Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Part Two, in which Doris gets her oats

And a beer too, I hope!

I'll have a shot of whiskey, preferably Glenlivet Scotch.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
An example: In 1977 two biologists from Princeton University [...] More mucho snippo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your point? I never once argued that NS doesn't happen. It can be seen in action. But it doesn't create, it exterminates. In this case, it obliterated probably a dozen varieties of finch. No new species have cropped up have they?

Not yet. But again, Natural Selection (which is the process the Grants observed above) is the engine of Evolution. Take thousands or millions of years of minor incremental genetic alterations like the one described above and you will have a very different animal than what you started out with.

We've only got a mere, measly, puny, pathetic, 3,500 million years for all of this to happen. If we ascribe the phenomenal rate of 100 changes per million years(1 change per 10,000 years), we get a grand total of 350,000 changes since life began. No way is that enough to account for the diversity of life on earth. If we go this way, let's keep in mind that we used up more than half our changes just getting to multi-celled life forms. We'll use up most of the rest just getting a spine, let alone sprouting legs to move it around on. It's just not going to work.
It is because of this that the added complication of 'evolutionary spurts' had to be added in. Things that make a theory more complex do not validate it.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Remember, you can't look at individuals - you're looking at the species. Only individuals within the group are "eliminated" (rather, they didn't survive), but Variation allowed some members of the group to survive - and therefore the species survives, albeit with slightly different physical characteristics. That's Natural Selection.

okay.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Give Natural Selection enough time, and you end up with a different species. That's Evolution. This is the basic, first year science textbook intro to Evolution; why do I need to explain this to you if you already understand it well enough to refute it?

Because this just isn't true. There hasn't BEEN enough time!

Originally posted by Vrylakas
In history class I also didn't witness personally King Sobieski riding down to engage the Ottoman Turks at Vienna in or Marc Antony fleeing the Battle of Actium, and I had to rely on expert presentations of the facts related to these two events. However, in history I did have to take several classes on the validation of source material and evidence, and how to evaluate it. That's a critical aspect of being a scientist (or a social scientist), and that's also why we have peer review to keep everyone honest, so to speak.

*SIGH* And what if, just WHAT IF, evolution can't be proved, because it is wrong? At that point, it would pretty much mean that everyone with a degree related to ToE would pretty much have to lie to save their paychecks, wouldn't it? At least long enough to go back to school and get a useful degree, and the older ones will just have to keep up the facade, and many will have to take teaching jobs when they can't do field work, and they're not exactly going to teach science when all they know is Science, are they? Evolution is a lie that has taken on a life and inertia of its own. It started out as a whacko theory, became the latest fad, junk science, caught on in a big way in the early 1900s, and has been gaining momentum ever since. It is not going to be easy to kill this white elephant, but I am going to keep trying, until one or the other of us(me or the elephant, not me and you) is dead.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Science texts are certainly not holy; they are created by humans. Again - science does not require one to believe. On the contrary, it actually requires skepticism, a sort of "guilty-until-proven-innocent" approach that forces scientists to conclusively and demonstratably eliminate all possible explanations for any given phenomenon, not once but repeatedly.

And not once has any supporter of evolution been able to make the claim that he has done so.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Peer review means that other scientists anywhere in the world must be able to re-create your experiments and reach similar conclusions, i.e., eliminate all possible explanations except the one you've reached. It's reductive. Occasionally new evidence surfaces later that affects a given theory's outcome, and that sparks a new round of experimentation. Again, science is not absolute and it does not claim to be as much.

Name one experiment done to prove or disprove a part of the ToE. ToE 'peer review' is faulty, because no experimetation can be done. It is nothing but guesswork, and only qualifies as educated, if by educated you mean 'educated to believe the ToE regardless of the facts'.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
???? "Evolutionism" is not a term. I've checked dictionaries in English, Polish, Russian, Hungarian and German - and it isn't.

Oh, how facile.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Secondly, again I don't think you fully understand how science works, for you to make a statement that Evolution is an ideology. Do you believe there were multiple killers of JFK? Do you believe the U.S. government harbors aliens at Roswell, NM? Calling Evolution an ideology seems to me to be along those same lines of credulity, seemingly tinged with some paranoia.

In reply to your questions: 1) I don't know. 2) No, I don't believe in intelligent life on other planets, and even if there were any, the power required for useful interstellar flight makes mere visits to inhabited systems without attempting to engage in trade ludicrous at best, and colossal wastes of effort at any rate. (Please note I am ignoring your tone.)

Originally posted by Vrylakas
*Sigh* Once again - I do not believe in Evolution, any more than I believe electro-magnetism can retain and record sound; both have been adequately demonstrated to me. Religion requires fath; Science requires demonstration.

Demonstrate evolution.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
However, I am concerned again that you seem to feel that Science and Religion are necessarily in conflict. I'm puzzled why you keep comparing the two.

The three. There's religion, science, and the religion of Science. Religion is organized faith a higher power. Organized observation is called science. The term Science is used by me to describe the body of individuals who have faith in an idea they believe is based on organized observation.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Was there a propulsive hand of some God behind the creation of the universe? That's a question Science by definition cannot answer, and does not try to. I recall one scientist - who studied Evolution - saying he was "just studying God's handiwork." You've made (again) some broad, sweeping statements above in which you dismiss Evolution, without offering a scientific explanation why.

