Evolution: Science or Dogma?

[Bozo Erectus]

While believing anything without discrimination is thinking?

Aphex no, but if ones way of thinking is limited to a universe where only certain, pre-approved things are considered to be possible and worthy of consideration, stagnation will inevitably set it. I try to live in an 'open' universe, where there are endless possibilities, even things that I cant even imagine. Conventional Scientists and Religionists tend to live in 'closed' universes, with limited possibilities, depending on their individual dogmas.

 

[Blasphemous]

While believing anything without discrimination is thinking?

Both extremes are wrong. While I tend to lean towards requiring evidence before I take something as a fact, I do feel that intuition and common sense have an imporant place in the quest for knowledge, along with scientific method.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Blasphemous, you said the magic phrase 'common sense'. That plays a big role too. If someone came up to me and said 'Yesterday I was abducted by aliens from another world that look like miniature blue elephants with hands', common sense would tell me that this person is most likely insane or lying. However if the same person said to me, 'I strongly suspect that theres a planet out there somewhere inhabited by miniature blue elephants with hands', Id say, 'Sure why not? Its a big universe. Id be surprised if there werent intelligent, miniature blue elephants with hands out there!' Most scientists however would say, 'I refuse to waste my time on something that has no evidence to back it up'.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Pothead

There is nothing stopping scientists from researching outlandish, revolutionary theories. There is however a need to be careful of what theories are considered "scientific", what are "the most valid" and what are to be taken into consideration.

 

[Perfection]

You know, fossils.

Explain, please.

Correction, anti-MACRO-evolutionary Creationism. Variation within a kind/clade occurs, kind/clade-jumping is what there is no evidence for.

Umm evolution never says clade jumping occurs.

Events yes. Fossilized changes no. Read first, then respond.

Fossilized changes because of the event, sure there is, fossils on one side of the event very significantly with thse on the other.

By making a thing part of an argument, and then making the opposite part of the next argument.

Example?

Another assumption one can make is that, since large gaps are involved, one line died out, and was replaced by a new line. One can assume just about anything, doesn't make it so.

That would be true if there were only large jumps, but the line of mammalian evolution among others has very close fossils.

The existing convergence does not support MacE any more than it does Creation. Genetic similarity is meaningless, as I have pointed out.

Incorrect, because body similarity is not where it completly corresponds to, in the cases of convergent evolution very similar organsims in terms of shape lifestyle and body style differ markedly in biochemistry and genetics.

Homologies are as irrelevant as genetics, for similar reasons. There are only so many ways to hop, fly, jump, slither, or crawl, and only so many ways to grow structures that perform those tricks. Sooner or later, you have to copy the guy next to you.

That's incorrect, bat wings, bird wings, and insect wings use completly different structures for a similar goal. Another example is eyes, the eyes of insects, cephalopods, certain bivalves and vertabrates (among others) all have numerous structural differences, and these differences in structure correspond with the different clades they belonged to Life offers a plethora of solutions to these problems!

'Useless' and 'sub-optimal jury-rigged' structures don't lean either way. Using what's available and suppressing what's not needed works just as well as building from scratch, or at least good enough.

Even when they are suboptimal?

Mutation and speciation have little to nothing to do with the topic, we're discussing MACRO-evolution, remember? Focus.

Except that speciation is a part of macroevolution, specefic selection is a very important componant to macroevolution. As per beneficial mutations, you're correct that it lies more in the level of microevolution, however it does show that there is a creative role for genetics and the ability to create new structures and traits.

Transitional series are well evidenced at the species to species level (variation within a kind), but no clear transitions exist at the higher level of macroevolution.

What level are you talking about? And what the living hell is a kind?

 

[Perfection]

Apples and oranges. Creationism isn't science, and doesn't claim to be. MacE isn't science either, but it does claim to be. It's 'predictive power' lies in explaining what is already seen, not in predicting anything new.

Incorrect, it predicts genetic similarities, transitional fossils, as well as biochemical pathways.

Microevolution is science, MacE is attached to it to give it a veneer of credibility, nothing more.

That MacE is unscientific at worst, and questionable science at best.

Woo!!!! You took another step in the right direction by saying it might be questionable science, you're starting to give it scientific credence!
[dance]

 

[thestonesfan]

These threads are proof that humans haven't evolved at all.

 

[Perfection]

That means they have to code for many of the same proteins, and that it would be easier to modify the tarsals to be hands or flippers than to have fish DNA in the dolphin.

Since when does god have to take the easy way? God could use a bazillion different means, is he so lazy as to borrow parts from other animals?

MacE is speculation based on the absolute belief that all life came from a single common ancestor, a dogma. It is this adherence to dogma that insists that the only explanation allowed for the gap-filled fossil record is macroevolution. It is no more supported by the available facts than Creation is.

Except many of those gaps are filled with transtional series... as per dogmatism by saying it's only allowing evolution to explain it, it is because it has more facts then other hypothesis, in fact early evolutionists wrestled with these concepts of explaining large diferrences v.s. small with the arguements between strict-Darwinians and neo-Llamarckians.


