A big problem for Evolution?

[Sword_of_Gardenia]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I'm still not convinced, there are just too many unanswered questions and outrageous ideas involved with evolution in my opinion. I can't say that I buy the "white fur" example. Unless chromosomes can think, I don't understand what/who would decide that being white is successful, a good idea and that all animals up north should be white, or what would cause them to make a connection between being white and being safe. Interesting thought on the frog, though I still think frogs are frogs and always will be.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I'm still not convinced, there are just too many unanswered questions and outrageous ideas involved with evolution in my opinion. I can't say that I buy the "white fur" example. Unless chromosomes can think, I don't understand what/who would decide that being white is successful, a good idea and that all animals up north should be white, or what would cause them to make a connection between being white and being safe. Interesting thought on the frog, though I still think frogs are frogs and always will be.

Um...are you serious? Being successful means not dying.

And das1ngerplayer, nearly everything you've said absolutely boggles my mind with its ridiculousness.

I love evolution, but coming back to these threads is masochism. I'm sorry.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Okay, maybe I got a couple of threads confused, so I'll just give a quick rundown of some points.

First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution?

1: When we look at a creature right now, we don't think, "Oh, that organ or piece of flesh is probably an intermediate stage of something evolving in the future!" No, we say things like, "Well, that thing is good for dissipating heat, navigating through water, or breaking down a certain molecule."

2: No matter how many time a hole is filled, two more open up. You can CONSTANTLY ask for creatures that fill every hole there is, but they will always be there; that argument doesn't hold water. If we have 1 and three, and you question the hole between them, 2 can be found to fill that hole, but then you just ask about the holes between 1 and 2 and 2 and 3. When 1.5 and 2.5 are found, you've got four holes to claim need to be plugged!

A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature?

3: A half of a wing might have been a terrible wing, but a really good heat dissipator or something else.

4: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...18#post1159218

If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing.

Yeah. There are, and some have been observed, despite the great lengths of time over which evolution occurs. We shouldn't be observing any, but we got lucky.

Secondly, at what point did organisms start reproducing and to start needing another organism to reproduce another?

Since before life even existed. Both metabolism and selection were around before life was (and they were the precursors to life). Cycles and systems adapted to their environments and fed off of other systems to best degrade energy and thus to "survive".

It's evolution I have a problem with, and what I don't consider "true science" as nothing can be proven.

This quote just shows that you don't know what science is. Science is happy to admit that nothing can ever be proven, but it also appreciates the fact that more and more evidence can allow us to be more and more sure about our claims, which is what is happening with evolution. It's got SO much evidence behind it that it's been elevated to the level of scientific theory.

As such, evolution is a great example of what "true" science is! A hypothesis was developed hundreds of years ago, and it's been tested, tested, revised, tested, tested, revised, and tested and revised some more over all that time, and it's STILL being confirmed (in general, not to the letter of Darwin's original hypothesis, of course).

Again though, there is no proof the creatures did evolve. Science has evidence that they say proves it and believers of the Bible say they have proof.

There is a mountain of proof that creatures did evolve.

Also, your second sentence is unclear, here. Scientists say, yes, that they have proof, and they do. Believers of the Bible don't have proof; they have faith.

If you're going to support creation science, then your ground is about as stable as grits. Creation scientists' proof is wishy-washy at best and frequently purveyed by very disreputable people. That is, if it hasn't already been debunked (which most of it has). A mountain of evidence versus a handful of evidence isn't really a fair comparison.

You're right, though, in that we don't know what really happened. We could have all been put on this earth yesterday, just with full memories of lives that didn't happen. But what's the point of studying that? Science is about studying evidence and drawing conclusions about what most likely happened.

Science has done just that with evolution, and even if it may not have been what happened up until now, to say that anything else has a firm base of evidence is intellectual dishonesty.

Also: I think studying what happens with species over the next hundred or thousand years will give us a very good look at what probably happened in the past.

EDIT (ninja'd):

Unless chromosomes can think, I don't understand what/who would decide that being white is successful, a good idea and that all animals up north should be white, or what would cause them to make a connection between being white and being safe.

Uh, as I mentioned above, nonliving systems frequently "think" and adapt to the best gradient-reducing system. Selection is apparent in nonliving systems, too. Water doesn't "think" it needs to shift to a convection system and form hexagonal convection cells, it just does.

And like Meanie said, there doesn't even NEED to be any "thinking". If white bears are hidden more to predators, they're the ones that live long enough to pass on their white fur genes.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Sword_of_Gardenia]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Um...are you serious? Being successful means not dying.