I may have made a few statements, but they were in support of some very pointed questions, questions that I have recieved no satisfactory answers to to this date.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
FL2-Only Science contradicts the Bible, not science.

??? I don't understand at all what you meant here. Please clarify.

You know exactly what I mean. If you really question that statement, then read this message again, and the one preceding it by me.

Originally posted by Vrylakas

The fact that the Catholic Church

No. I am flat out not getting into a religion debate here.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
No Christian shuns scholarship or science.

Some do, though admittedly a small fraction. Never fully discount the fanatics though. It's good to hear you do not shun scholarship though.

You're confusing Christians with followers of other religions.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
FL2here is complete harmony between the Bible and science, and none whatsoever between the Bible and Science. Is this because the Bible is part wrong and part right, or because Science is wrong, and and science and the Bible are right?
Well, science is based on observation, math, and repeatable experimentation. On the other hand, Science bases itself on the supposition that the ToE is correct, and warps its findings to fit that ideology, and uses nothing but peer review to do so.

What a bizarre statement. I really don't know how to react to this. Can you give me a credible example of science "warping its findings to fit an ideology", re: Evolution?

See below, above, and just about everything I've written on the subject.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
FL2When used by Scientists, peer review shows that one Scientist agrees with another Scientist, and because the Scientists call this process peer review, they then say that the first Scientist's conclusions have been vindicated.

Sorry - that's a complete distortion. Can you give me an example - using names of professionals - where this has happened?

Sure. Every single one that's ever been published.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Science and science use two radically different processes called by the same name to validate their findings. In science, that which is proven, and can be demonstrated again and again, is true. In Science, that which the loud majority decrees is true. The Bible agrees with science, and disagrees with Science.

??? Did Christ rely on peer review to get his message across? What journal was he published in? Sorry to be facetious, but your statement above is ridiculous. Science does not go by "the loud majority"; it goes by verifiable evidence.

Real science no, Science yes. And quit pretending not to know the difference, I've more than sufficiently explained it by now.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
There is no vote taken. And peer review is not a one-time thing, it is ongoing, sometimes for centuries. The Bible and Science have little to do with one another.

True. When the Bible mentions something that science has been done on, it is uniformly accurate to a high degree. When it is contradicted, it is always by Science, not science.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Draw from these truths what you may. I really feel that I have summed up my position very well.

Actually, your reasoning has some gaping holes in it that require much further elaboration. Give me some solid verifiable evidence of the several accusations you make. Otherwise, they come across as a wild "X-Files"-style conspiracy theory....

Oh fine. This may take a few days or even weeks. Now I have to go and find a 'reputable' Scientific magazine...

 

[Sixchan]

Oh, great.

After 3 days of calm discussion and acceptance of the possibilities of each other's philosophies, this thread is destined to spiral back into the sort of thing I have no wish to read.

Well, it was fun while it lasted.


FL2, if people have such a problem with science and Science, why not call Science something else like Evolutionary Science or Evo-Sci. Mabye you'd prefer Sci-Fi?

 

[sumociv]

Are you familiar with Steve Jones' book "Darwin's Ghost"? I found it to be a highly convincing argument for evolution, and I came to it as a die-hard creationist. It actually changed my mind on the evidence for evolution.

However, I also had to ask myself whether to trust Jones or not. As a scientific layman, how am I supposed to validate his data? Its not like I have my one gene splicer....... Since you seem to understand genetics way more than myself perhaps I could summarize his argument and you could tell me what you think. If you haven't read it, I would recommend at least reading the introduction (about 30 pages) where he suggests how evolution is on the verge of being gentically verified.

He describes the aids virus as an organism that since the outbreak in the 1940's has evolved into 2 seperate species hiv-1 and hiv-2. He describes how the virus' high error rate (1 error in 10,000 genes) allows it to adapt quickly enough to overcome various drug treatments and eventually results in strains that are in fact seperate species. If this can happen in 60 years to a virus, isn't it reasonable that the same process over millions of years can result in an incredible amount of diversity?

He also argues that a genetic survey of species is validating that evolution actually did occur. Here is his proof: The AIDS virus is a retrovirus which copies itself into the DNA of dividing cells. Apparently Virus epidemics gradually become less and less lethal to the hosts. Eventually the virus will become a permanent and dormant part of our genetic code and passed on to all of our descendents. By surveying a species genetic code for remnants of retrovirus genes which represent past epidemics, genetisicts have been able to demonstrate which species shared common ancestors. Furthermore if the rate of error is known they can calculate how long ago the species split apart.

In the case of the whale, they have found that hippos, deer and giraffes are all part of the same branch of the evolutionary tree. They all have certain retrovirus genes in common, but whales and hippos share another sequence in common that the giraffes and deer do not have. ergo: the whale and the hippos branched off more recently than the deer and the giraffes. They calculate that they shared an ancestor genetically about 60 million years ago. And they have recently found some fossils that support this (See discover magazine I think december 2001 issue)

Now my questions are: 1) Is this actually being demonstrated or is Jones manipulating the data? 2) If this is an accurate reading of the data, doesn't this prove that descent with modification over time occurred and will this move evolution from a theory to a law?

Please someone who knows more about genetics than me. comment!