Last but not least, I'm gonna ask:

WHAT THE HELL IS A KIND?

 

[Birdjaguar]

WHAT THE HELL IS A KIND?

He answered it in a previous thread; It's a group, like cats. But wolves and dogs are the same kind. Elephants are a kind and so are antelope. I'm not sure if snakes are a kind or many kinds. Since they are all evil, they are probably of a kind. Some kinds have lots of animals in them others don't. Keep in mind that these are god's words and he is not required to be clear.

I would have thought that you could understand this Perfection.

 

[Esckey]

Since when does god have to take the easy way? God could use a bazillion different means, is he so lazy as to borrow parts from other animals?

Perfection has once again made a perfect post

 

[Perfection]

He answered it in a previous thread; It's a group, like cats. But wolves and dogs are the same kind. Elephants are a kind and so are antelope. I'm not sure if snakes are a kind or many kinds. Since they are all evil, they are probably of a kind. Some kinds have lots of animals in them others don't. Keep in mind that these are god's words and he is not required to be clear.

I would have thought that you could understand this Perfection.

Unfortunatly, such an arbitrary definition gives me little idea what the hell he's talking about with his "variation within a kind" rants. How the hell am I supposed to know what he calls a kind? Everytime I bring up an example he just calls it variation within a kind!

Are mammels all one kind? What about All vertabrates? What in the living hell is a kind?

 

[Quasar1011]

I always thought of "kind" meaning "species", in that context.

 

[Perfection]

I always thought of "kind" meaning "species", in that context.

FL2 doesn't view it that way, he calls all snakes a kind. I am utterly baffled by what the heck he thinks a kind is. In fact, one of his definitions (which he later retracted) was soley based on linguistics and lacked any actual biological concept.

 

[Quasar1011]

In fact, one of his definitions (which he later retracted) was soley based on linguistics and lacked any actual biological concept.

Some biological concepts are lacking, themselves. For instance, evolutionists would say I am a homo sapiens. I'm not.

 

[Perfection]

Some biological concepts are lacking, themselves. For instance, evolutionists would say I am a homo sapiens. I'm not.

Why do you say that?

 

[ybbor]

Since when does god have to take the easy way? God could use a bazillion different means, is he so lazy as to borrow parts from other animals?

why not? imagine an alien species coming to earth. they find evidence of our methods of transporation. they theorize that the bike evolved into a motorcycle, which elvolved into a car (i can see the logic, it wouldn't at al be a stretch) then they find a plane. they theorize that the original rotory ones evolved thie propeller from the radiator fan, the wings from the floorboards, and the tape/CD player into the advanced control panel. when, in fact they were all crated (and each to serve a different purpose). humans repeat parts all the time, and if we were made in God's image, it's not at all unreasonable that both would repeat parts

 

[Perfection]

why not? imagine an alien species coming to earth. they find evidence of our methods of transporation. they theorize that the bike evolved into a motorcycle, which elvolved into a car (i can see the logic, it wouldn't at al be a stretch) then they find a plane. they theorize that the original rotory ones evolved thie propeller from the radiator fan, the wings from the floorboards, and the tape/CD player into the advanced control panel. when, in fact they were all crated (and each to serve a different purpose).

No, it's completly unreasonable as autos don't self-replicate.

humans repeat parts all the time, and if we were made in God's image, it's not at all unreasonable that both would repeat parts

I'm not talking about inter-organismic repetition, I'm talking about structural repetition in certain structures that serve different purposes such as a bird wing verses a whale fin verses a human arm

 

[Quasar1011]

Why do you say that?

Well, here is man's scientific classification:

TAXA: MAN
Kingdom: Animal
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

In evolutionary thinking, the primates split into the apes, and mankind. This, I reject. God clearly says that men are different from ALL animals. Man is neither a primate cousin of apes, or an animal at all. So thus, the scientific classification is invalid.

 

[Perfection]

In evolutionary thinking, the primates split into the apes, and mankind. This, I reject. God clearly says that men are different from ALL animals. Man is neither a primate cousin of apes, or an animal at all. So thus, the scientific classification is invalid.

And of course, the bible is a valid scientific text. Just because you read it in a book, doesn't make it true!

If you can't integrate science with your religion it isn't science's fault!

 

[Birdjaguar]

God clearly says that men are different from ALL animals.

"clearly different" means in how many ways? 1 big way or 50 small ways? Did god provide an itemized list of the needed differences or explain what "clearly different" means. Is a cow clearly different from monkey? Is a pig clearly different from a snake?

Is Mary "clearly different" from all other women? She seems to have been singled out for something special. Mary was different because she got pregnant without intercourse and her baby was not your typical child. Other wise she was pretty normal. So two items can make something "clearly different" from something else. I can list many ways humans are different from apes, so according to your definition of "clearly different" we are.