Jump to content


Photo

Theory Of Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
252 replies to this topic

#41 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 09:35 AM

Please understand a few things:

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981:

"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. ... There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination."

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986:

"...in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution": (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml)

"...evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."

Edited by THOTH, 30 January 2004 - 09:35 AM.


#42 gurgen

gurgen

    You talking to me?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:tennis, chess, football (the real one), games

Posted 30 January 2004 - 09:40 AM

Who knows, maybe there is some truth in evolution, as Thoth was pictured like this in ancient times lol.gif lol.gif

Attached Files



#43 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 09:43 AM

QUOTE (Sasun @ Jan 29 2004, 12:02 PM)
Yeah, I see Anonymouse. I believe we have evolved but Darwin's theory may not be correct. There should be a driving force behind the evolution which is not acknowledged in his theory. It doesn't take into account the notion of entropy (I think this was discussed somewhere else in the forum) and so contradicts to the universal fact that things when left alone get less orderly/evolved not more orderly/evolved. Therefore, for the evolution to be true there must be a driving force. What is it? Could Darwin's natural selection serve as a driving force? Does it qualify as such? That is the question I am curious to know.

Oppurtunity is th driving force. Does water run downhill because of suopernaturla intervention..no there is such a thing as gravity..and this complels this action. In nature - which is both chaotic and orderly (but ultimatly variable and unpredictable)..and (demonstratably) mutable - we see that organic life mutates and adapts and that often these mutations prove the difference for survival thus those with these new traits do so - and reproduce - etc etc - its all really very simple..and i do suggest reading Darwin himself (as I have) - Origin of the species is fascinating stuff - anyone with an open and inquisitive mind cannot help but be amazed...and no need to supppose forces and the like - for which no proof whatsoever can be generated - to expalin what is easily understood and plain to see...

#44 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 09:44 AM

Gurgen - that is a current picture..photography had not been invented in ancient times! Our technology has EVOLVED quite a bit since then....

#45 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 09:59 AM

More...a must read if you really doubt (and care)...go ahead...take your time...lol

http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

#46 gurgen

gurgen

    You talking to me?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:tennis, chess, football (the real one), games

Posted 30 January 2004 - 10:07 AM

QUOTE (THOTH @ Jan 30 2004, 09:44 AM)
Gurgen - that is a current picture..photography had not been invented in ancient times! Our technology has EVOLVED quite a bit since then....

No shit Sherlock biggrin.gif

You know very well I mean the Egyptian statue laugh.gif

#47 Armat

Armat

    A R M A T

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 January 2004 - 10:10 AM

Anon
I actually took the time to read everything you wrote and copied and pasted ones as well just to understand your perspective.
It is true that Darwinian evolution does not explain the process of evolution completely but this is where you get lost.
You are talking about the tail of the Cat and saying it is not a tail but Darwin said sure it is a cat and it probably involved from much earlier versions of the same cat.
At the time Darwin guessed the chance theory but as science progressed we now understand much more about the DNA, Genes etc hence we are yet to understand the process completely. The question is if you take an earlier fossil of a bird with teeth and feathers and the intermediate fossil of a bird and the final bird "version" then we are concluding that it has involved! The point is we are looking the evidence of involved specie. Is that not evolution? Just because we don't know exact mechanism of that process it does not dismiss the evidence.

#48 Armat

Armat

    A R M A T

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 January 2004 - 10:11 AM

Thoth
as I understand Anon and Sasun correctly, they are not saying there was no evolution but Darwinian version fails to explain the "how" it happens

#49 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 10:14 AM

QUOTE (Armat @ Jan 30 2004, 11:11 AM)
Thoth
as I understand Anon and Sasun correctly, they are not saying there was no evolution but Darwinian version fails to explain  the "how" it happens

Well - thats not what I see right off the bat - if you look at the first post. And in fact, if so, tey are still essentially wrong...

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Great guy...got to meet him once!