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2


We've only got a mere, measly, puny, pathetic, 3,500 million years for all of this to happen. If we ascribe the phenomenal rate of 100 changes per million years(1 change per 10,000 years), we get a grand total of 350,000 changes since life began. No way is that enough to account for the diversity of life on earth. If we go this way, let's keep in mind that we used up more than half our changes just getting to multi-celled life forms. We'll use up most of the rest just getting a spine, let alone sprouting legs to move it around on. It's just not going to work.
It is because of this that the added complication of 'evolutionary spurts' had to be added in. Things that make a theory more complex do not validate it.

okay.

Because this just isn't true. There hasn't BEEN enough time!

Well, FL2, this is like saying we've only had some 10,000 years to go from the stone age to the moon, but it took 8 or 9,000 years to get to the iron age, so we obviously couldn't be on the moon in just 10,000 years.

Not saying you can draw a parallell between the evolution of species and the evolution of science, but it's still a good analogy.

There are no set rules as to how long any change takes, and how signifigant any change can be.

There are many, many examples, if not proof, for evolution. We've affected a change in numerous species ourselves in a very short amount of time, relatively speaking. Dairy cows, all of the various kinds of dogs...these are human inventions that were created by merely speeding up the process.

There are a certain kind of crab off Japan that, over a period of a couple hundred years have totally evolved due to human intervention. These crabs have an ornamental shell. Japanese fishermen, following tradition and religion, er, superstition, would always throw back the crabs that had shells with a design that resembled a samurai warrior's head. Two hundred years ago, these crabs were fairly rare.

Now nearly ALL the crabs have these shells that resemble the warrior. This IS evolution.

Because the crabs with such shells were more likely to live they were more likely to have little baby crabs. And, of course, as with any species, when you procreate, your offspring is more likely to resemble you.

The AIDS virus is another shining example of evolution at work. And HERE we CAN see true evolution because we're talking about billions of cells that have relatively short lifespans. Out of the billions of virus cells in an infected patient there may be only a few that are immune to a particular medice or cocktail. If the patient is given the same cocktail over a period of time, we see the virus that is immune become far more prevalent and, soon, dominant.

To me, with this evidence, I don't see how anybody can argue evolution does not occur. Sure, you could argue creationism, religion and superstition all you want. They may very well be compatible.

In other words, I can't tell you whether or not there is a God. If there is, then I can't tell you which, of the hundreds and hundreds of religions is correct.

But I can tell you that, if there is a God, he created evolution.

BTW, I'll put my money on Mormons being the correct religion and all others are going to....that place. Saw it on South Park.

 

[CrayonX]

There are a certain kind of crab off Japan that, over a period of a couple hundred years have totally evolved due to human intervention. These crabs have an ornamental shell. Japanese fishermen, following tradition and religion, er, superstition, would always throw back the crabs that had shells with a design that resembled a samurai warrior's head. Two hundred years ago, these crabs were fairly rare.

Now nearly ALL the crabs have these shells that resemble the warrior. This IS evolution.

Because the crabs with such shells were more likely to live they were more likely to have little baby crabs. And, of course, as with any species, when you procreate, your offspring is more likely to resemble you.

This isn't really evolution at a genetic level. Sounds more like a just a change in population due to selective population control. By preserving the samurai-head crabs, it allowed their population to dominate.

 

[VoodooAce]

Exactly. It IS a change of population by selective control.

But to be a little more precise about your statement, CrayonX.

Preserving this type of crab made it more likely that that type of crab would procreate, which is the definition of evolution. To be sure, this is a change affected by man, but the effect is still the same

 

[knowltok3]

I think CrayonX's point is that it has not resulted in a new species, just a perponderance of one variation. This would be the same thing as if all people that didn't have blond hair were killed for many generations. The result would be just as human as you and I, just that they would all have blond hair.

The creationists on this board aren't arguing that environmental presures don't make changes on a population, just that they don't create entire new species. (Please let me know if I have mistated your positions)

 

[VoodooAce]

No, this is very true.

I guess my point was that this is how change is affected and that these types of small changes within a species will, over a period of time, produce an entirely new species.

 

[knowltok3]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
No, this is very true.

I guess my point was that this is how change is affected and that these types of small changes within a species will, over a period of time, produce an entirely new species.

I agree, but the Creationists will tell you that there is no link between the two.

On a side note, I just picked up Darwin's Ghost from the Library, so in a few weeks or a month or two when this thread is dead I will be able to add more insights.

 

[CrayonX]

I guess my point was that this is how change is affected and that these types of small changes within a species will, over a period of time, produce an entirely new species.

Knowltok3 has basically stated already what I was going to say. Good call!



I'm going to pick up Darwin's Ghost as well.

 

[Vrylakas]

My apologies for the hiatus. As I've said, they are unfortunately inevitable.

Sixchan wrote: Oh, great.

After 3 days of calm discussion and acceptance of the possibilities of each other's philosophies, this thread is destined to spiral back into the sort of thing I have no wish to read.

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Point well taken.

Sumociv has been writing some very intelligent stuff, and the basis for the civility of his posts seems to be that he doesn't find conflict between his religion and science. I'll try to keep it civil as well.

First, a short prologue:

Creationism was born in the mid-17th century when the Anglican Archbishop James Usher as a reaction to a rising opinion in the academic community that the Bible was not necessarily the final word (sorry for the pun) for all matters. The Renaissance had given birth to a huge building boom throughout Europe, and as well newer technologies required greater amounts of raw materials, which meant Europeans were digging mines much deeper and far more extensively than ever before - and finding things that didn't jibe with what Genesis said should be there. There were many explanations offered (that the pre-flood creatures must have been very different, or that their sin changed them to the horrible creatures they appeared to be, etc.) but none of these stuck because the Bible didn't really back these explanations up; they were just conjecture. Usher was the one to reach for an old and tried method to prove every word of Genesis was factual and true.

