A big problem for Evolution?

[T3hDDRKid]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

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).

That is very true, actually. Evolutionists will look at coal and say it takes millions of years to form, whereas creationists will point out that it is possible [and has been observed] for coal to be created in a matter of days under extreme pressure [such as the pressure that would be produced by a worldwide flood, for example.

[Armadegon]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Well If you think about it this random mutation generator is not a good representation of evolution observe:

If you change 1 gene then a sentence

Evolution is not a myth
turns into
Evolution is no a myth

and if it's a reccesive gene it will change back anyway. My point is that it does not make as signifagant difference. And if you ignore the gramatical error in my sentance then it even means the same thing!

[lord_carbo]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

You know, I haven't been taking this thread seriously up until now... and I'm still not. I do have a semi-serious question for DDRKid, though:

If random mutation and natural selection aren't the backbone of evolution, what is? What caused single-celled organisms to evolve into such awesome creatures? I'm pretty sure you left that out of your analysis, eh? I mean, if you're going to dismiss one extremely accepted theory in the scientific field as bull****, you might as well state what you think is the thing that drives evolution.

I could go on for an hour on why I think that article is bull****, but working inversely and staying lax is so much more entertaining and easier 8)

Also, I forgot to say this but I love you Jewpin. Every time you bless CT with your presence, Jesus smiles.

[Squeek]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

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.

Why? Because. Supernatural being (god in most cases) felt like it one day.

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

The whole argument fueling Intelligent Design is that our universe is so complicated that there's no way it happened by chance. The theory is that something on a higher plane must've (for one reason or another) created it.

The reasons why something felt like making the universe are impossible to study. The way they did it is impossible to study. All we can study is the end result of what we had and try to work our way backwards to find a source.

[T3hDDRKid]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

You know, I haven't been taking this thread seriously up until now... and I'm still not. I do have a semi-serious question for DDRKid, though:

If random mutation and natural selection aren't the backbone of evolution, what is? What caused single-celled organisms to evolve into such awesome creatures? I'm pretty sure you left that out of your analysis, eh? I mean, if you're going to dismiss one extremely accepted theory in the scientific field as bull****, you might as well state what you think is the thing that drives evolution.

I could go on for an hour on why I think that article is bull****, but working inversely and staying lax is so much more entertaining and easier 8)

Also, I forgot to say this but I love you Jewpin. Every time you bless CT with your presence, Jesus smiles.

That is precisely why I don't like posting in threads involving religious beliefs. While sometimes people will go to the trouble of backing up their posts with articles or something of that nature, too often people like Carbo will post a few things asking questions about what I said. I'll then write about it and five or six people will proceed to call me stupid for having a religion.

And as for random mutation and natural selection: I've said many times that DNA does not create new information, even though mutation. I've been searching through the internet, not only Christian sites, but through Wikipedia and Google search, and I haven't been able to find a mention that DNA can in fact add information to itself, only comments and studies that say it cannot.

The reasons why something felt like making the universe are impossible to study. The way they did it is impossible to study. All we can study is the end result of what we had and try to work our way backwards to find a source.

This makes the whole debate futile, at least for now. This debate cannot be "won", exactly. I cannot remember where I saw it, but I recall the quote "If everybody waited until they had all the relevant details, nobody would have an opinion." I may never be able to convince people like Jewpin and Carbo. They're firmly set in their beliefs. I choose, however, to continue stating the facts, because if I don't, then those who are on the threshold of deciding what to believe will only see the facts from one point of view. This way, they can choose what they think is more believable and make an informed decision.

[talisman]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

obviously carbo, he feels that the answer is god.

[T3hDDRKid]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Hehe.. This isn't very critical thinking here, but I go to a Lutheran high school. My friend sucks at math, and we had a killer math test one time. He answered for perhaps 50% of the questions, and filled the rest in with "Jesus!" At the top, he scrawled "My religion teacher says Jesus is the answer to everything" Though he still failed, the teacher gave him five points for that ^^

[talisman]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I've said many times that DNA does not create new information, even though mutation. I've been searching through the internet, not only Christian sites, but through Wikipedia and Google search, and I haven't been able to find a mention that DNA can in fact add information to itself, only comments and studies that say it cannot.