Oh and please also read:

http://www.talkorigi...c/sciproof.html

(actually back it up and read the whole thing - as i posted earlier)

Edited by THOTH, 30 January 2004 - 10:17 AM.


#50 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 10:30 AM

QUOTE (Anonymouse @ Jan 29 2004, 08:45 PM)
How is evolution a fact? What part of 'theory' did you not understand? Making it a fact to soothe your own insecurity and ignorance because it has to be so, does not necessarily make it so.

Yes who is the ignorant one...

#51 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 10:36 AM

Here is a good one (and from a Christian site no less!)

Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "creation science" is not actually science. This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified. i.e. it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true. That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant. All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis. No evidence from nature can disprove this belief. Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist.

http://www.religious...org/ev_over.htm

Oh and at the very bottom of the page:

Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems.

LOL

Edited by THOTH, 30 January 2004 - 10:38 AM.


#52 gurgen

gurgen

    You talking to me?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:tennis, chess, football (the real one), games

Posted 30 January 2004 - 10:53 AM

QUOTE (Armat @ Jan 30 2004, 10:10 AM)
Just because we don't know exact mechanism of that process it does not dismiss the evidence.

Yes it does. This is science, not a betting parlour. You can't give half-answers like this to the most important question in life.

#53 Armat

Armat

    A R M A T

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 January 2004 - 11:03 AM

QUOTE (Anonymouse @ Jan 28 2004, 09:31 PM)
Well, from the time Darwin had his holy visions, and until now, there is little reason to believe in the theory of evolution, which is, yes, a belief. It is an assumption that we evolved, not an established fact.

Anon
I had to read you again and it turns out you not only dismiss Darwin but everyone else up untill now.
I had given much credit to you but your ignorance is deliberate.Sure you can dismiss any scientific fussil as incomplete any theory short of perfection to amuse you in the perpetual assertation that evolution is a belief.
I just took the time to read lot of data counter to Darwin and these scientists make lot of great points.
Thomas Huxley (1863) thought that Darwin had not adequately explained hybrid sterility. Thus, the cross of a horse with an ass is usually fertile ("first crosses" succeed), but the hybrid progeny, a mule, is usually sterile ("second crosses" fail). Gamete production in the maldeveloped gonads of the mule is impaired.
Romanes focussed on the sterility barrier, which often appears to be the only barrier separating members of closely related (allied) species, and, indeed, seems the most useful criterion for distinguishing such species (Box 1). He suggested that, like cells of all other organs and tissues, germ line cells might undergo random variations.
Variations, for example, in height or eye colour were familiar to everyone. In 1886 no one knew what caused variations, but no one doubted their existence. Romanes emphasized one possible class of variation affecting germ line cells, which would make an organism less fertile (more sterile) with other members of the species but would not directly influence somatic characters.
Normally the loss of fertility would be highly disadvantageous because the organism would leave no offspring. However, he argued that if two organisms underwent the same type of variation, they would still be fertile between themselves. They would be "physiological complements"
"The problem of physiological isolation has received but little attention during the last two decades, but the modern picture of the mechanism of reproduction and the physico-chemical processes that it involves would have a very large influence on any consideration of the subject today. The immediate cause of infertility between species would be sought at the present time in either chromosomal incompatibilities or maladjustments of a serological nature .... From several viewpoints the old proposition of Romanes seems today exceedingly plausible, that a rather trivial mutation or group of mutations might set up a barrier of sterility within a species, and cause the two portions to diverge thereafter into well-marked new species

#54 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 11:06 AM

QUOTE (Sasun @ Jan 29 2004, 12:02 PM)
Yeah, I see Anonymouse. I believe we have evolved but Darwin's theory may not be correct. There should be a driving force behind the evolution which is not acknowledged in his theory. It doesn't take into account the notion of entropy (I think this was discussed somewhere else in the forum) and so contradicts to the universal fact that things when left alone get less orderly/evolved not more orderly/evolved. Therefore, for the evolution to be true there must be a driving force. What is it? Could Darwin's natural selection serve as a driving force? Does it qualify as such? That is the question I am curious to know.