The ancient Semitic peoples had a tradition of maintaining family or clan names through recitation, so that Jesus for instance was most likely known in Nazareth as "Jeshua, son of Josuf, son of..., son of..., etc." Since the Hebrew prophets had claimed the Messiah would be a descendant of King David, the geneology was critical. Unfortunately, Jesus' has some holes in it and some parts that are likely fiction, but that's another matter. Anyway, Usher simply did the logical thing and counted back the generations to Jesus, then added up the generations available in the various geneologies provided in the Bible back to Adam - and he traced the beginning of the world back to 4004 B.C. Others have tried this same appraoch but because some of the geneologies aren't clear or some parts don't really jibe with known history, the numbers don't all agree; some Jewish scholars came out a few decades short while Orthodox scholars came out with an extra 1500 years.

However flawed the numbers, Usher became the focus for the steadfast rejection by stalwart Christians of Science, and the battle between Revelation and Observation has been underway ever since. Prior to Usher most believed Genesis was true but in the relative sense; nobody claimed the world was only a few thousand or several billion years old. The Earth was just "really old", and no doubt created by God. It is ironic I think that in its earliest centuries Science was far more readily accepted and seemed in less in conflict with religion than nowadays. The spread of urbanization, as people became more and more removed and estranged from nature, has gone hand-in-hand with popular suspicion of Science by those who are deeply religious, though as I've argued the two never really cross paths.

Ok, on to Fearless.

 

[Vrylakas]

FearlessLeader2:

Answer #1 - I'll have to much snipping here to keep it within posting limits. If I snip something you considered relavant, feel free to retrieve it.

Sorry, but I too am a busy man. I guess we'll just have to allow a grace period between posts. Acceptable?

Certainly.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
You have made a statement that requires clarification and evidence. The "blatantly untrue" requires this evidence. (Please note I am ignoring your condescending tone.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, about the tone, but admit it or not, I'm at least partially entitled to it. I've shot gaping holes in the theory, that no one has even tried to stick a finger in, let alone actually patch. A short list:
Mutations mostly harmful, bred out in two to three generations.
Natural Selections extincts existing varieties, creates nothing new.
Peer review as used by paleobiologists is sheerest fraud.

Other than strident denial, no answers to these challenges have been made.

Hmmm, I've read your previous posts and you haven't provided any evidence. I need specific examples. ("This scholar, who published X article in this publication or presented at Y conference, made flagerant falsifications to sustain this aspect of the theory of Evolution, demonstrated by U, V and W factors...": This is what I need to be able to begin to understand and believe your position. And Evolution isn't only supported by your demonized "paleobotanists", it is a theory pulled together by biologists, geneticists, cultural and physical anthropolgists, behavioralists, geologists, zoologists, chemists, etc. etc. etc. It is a very extensive and complex theory that is every day studied and tested by hundreds of thousands of people around the globe.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
As for my vocation, I spent a decade training as a historian, and currently work as the head of the North American research efforts for a fixed-income research firm. My education, which spans two continents, did indeed include a very sound grounding in the Sciences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you means Sciences as in Evolutionism and Geology, or Sciences as in all branches, which would be spelled sciences, by me.

I'm not clear on your distinction.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Observation of speciation doesn't have to happen in front of your eyes. In fact, given the amount of time it takes for species to reach that point whereby they can no longer interbreed successfully - you are not going to see it happen in a single species right before your eyes. This is where the fossil record comes into play. It isn't simply a matter of scientists saying "Gosh, these two fossil samples sure do look alike. Must be derived from the same animal!" It's tracing specific characteristics that show up in the fossil record that can be definitively traced through species as they develop; things like reticulating spines (vertibraes), inter-locking molars, short-based balanced skulls in fully bipedal animals, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that traits migrate from species to species horizontally? This sounds like madness. I must be reading you wrong...

Interesting that you would use the image of a species tree in your question. No, of course it would be impossible for a horizontal "migration" of a trait.

Example of a trait: Animals with large canine teeth (or "fangs") have a basic dental problem, that they would stab their mandibles every time they shut their mouth. To accomodate the oversized canines, a gap developed opposite them on the lower jaw (called the diastema). Modern chimpanzees, though their canines have shrunk like humans' have, have retained this diastema. The hominid line however has gradually gotten rid of it; Australopithecines have this trait but it's quite small, and as one traces through the Homonid line it decreases in size to the point where by homo erectus it is just about missing. Your own dental pattern does not have this trait. This is only one of millions of traits relative to your physiology that has morphed over time, through species, contributing to the creation of the animal that you and I are.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
If your measure of verifiable data is limited to a single human's visual life, well that undermines all human efforts at learning just about anything about anything. It also reveals a deep misunderstanding of how science works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, I understand perfectly how science works. It's Science that I'm not buying.