And das1ngerplayer, nearly everything you've said absolutely boggles my mind with its ridiculousness.

I love evolution, but coming back to these threads is masochism. I'm sorry.

I know it means they didn't die...lol pretty aware of that. And seriously, if you're gonna complain about how much it pains you to come to these threads why bother with them.

[das1ngerplayer]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

[QUOTE]

There is a mountain of proof that creatures did evolve.

Also, your second sentence is unclear, here. Scientists say, yes, that they have proof, and they do. Believers of the Bible don't have proof; they have faith.

If you're going to support creation science, then your ground is about as stable as grits. Creation scientists' proof is wishy-washy at best and frequently purveyed by very disreputable people. That is, if it hasn't already been debunked (which most of it has). A mountain of evidence versus a handful of evidence isn't really a fair comparison.

You're right, though, in that we don't know what really happened. We could have all been put on this earth yesterday, just with full memories of lives that didn't happen. But what's the point of studying that? Science is about studying evidence and drawing conclusions about what most likely happened.

Science has done just that with evolution, and even if it may not have been what happened up until now, to say that anything else has a firm base of evidence is intellectual dishonesty.

Also: I think studying what happens with species over the next hundred or thousand years will give us a very good look at what probably happened in the past.

This is really pointless but I'll say it anyways. Science has no more proof then the Bible does. Scientists say they have proof and other people may believe them. People who belive in the Bible don't think their ides are correct, they think the scientisst ideas are false. The same goes vice versa. That is what I mean by my second sentence.

I'm not saying science doesn't have a firm base. I believe a lot of science and it's very hard to argue with a lot of it because there's not much else to say. But the Bible goes the same way. There are many facts in the Bible that relate to real objects in our life. Denying either is not very smart. No matter what happens in the coming years there isn't as much a way to disprove the Bible as you can science. If in the coming years nothiong happens in terms of evolution, who knows, that theory may be taken away. As for the Bible you can't disprove that, its basis is very different from a science view but the Bible does cross reference with science many times. Take the dinosaurs for example. Both science and the Bible say they are true meaning something about the Bible makes it true and not a made up story. As for science, it tells us something happened in the past we cannot explain.

[Reach]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Urg.

If you've ever gotten sick you indirectly admit to the fact that evolution is true. If evolution was false then noone would ever get sick. It is absolutely impossible to argue the grounds of Microevolution being false. The debate over macroevolution is usually one of semantics and usually leads to irrelevancies when talking about evolution itself, since the premise (that things evolve) is always going to be true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

tons of evolution evidence. 29+ evidences, actually, that address a lot of things being argued here.

This is really pointless but I'll say it anyways. Science has no more proof then the Bible does. Scientists say they have proof and other people may believe them. People who belive in the Bible don't think their ides are correct, they think the scientisst ideas are false. The same goes vice versa. That is what I mean by my second sentence.

You've got to be kidding me, right? Who has filted this nonsense into your head? Science doesn't make any claims without first providing lots of evidence. Theories are not the same as ideas. You don't 'believe' that science is true; you study things and find evidence to suggest with a high degree of certainty that something is true.

Charles Darwin did not just sit down one day and write the origin of species. Charles Darwin was a scientist that spent a large chunk of his life studying his theory and providing evidences for it. I don't see any whit of evidence that went into crafting anything religion related that pertains to this subject, so don't compare religion and science like they are equals. Stop saying that religious people can ignore science on the same ground scientists can ignore the bible, because the grounds are not even remotely close to being level.

And there are no 'facts' in the bible that are even remotely related to science. Stop talking about the bible like it is to be taken seriously as a form of evidence.

Also, had you actually read the bible you would probably realize how genocidal and atrocious it is. It is filled with stone age ideologies...obviously, as it reflects the time period in which it was written.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

EDIT: balls, ninja'd by Reach...

Science has no more proof then the Bible does.

...

The Bible is one book that never has changed, never will change, and has maybe a few verses that could be stretched to have anything to do with evolution. Science, on the other hand, has volumes upon volumes of evidence for evolution and ONLY evolution, and is continually being revised and augmented. Where you get the idea that the Bible and science have comparable amounts of evidence for this one idea is beyond me.

Scientists say they have proof and other people may believe them.

Nonono, scientists DO have proof, by the very definitions of proof and evidence.

People who belive in the Bible don't think their ides are correct, they think the scientisst ideas are false.

Remember that comment about your grammar being so poor that what you say comes across as unclear? Yeah, "their" has an unclear antecedent. I presume you mean the pronoun to refer to evolutionists, but who knows; you've switched sides on your points before and said some otherwise ridiculous things...