Really? You must not be searching hard enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_%28genetics%29

Insertion can and has been observed to occur in DNA.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

NO WHERE IN MY PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY TEXT BOOK DOES IT MENTION "RANDOM MUTATION"

Evolution is NOT fact. Due to the tentative nature of science, scientists do not make such claims.

Evolution is a Theory in that it has neither been proven nor debunked, but has withstood the test of time.

I believe in evidence and the pursuit of knowledge. Those who fear and deny science are only afraid of the truths it reveals. If the Theologians had their way, the Earth would still be flat. I don't understand this resistance to scientific inquiry, if you don't like it, move in with the Amish or shut up.

Darwinian Evolution isn't perfect. No one ever said it was. Our only proof of evolution can be found in the fossil record. And unfortunately, the conditions for fossilization are rare and thus, the record sporadic. But remember, a lack of evidence does not disprove a theory.

[Squeek]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Jewpin, read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution#Common_misconceptions

Evolution is not something that has happened, resulting in the species we see today. It is a basic process of biology and is continuing.

The use of the word "theory" in the "theory" of evolution does not imply that evolution is any less well accepted or less supported by evidence than any other scientific theory, including the theory of gravity or the theory of quantum mechanics. A theory is a well-supported explanation for a given set of data, not a mere hypothesis.

There is no serious disagreement among biological scientists about the validity of evolution. Though some aspects of evolution, such as the mechanisms and processes that drive it, are subject to some professional debate, more than 99.9% of all professional biological scientists support evolution,[10] as it unites the disciplines and is foundational to the research conducted in all fields of biology.

Ok, just like how gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory as well. However, I cannot imagine anyone who can see a fossil of a trillobyte and go "well that species exists today, thus disproving evolution". The fact that trillobyte fossils exist is enough to prove that evolution as a basic rule of "change over time" is true. If nothing changed, then there would still be trillobytes.

[Reach]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I would say evolution is as much a 'fact' as you can get. You get sick (well, most of us do) every year because of evolution. Yes, that nasty little virus mutation there is microevolution. All living material is going to microevolve in the exact same manner, the difference being some of it is faster than others.

I suppose there is argument from some silly individuals that you can show microevolution is true but can't show that macroevolution is true, but what they're missing is that macroevolution is a direct consequence of the existance of microevolution 8)

[lbinator]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Was that article a joke? I don't know about anyone else but that article has convinced me even more that creationism and ID are complete bull****, if it was even possible to believe either for a second in the first place.

[Tisthammerw]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I suppose there is argument from some silly individuals that you can show microevolution is true but can't show that macroevolution is true, but what they're missing is that macroevolution is a direct consequence of the existance of microevolution 8)

It's actually not as straightforward as that. Sure we can see moths mutate into different colors, a mutation producing an extra limb, or shuffle around fly parts. But even with limitless extrapolation, these just aren't the kind of changes we need. Duplicating, deleting, and shuffling around fly parts might produce some weird new fly, but such processes are fundamentally not sufficient for creating a new basic type. If we extrapolate the duplication of fly limbs without limits, we will merely get a many-limbed fly--not a fundamentally different kind of organism.

Scientists have pointed to a number of organs in extant species that have deteriorated and become vestigial, but have we found any extant species that are in the process of developing new organs? These are the kinds of changes that would validate large-scale evolution (because here we would really have something to extrapolate), but we have not observed such changes. One could say that changes like those are so slow they cannot be observed. Perhaps, but the point is that one cannot just extrapolate the observable changes we see to create new basic types.

[TrueBOSS]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

It irritates me that people believe that religion and science can't go together. True there isn't just about anything we can prove about any thoughts in the religious thoughts but that doesn't mean that they are false because we don't have what it takes to prove them true (actually, not many have even been PROVEN false. Until something is actually proven false, you should NEVER assume a theory is false) I believe that religion is the "Who did it". And science is the "How it was done". Talking like this gets people thinking so I say to any of you to say whatever the F^&% you want to about this.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Scientists have pointed to a number of organs in extant species that have deteriorated and become vestigial, but have we found any extant species that are in the process of developing new organs?

A half of a wing would be a pretty ****ty wing, but it could be an excellent heat dissipator.

Intermediate stages are rarely marked as intermediate stages, but they can easily be analyzed in retrospect.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com