If you understand it, then why are you making arguments that make no sense in scientific terms? Speciation among complex organisms will not take place in front of any single human's eyes, in the same way that the development of a mountain chain will not take place in front of any human's eyes. (Speciation in primitive, one-celled organisms has been both witnessed and manipulated by scientists, since a single generation lasts a couple weeks or so among them. In fact, most bio-warfare labs utilize Evolution to ply their weapons.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
I'm not sure what your point is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, in my academic career I met many scientists who were also devotedly religious (in their many faiths). That's really one of my main points, that you insist on believing the whole argument is between "Believers" and "Non-Believers"; but that's really irrelevant. I'm afraid Evolution is not an Atheist conspiracy. It is a free-standing theory created by scientists that has withstood 150 years of constant experimentation and review. Do you understand what peer review is? It's not a ceremony or a rite, but rather a professional critique of any given study or work, based on available resources and the researcher's original notes. The point is to force researchers' work to meet strict professional standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peer review is two different things to two different groups. I've explained this before. Legitimate peer review takes the form of following the steps one researchers has taken, to see if his experimental data can be obtained by anyone working under the same conditions as he was, to verify the research that he has done. Isaac Newton publishes a paper describing the effects of motion, and ascribes these effects to what he calls the Laws of Motion. Other scientists, dubious at first, perform the same experiments that he performed, take the same measurements, and get the same results. His work is validated, and a new age of thought begins.

So far so good.

The peer review done by Science takes an entirely different form. a Scientist, to underpin the ToE, examines bones, observes similar animals, and draws a few conclusions. He then publishes his findings. Another Scientist looks at the same group of data, draws similar conclusions, and publishes a paper that agrees with the first. Neither performs an experiment, neither does anything more that rubberneck at an accident scene, and give the same eyewitness testimony. Both get a fat check from a university or research grant fund. Kind of like two witnesses at a Mafia hitman's trial saing that he didn't do it, and getting a fat stack of green from a don for their performances.

First of all, can you find a different moniker for your demonized scientists because it's too confusing to keep straight which you're refering to. Secondly, again - you're making a patently false accusation about peer review among Evolutionary scientists, and I need a specific example. Give me the name of some who've committed the academic fraud you claim above, and the specific instances in which they did it. These are very serious accusations you're making that would get you booted out of any academic department anywhere without solid proof - science, literature or whatever. You've made the accusations; the onus is on you to prove them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
You missed my point entirely. Variation is the route to speciation. Variation and Natural Selection are inseparable components of Evolution. In your original statement you said "Natural Selection happens, Evolution does not. Variation within a species occurs, speciation does not." - which is ridiculous. That's like saying I admit I pulled the trigger of the gun that was pointed at this person's head, killing them, but I did not commit murder." (Pardon the example.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I pretty much have to, because it just doesn't work. You might not have known the gun was loaded, and it may have been an accident. Hell, the victim could have been obscured by something, making you totally unaware of his presence along the bullet's ballistic trajectory.

The analogy aside, if you then concede that variation and Natural Selection are a reality, what then are they for? You've declared that the world is God-made, as described in your religion's sacred text. Why did your God create these otherwise seemingly useless natural phenomena (neither described in the Bible), even if you won't admit their very natural and evident outcome (Evolution)?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Variation is a part of Natural Selection,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variation does not produce new species, it only cosmetically alters existing ones.

Example - and why?

Natural Selection causes extinction of species that cannot adapt to changing conditions. The last mass extinction of SPECIES occured millions of years ago, with a big asteroid. Just recently, the Flood wiped out a whole lot of VARIATIONS. Big difference. The first was a terraforming project done by God, the second was divine retribution.

Actually there's a mass extinction underway right now, as humans destroy other species' habitats the world over at a sickening pace. There are 6 billion + of us now. Anyway, back to your point: Yes, there is a widely accepted - though not universally, welcome to science - theory that an asteroid caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, but your "terraforming" explanation still doesn't answer why the variations existed in the first place.

And I didn't at first realize what you meant by "the flood". It took me a moment to realize you refered to the mythical flood of the Old Testament. Aside from this, your "big difference" doesn't make sense to me. So instead of a gradual evolution of change in species, you believe that variations pop up for no accountable reason and different species derive from the occasional divine wrathful intervention? You understand that as you've introduced religion to your arguments, I can't respond because it has nothing to do with science. Since the existance of a god cannot be addressed by science - neither proven nor disproven - you've just interlaced your argument on a scientific phenomenon with a supernatural entity that requires from me not physical evidence but religious faith to address; you're mixing the proverbial apples and oranges here. Since we're arguing a scientific theory here, let's stick strictly to scientifically-verifiable evidence.

Otherwise, the basis of our disagreement is that you want to merge your understanding of science with your religious beliefs, which makes it impossible for anyone outside your religious belief community to argue any point with you (a circular argument).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
and Natural Selection is the engine for Evolution. That, in a nutshell, is how Evolution works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Evolution, the process that is supposedly responsible for the diversity of life on earth, is powered by the primary force of extinction? I'm sorry, but I see a failure of logic here.

You've misunderstood. You're concentrating on the death aspect because you think in terms of each individual member of a group. It's not the processes of Evolution that's doing the killing, but local changing environmental conditions. What Evolution does is try to guarantee that at least some members of each group (species) will survive whatever nature throws at them - cold, drought, flood, predators, overpopulation, etc. That's what variation is for, to create a multiplicity of traits within any given species to cover any exigency.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Have you ever actually read Darwin's On the Origin of Species, or any professional text related to Evolution? I ask because I'm getting the distinct impression you don't really understand how Evolution works, rather that you're tossing around some common catch-phrases. If so, how can you purport to refute something you don't understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason I don't understand evolution is because it doesn't make any sense to my logical mind?

