "ok maybe it was divine intervention and maybe it wasn't. let's look into this and see what we can find out"

[T3hDDRKid]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Alright, I don't have time to formulate a full response, but I guess I have to make a few things clear.

1. I know that there wasn't really an in-between creature with legs, no arms, and gills. I was kidding, because I was getting to the end of a tiring response and wanted a mental image to make me smile [just the thought of that thing running around, trying to scream with no mouth makes me laugh.]

2. I know the basis of evolution isn't "fish evolving into humans", I was just generalizing and apparently shouldn't have. My point in that respect was that I can't see how single-celled organisms with minimal life processes could gain information to become complicated organisms.

3. Squeek: Evolution is a fact, but we're talking macroevolution here, which is a theory and not proven [just as Tist said.]

[Tisthammerw]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

The problem with creationism is that it's not science.

Is creationism science? Or put it more precisely, is creationism a genuinely scientific theory? It might depend on how you define creationism. Some forms of creationism make no reference to deities or the supernatural. Why think those versions are not genuinely scientific theories? The best reason to reject is that creationist theory fits the category of being “scientific” but the evidence does not support it as well as orthodox evolution.

If we reject mountains of evidence in favor of a scientific construct, then what's next?

What's interesting about the debate is that empirical evidence does not announce what it is evidence for—the empirical data has to be interpreted. So the question becomes, who wins the game of inference to the best explanation? Oddly, both sides can look at the same set of data and both creationists and evolutionists will say the data overwhelmingly support their side (e.g. fossil evidence--apparent fossil order versus systematic gaps).

[Tisthammerw]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I swear I said this before.

Intelligent Design and Natural Selection are in the same category: explanations of HOW evolution took place.

Well, it depends on the form of intelligent design. Some ID adherents (like probably Behe) probably would combine the two. Others, like Gary E. Parker, might fall into the other extreme.

What is there to study with Intelligent Design? Seriously, what?

One could analyze why intelligent causes are necessary to create the said aspect of life that allegedly needs artificial intervention, e.g. catalog irreducibly complex biochemical machines (if any exist), labeling their parts, and conduct tests to see if they really are irreducibly complex (remove a part, see if the system effectively ceases to function). Alas, one of the weaknesses of the intelligent design movement is the paucity of experimental research.

Intelligent Design just means "ok we give up lets just assume it was divine intervention"

Why think that artificial intervention entails the supernatural? Surely we could some day artificially create life without the need of the supernatural.