First of all, you seem to think that scientists and people who believe in the Bible are mutually exclusive groups, which they're not.

Secondly, the latter group only has faith that the former's theories are incorrect. No proof versus a mountain of proof, again.

But the Bible goes the same way.

No, no it doesn't. The Bible has never executed scientific tests or anything like that. Sure, it says some things that human observation could note, so some things it says are scientifically legitmate. However, the very basis of the Bible, God, is a scientific construct. Parting rivers? Eternally burning bushes? So many things in the Bible are scientifically impossible that it CANNOT be used as a source of scientific information. Cannot.

I would have JUST as much proof for my idea that nucleons are made up of elves as whatever the Bible might say about it. Science, however, has PLENTY of proof that they're made up of other things, likely quarks.

Denying either is not very smart.

Wrong. It is scientifically HEALTHY for the knowledge of the world to deny constructs when trying to explain a phenomenon.

If we DON'T deny the Bible, then "God must have done it" could be used as an explanation for EVERYTHING, and science would go NOWHERE. That is UNHEALTHY.

As for the Bible you can't disprove that

You're right, but you can't prove it, either. And if we can't prove what it says, we can't rely on it for information, because it might be wrong.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reach]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Maybe a double dose will finally hammer it into his head deep enough for him to understand it.

[das1ngerplayer]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

A few more things to add since you don't understand what I'm saying.

Orininally Posted by GuidoHunter
The Bible is one book that never has changed, never will change, and has maybe a few verses that could be stretched to have anything to do with evolution. Science, on the other hand, has volumes upon volumes of evidence for evolution and ONLY evolution, and is continually being revised and augmented. Where you get the idea that the Bible and science have comparable amounts of evidence for this one idea is beyond me.

Yes, science is changing. It's changes so often one idea that is fact in this time could be fiction in the future. How do we know that once technology advances scientists could prove evolution to be false? The fact is we don't know. Who knows, maybe there will be some way to prove the Bible true.

Nonono, scientists DO have proof, by the very definitions of proof and evidence.

Proof that scientists or athiests think is true, others may not. I can say the same thing for the Bible.

No, no it doesn't. The Bible has never executed scientific tests or anything like that. Sure, it says some things that human observation could note, so some things it says are scientifically legitmate. However, the very basis of the Bible, God, is a scientific construct. Parting rivers? Eternally burning bushes? So many things in the Bible are scientifically impossible that it CANNOT be used as a source of scientific information. Cannot.

I would have JUST as much proof for my idea that nucleons are made up of elves as whatever the Bible might say about it. Science, however, has PLENTY of proof that they're made up of other things, likely quarks.

I never said all of it was realistic. There are many parts in the Bible I find hard to believe but I do anyway. As for the things that do relate, it gives the Bible a basis for saying both it and science can be true.

Wrong. It is scientifically HEALTHY for the knowledge of the world to deny constructs when trying to explain a phenomenon.

If we DON'T deny the Bible, then "God must have done it" could be used as an explanation for EVERYTHING, and science would go NOWHERE. That is UNHEALTHY.

It's not good to deny either the Bible or science. If you deny one you become blind to the other. That doesn't help when your trying to argue about it, which in your case you be the Bible.

You're right, but you can't prove it, either. And if we can't prove what it says, we can't rely on it for information, because it might be wrong.

I'm not saying you can prove either to be true, I'm just stating both science and the Bible are opinions on what we think is correct.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[das1ngerplayer]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Originally Posted by Reach
If you've ever gotten sick you indirectly admit to the fact that evolution is true. If evolution was false then noone would ever get sick. It is absolutely impossible to argue the grounds of Microevolution being false. The debate over macroevolution is usually one of semantics and usually leads to irrelevancies when talking about evolution itself, since the premise (that things evolve) is always going to be true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

tons of evolution evidence. 29+ evidences, actually, that address a lot of things being argued here.

I realize there are micro-organisms existing that keep us alive. My point is how do you know they came from evolution or God? Yes you'd most likely say science has evidence they come from evolution but is it actually proven? Is it still possible for evolution to still be disproved? Yes.

You've got to be kidding me, right? Who has filted this nonsense into your head? Science doesn't make any claims without first providing lots of evidence. Theories are not the same as ideas. You don't 'believe' that science is true; you study things and find evidence to suggest with a high degree of certainty that something is true.

Charles Darwin did not just sit down one day and write the origin of species. Charles Darwin was a scientist that spent a large chunk of his life studying his theory and providing evidences for it. I don't see any whit of evidence that went into crafting anything religion related that pertains to this subject, so don't compare religion and science like they are equals. Stop saying that religious people can ignore science on the same ground scientists can ignore the bible, because the grounds are not even remotely close to being level.