That you don't understand it is clear, but I really don't think you've made the effort to really try. Again, have you read any of the above texts?

*Whew* Part I down. Part II comin'

 

[Vrylakas]

FearlessLeader2-Vrylakas Debate, Part II:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Part Two, in which Doris gets her oats

And a beer too, I hope!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll have a shot of whiskey, preferably Glenlivet Scotch.

Eh, can't touch that stuff - though I confess the ocassional weakness for a good brandy. Not too sweet though.

We've only got a mere, measly, puny, pathetic, 3,500 million years for all of this to happen. If we ascribe the phenomenal rate of 100 changes per million years(1 change per 10,000 years), we get a grand total of 350,000 changes since life began. No way is that enough to account for the diversity of life on earth. If we go this way, let's keep in mind that we used up more than half our changes just getting to multi-celled life forms. We'll use up most of the rest just getting a spine, let alone sprouting legs to move it around on. It's just not going to work.
It is because of this that the added complication of 'evolutionary spurts' had to be added in. Things that make a theory more complex do not validate it.

Out of idle curiosity, where did you get your figure above, 3.5 million years? The consensus view I've heard is around 4.5 billion (thousand million to Brits) years old for the Earth. The rest of your numbers are based on your initial assumption, so this is critical. 4.5 billion years is quite adequate for the variety of life the Earth has today.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Give Natural Selection enough time, and you end up with a different species. That's Evolution. This is the basic, first year science textbook intro to Evolution; why do I need to explain this to you if you already understand it well enough to refute it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because this just isn't true. There hasn't BEEN enough time!

See above for my question on this. Who said 3.5 million years?

*SIGH* And what if, just WHAT IF, evolution can't be proved, because it is wrong? At that point, it would pretty much mean that everyone with a degree related to ToE would pretty much have to lie to save their paychecks, wouldn't it? At least long enough to go back to school and get a useful degree, and the older ones will just have to keep up the facade, and many will have to take teaching jobs when they can't do field work, and they're not exactly going to teach science when all they know is Science, are they? Evolution is a lie that has taken on a life and inertia of its own. It started out as a whacko theory, became the latest fad, junk science, caught on in a big way in the early 1900s, and has been gaining momentum ever since. It is not going to be easy to kill this white elephant, but I am going to keep trying, until one or the other of us(me or the elephant, not me and you) is dead.

Have you seen the Simpson's episode where Homer, in a moment of hyper-super intelligence, accidentally proves while doing his taxes that God doesn't exist, and his neighbor Flanders destroys the evidence to keep his religion going? Same basic argument, though presented in spoof form. No, I disagree with you. If you produced verifiable evidence tomorrow that Evolution as we understand it was not true, then the scientists I've come to know in my lifetime would, after becoming convinced by your evidence, be professional and toss out the old theories. It's happened before in Science, and it'll happen again no doubt. I'm afraid I just don't see the conspiracy you describe. That's not how science works.

And not once has any supporter of evolution been able to make the claim that he has done so.

Actually, there are libraries full of books that do just this. I've got a couple recommendations for you if you're interested - and I'm just a layman. As I said in my initial post on this thread (so, so long ago....) science requires you to go look for the evidence yourself. It's a bit boring, but that's data for you. I poor through rmountains of data in my job, some of the most innane financial data one can imagine - but I have to sift through it and understand it to make sense of my job. That's the nature of data, and science is essentially data.

Name one experiment done to prove or disprove a part of the ToE. ToE 'peer review' is faulty, because no experimetation can be done. It is nothing but guesswork, and only qualifies as educated, if by educated you mean 'educated to believe the ToE regardless of the facts'.

Since we can't actually observe early hominids in action, so to speak, the next best thing we can do is study their physiology in detail and study the behaviors of modern animals that have similar traits and study what impact these traits have on them. Example: The development of bipedalism. The early Australopithecines had leg joint structures very similar to modern chimpanzees (which indicated partial bipedalism), as well as how the skull was balanced on the spinal column (at an angle), while the upper arm musculature was powerful and designed to be able to pull the entire body weight (again, exactly mimmicking tree-based modern primates). Examining each succeeding species reveals the increasing change in these (and many other) traits as hominids became increasingly bipedal. Modern humans have their skulls balanced on their spinal column with their occipital torus in a line with their backs, your knee and hip joints are similarly balanced to fully support your weight constantly, and our arms shortened up somewhat though we still retain the basic muscular structure of our tree-climbing ancestors, unlike modern gorillas. However, our evolution to a fully bipedal species has not been entirely successful; our cardio-vascular system is that of an animal that walks on all fours (again comparible to a cat or a dog), with the various valves in your arteries and veins only working in one direction - which is hard as hell when that direction is vertical. This is where much of our problems with heart disease and improper circulation derive from, as well as some blood-chemical related maladies like diabetes.

As for specific experiments: The science of Evolution is based on experiments. That you need to ask for them proves you haven't looked for any or read any. OK, let's go back to the late-19th century, to Gregor Mendel (a monk!), the father of modern genetics. His experiments with pea pod traits in Moravia demonstrated the transfer of traits, "blending", mutation - but most importantly the existance of genes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
???? "Evolutionism" is not a term. I've checked dictionaries in English, Polish, Russian, Hungarian and German - and it isn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, how facile.