And there are no 'facts' in the bible that are even remotely related to science. Stop talking about the bible like it is to be taken seriously as a form of evidence.

Also, had you actually read the bible you would probably realize how genocidal and atrocious it is. It is filled with stone age ideologies...obviously, as it reflects the time period in which it was written.

My evidence is the Bible, there isn't much I can do to make you read it and actually try to understand what I think. I know there are genocidal stories in the Bible. Just because it's old does not mean it is in any ways false. I'm aware what science has out about evolution. But in my shoes, I don't think science has many 'facts' to prove evolution.

I'll say it again though, I agree with many things science has to say, evolution is not one of them. At many points the Bible and science do cross reference. Unless you are completely anti-God then you know how the two are both related. For someone who doesn't read the Bible or even try to listen to the Bible then that person does not know how the two tie into eachother. If you learn evidence for both sides of this arguement you can actually say the Bible and science are both true in ways. Depending on how far you go either way may depend on what you agree with but it is IMPOSSIBLE to deny the Bible or science.

Think about it before you make some biased comment supporting only science and evolution. (FYI, you are annoying me just as much as I may be annoying you.)

[T3hDDRKid]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I love evolution, but coming back to these threads is masochism. I'm sorry.

Ugh! He hit it right on the spot. I saw this thread, thought, "Hmm, I completely forgot about that." I came back, read what was going on, felt like throwing up. I love creation, but coming back to these threads is masochism. If anybody, creationist, evolutionist, or those unsure want to talk to me about it, I have no problem talking to you, and will probably enjoy talking to you. However, posting in a thread like this and getting gang-raped by those that say I'm wrong is not fun.

[talisman]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Remember that time where you said that no information could be added to DNA and you were completely incorrect?

[EternalWrath]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Now, I'm not in college yet, so I don't have much experience in the field of evolution besides high school biology. Also, I am much more interested in physics over biology, so I probably wouldn't be able to add to this discussion much anyway, but here goes...

In school we discussed the possibility (nothing is certain in science, not even gravity or time) of discovering the origin of the universe through physics. Something to do with how black holes contributed to the gravitational field of the universe and how it wouldn't exist without it, and how that fits into the big bang theory. We didn't go into much detail about it, but I believe that if we can discover how the universe was formed via physics, it might provide evidence one way or another for traditional evolution or intelligent design. I don't believe creationism is true, but I'm more agnostic than atheist.

I agree with Jewpin that evolution is not proven. We don't know. I bet most of you would agree that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory of relativity. Wrong. Recently, and I mean VERY recently, scientists were able to accelerate an electron to a speed faster than that of the speed of light. Do I believe this? I'm not sure, but it opens up a lot of doors and introduces many questions. I also question many of you as to the scientific definition of gravity. I'm sure with the intelligence I have perceived here that many of you know it, but since the debate centers around biology and not physics, but is entering the realm of science versus religion in general, I think it is fair game to ask.

So I don't have much else to add to the discussion, aside from how the big bang theory relates to the theory of evolution, and how both theories are being remodeled constantly to fit the needs of both of them. And with that I'm off to find a thread that interests me more, possibly in the area of string theory or brane theory.

[Reach]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I agree with Jewpin that evolution is not proven. We don't know. I bet most of you would agree that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory of relativity. Wrong.

This isn't new at all. As far as I know Einstein and others found faster than light solutions to relativity a long time ago, and they have been explained.

More recently, they have shown you can use things like quantum entanglement to move massless particles faster than light, or they have shown you can use cesium gas to make light get from the end of one tube to another faster than light would normally...however, there is some confusion here. The phase velocity at no point ever exceeds the speed of light. Actually, they still move at the same ol velocity predicted by relativity; light speed.


So essentially the photon/particle/electron never moves from one point to another faster than it does normally. They're manipulating other variables here to make it look like its going faster than light from our perspective. More specifically, this involves manipulating the path upon which the particles are moving.

Oh yea, relativity says nothing about massless particles being able to go faster than light, either. The light speed limit only applies to mass. Also, it is entirely possible to move from point A to point B instantaneously as far as I know, but in this case I don't think the particles, relative to themselves, are moving any faster than they would normally.

[EternalWrath]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Touche. Perhaps I misunderstood the source, or the source itself was misleading, but it led me to believe that the electron really could go faster than the speed of light, which would alter our very knowledge of time as we know it. But, that is a topic for another thread. Resume the discussion of evolution.