Sorry, but the basis of any debate or discussion is a commonly-agreed upon vocabulary, and you're inventing terms here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
*Sigh* Once again - I do not believe in Evolution, any more than I believe electro-magnetism can retain and record sound; both have been adequately demonstrated to me. Religion requires faith; Science requires demonstration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demonstrate evolution.

Study the plethora of volumes that do demonstrate Evolution. It has been demonstrated. Actually, it occurs to me that we've been sticking exclusively to fauna in our discussion, and that ample examples exist of manipulated species in the flora world. (My wife is a florist.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
However, I am concerned again that you seem to feel that Science and Religion are necessarily in conflict. I'm puzzled why you keep comparing the two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The three. There's religion, science, and the religion of Science. Religion is organized faith a higher power. Organized observation is called science. The term Science is used by me to describe the body of individuals who have faith in an idea they believe is based on organized observation.

I still don't get your distinction.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Was there a propulsive hand of some God behind the creation of the universe? That's a question Science by definition cannot answer, and does not try to. I recall one scientist - who studied Evolution - saying he was "just studying God's handiwork." You've made (again) some broad, sweeping statements above in which you dismiss Evolution, without offering a scientific explanation why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may have made a few statements, but they were in support of some very pointed questions, questions that I have recieved no satisfactory answers to to this date.

Please list.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL2-Only Science contradicts the Bible, not science.

??? I don't understand at all what you meant here. Please clarify.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know exactly what I mean. If you really question that statement, then read this message again, and the one preceding it by me.

Really, I wasn't being pretentious. I don't have any idea what you meant. I ran it by a colleague to be sure, and he also didn't understand what you meant.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas

The fact that the Catholic Church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I am flat out not getting into a religion debate here.

You initially brought it up.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
No Christian shuns scholarship or science.

Some do, though admittedly a small fraction. Never fully discount the fanatics though. It's good to hear you do not shun scholarship though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're confusing Christians with followers of other religions.

No, some Christians do indeed reject scholarship. Christianity has its zealots and fanatics too.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
FL2When used by Scientists, peer review shows that one Scientist agrees with another Scientist, and because the Scientists call this process peer review, they then say that the first Scientist's conclusions have been vindicated.

Sorry - that's a complete distortion. Can you give me an example - using names of professionals - where this has happened?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure. Every single one that's ever been published.

Something a little more specific please. Give one solid example of a single such subversion of the peer review process - one real name of a real professional scientist. Blanket statements like yours above would never pass in any scientific debate.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
??? Did Christ rely on peer review to get his message across? What journal was he published in? Sorry to be facetious, but your statement above is ridiculous. Science does not go by "the loud majority"; it goes by verifiable evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real science no, Science yes. And quit pretending not to know the difference, I've more than sufficiently explained it by now.

You shouldn't presume to know what I know or believe. You seem to believe that your beliefs are so true that they are self-evident, but clearly since many of us either do not agree or sometimes do not even understand what you mean, they are not. You need to better explain yourself and your beliefs, or there's no point in further debate (since I can't see in your head how you've arrived at your conclusions).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
There is no vote taken. And peer review is not a one-time thing, it is ongoing, sometimes for centuries. The Bible and Science have little to do with one another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True. When the Bible mentions something that science has been done on, it is uniformly accurate to a high degree. When it is contradicted, it is always by Science, not science.

Examples? (Although we're starting to wander off topic with this one.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Actually, your reasoning has some gaping holes in it that require much further elaboration. Give me some solid verifiable evidence of the several accusations you make. Otherwise, they come across as a wild "X-Files"-style conspiracy theory....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh fine. This may take a few days or even weeks. Now I have to go and find a 'reputable' Scientific magazine...

Time is not a problem. I'll wait. If need be we can start another thread or even resort to private e-mail exchanges to continue.

(Had to do some extra snippage here to get under the maximum post requirements...)

 

[t92300]

heres my view
I am a creationist because I am a christian I believe the whole and entire bible including creation.

But I belive that the only way every one could be satisfied is if some one was around when the world was created and in the period of time inbetween then and now could tell us (for me the bible is this such wittness)

I believe this because both sides can come up with reasons for certain things in the earth being like they are to support their argument
example: How the least complex fossils/life forms are found down deeper than the more complex fossils/life forms evolutions say this is evidence for evolution things must have evolved because the more evolved fossil/life form is near the surface. The creationist view is that in noahs flood all the living life forms would have been wiped out and that the differnt densitys, weights would have made the the fossils/life forms arrange them in the way they are.

t92300

 

[Maj]

We've only got a mere, measly, puny, pathetic, 3,500 million years for all of this to happen. If we ascribe the phenomenal rate of 100 changes per million years(1 change per 10,000 years), we get a grand total of 350,000 changes since life began. No way is that enough to account for the diversity of life on earth. If we go this way, let's keep in mind that we used up more than half our changes just getting to multi-celled life forms. We'll use up most of the rest just getting a spine, let alone sprouting legs to move it around on. It's just not going to work.

You're assuming that there is only one change per 10 000 years and that these changes occured in linear fashion. What if the first single-cell organism differentiated itself in ways that left several, not one, genetically altered (therefore new species) and each one of those offspring mutated into several new genetically altered species and so forth? With exponential growth such as that, a number far greater than 350 000 would sit beside the "Total" bar of the equation. Also, where did you get your numbers regarding y changes per x years?

Out of idle curiosity, where did you get your figure above, 3.5 million years? The consensus view I've heard is around 4.5 billion (thousand million to Brits) years old for the Earth. The rest of your numbers are based on your initial assumption, so this is critical. 4.5 billion years is quite adequate for the variety of life the Earth has today

I believe he meant 3.5 billion, not million, years. Maybe you're using the European numerical system wherein compared to the North American system, a period is a comma and a comma is a period so that 3,5 and 3.500 in Europe would be 3.5 and 3,500 in North America, respectively.

Most geologists would agree that the Earth is around 4.5-4.6 billion years old, although the number has been shifted around these past few decades following new research and theories. However, those numbers indicate when the Earth was created, not when life first emerged on this planet, which according to these same geologists (the 'science' kind, FL2), happened around 3.5 billion years ago. Call me kooky but from what I can remember, the Earth's surface was far too hostile for anything to survive, let alone be born.

- Maj

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by sumociv
In the case of the whale, they have found that hippos, deer and giraffes are all part of the same branch of the evolutionary tree. They all have certain retrovirus genes in common, but whales and hippos share another sequence in common that the giraffes and deer do not have. ergo: the whale and the hippos branched off more recently than the deer and the giraffes. They calculate that they shared an ancestor genetically about 60 million years ago. And they have recently found some fossils that support this (See discover magazine I think december 2001 issue)

Now my questions are: 1) Is this actually being demonstrated or is Jones manipulating the data? 2) If this is an accurate reading of the data, doesn't this prove that descent with modification over time occurred and will this move evolution from a theory to a law?

Please someone who knows more about genetics than me. comment!

Isn't it a whole lot simpler, and less messy, to conclude that the two organisms suffered through and survived the same epidemic, than to insert a middleman along the way?

Has anyone among his 'peers' suggested this as a possibility? Then again, why would they?

 

[Sixchan]

Isn't it a whole lot simpler, and less messy, to conclude that the two organisms suffered through and survived the same epidemic, than to insert a middleman along the way?

What makes you think that the simple answer is correct? Are you using Occam's Razor?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Sixchan
Oh, great.

After 3 days of calm discussion and acceptance of the possibilities of each other's philosophies, this thread is destined to spiral back into the sort of thing I have no wish to read.

Well, it was fun while it lasted.


FL2, if people have such a problem with science and Science, why not call Science something else like Evolutionary Science or Evo-Sci. Mabye you'd prefer Sci-Fi?

I capitalize science when referring to the ToE, for the same reason that I capitalize god when I speak of Jehovah. In both cases, a faith-based religion is involved, and I am being respectful of the belief systems of others, even as I point out the flaws in them.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by VoodooAce


Well, FL2, this is like saying we've only had some 10,000 years to go from the stone age to the moon, but it took 8 or 9,000 years to get to the iron age, so we obviously couldn't be on the moon in just 10,000 years.

Not saying you can draw a parallell between the evolution of species and the evolution of science, but it's still a good analogy.

There are no set rules as to how long any change takes, and how signifigant any change can be.

There are many, many examples, if not proof, for evolution. We've affected a change in numerous species ourselves in a very short amount of time, relatively speaking. Dairy cows, all of the various kinds of dogs...these are human inventions that were created by merely speeding up the process.

There are a certain kind of crab off Japan that, over a period of a couple hundred years have totally evolved due to human intervention. These crabs have an ornamental shell. Japanese fishermen, following tradition and religion, er, superstition, would always throw back the crabs that had shells with a design that resembled a samurai warrior's head. Two hundred years ago, these crabs were fairly rare.

Now nearly ALL the crabs have these shells that resemble the warrior. This IS evolution.

Because the crabs with such shells were more likely to live they were more likely to have little baby crabs. And, of course, as with any species, when you procreate, your offspring is more likely to resemble you.

The AIDS virus is another shining example of evolution at work. And HERE we CAN see true evolution because we're talking about billions of cells that have relatively short lifespans. Out of the billions of virus cells in an infected patient there may be only a few that are immune to a particular medice or cocktail. If the patient is given the same cocktail over a period of time, we see the virus that is immune become far more prevalent and, soon, dominant.

To me, with this evidence, I don't see how anybody can argue evolution does not occur. Sure, you could argue creationism, religion and superstition all you want. They may very well be compatible.

In other words, I can't tell you whether or not there is a God. If there is, then I can't tell you which, of the hundreds and hundreds of religions is correct.

But I can tell you that, if there is a God, he created evolution.

BTW, I'll put my money on Mormons being the correct religion and all others are going to....that place. Saw it on South Park.

I got two words for you. Natural Selection.

And once again, NS is NOT evolution. No new species are being created. Existing species' appearances are being modified, in some cases even diet or niche, but in all cases, they remain what they were. The crabs are still crabs. They are not shrimp, nor are they lobsters. They have not transformed into giraffes or orangutans either. They are hard-shelled, multi-legged creatures that pick apart their food with pincers. They are crabs, they were crabs, and 42 trillion years from now, they will still be crabs, God-willing.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by knowltok3


I agree, but the Creationists will tell you that there is no link between the two.

On a side note, I just picked up Darwin's Ghost from the Library, so in a few weeks or a month or two when this thread is dead I will be able to add more insights.

And why will we say this? Oh yeah, because it is the truth.