Leonard Krishtalka, director of the University of Kansas Museum of
Natural History. Referring to ID, he said, "That's a religious belief, and science has no comment on that."

Referring to the lack of understanding of the evolution of a living cell, Dr. Kristalka commented: "The absence of knowledge does not mean the answer is a supernatural creator."


and more...

http://www.talkorigi...faqs/cosmo.html


And from http://www.infidels....finetuning.html

"...Creationism is a vacuous theory: intelligent design does not make any real predictions. It doesn't even attempt to explain why we have the specific laws we do instead of others, i.e. others that would support life. It is thus not much of an explanation, being empty of any substantial content. For instance, why is the speed of light just what it is instead of something else? The theist can only appeal to God's whim, while the scientist pursuing methodological naturalism has a good chance of finding a natural reason for the value of the speed of light. And we can say this, because history proves that the odds are entirely on his side (cf. my "Prima Facie Presumptions vs. The Lessons of History").

In contrast, what a Creationist theory ought to predict, which a naturalistic theory would not, does not turn up. The laws of physics proceed without any regard for right or wrong, good people or bad, and they proceed relentlessly and monotonously, never demonstrably deviating, much less with anything like a value-laden purpose; resources are arbitrarily limited and randomly distributed without regard for merit; and no clear supernatural events or messages are present in any of our lives--guns are not suddenly turned into flowers, churches are not protected by mysterious energy fields, True Bibles are not indestructible nor do they glow in the dark, preachers cannot regenerate lost limbs, and when we ask God a question, with all sincerity and earnest urging, we never receive a clear, reasoned answer that all can hear and agree upon. Thus, intelligent design is a rather poor explanation for the universe we have, whereas a naturalistic theory fits it like a glove. We are faced with what is ultimately a mindless, careless, silent and blind machine. Doesn't it make more sense that it should have an ultimately mindless, careless, silent and blind cause? The point is that Intelligent Design really doesn't bring anything to the table as far as explaining our universe, our actual universe. By focusing solely on one single feature, an "ability to produce life," Fine Tuning proponents miss the forest for the tree."

#55 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 11:09 AM

QUOTE (gurgen @ Jan 30 2004, 11:53 AM)
Yes it does. This is science, not a betting parlour. You can't give half-answers like this to the most important question in life.

You fail to understand scientific method

http://www.talkorigi...c/sciproof.html

Also - do you take Asprin for headahes (or at least admit that folks do and that it is effective)? - well do you understand the exact chemical proces why it works? No - but it can be obseved to be effective - thus the statement that Asprin has been proven to cure (some/most/whatever as appropriate) headahces is true. We wouldn't just chew bubble gum to cure a heacdache now would we? Seems to em that You and Sasun are of the belief that we can just make up some explanation and our belief alone is val;id for it to be true...not.

Edited by THOTH, 30 January 2004 - 11:17 AM.


#56 gurgen

gurgen

    You talking to me?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:tennis, chess, football (the real one), games

Posted 30 January 2004 - 11:14 AM

QUOTE
"Proof," then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear "proof" mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means." Even though one may hear "proof" used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms "proof" or "prove" in this article.


Very convenient to say there is no proof in science when you have no proof. Bravo to the evolutionists. Since when do they make the laws of science?

Also I believe Anonymouse has bashed the mathematical part of evolution.

#57 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 11:26 AM

QUOTE (gurgen @ Jan 30 2004, 12:14 PM)
Very convenient to say there is no proof in science when you have no proof. Bravo to the evolutionists. Since when do they make the laws of science?

Also I believe Anonymouse has bashed the mathematical part of evolution.

You exactly "prove" my point...you fail to understand the difference between a "proof" - which exists only in mathmatics and "eveidence" which is in the realm of science.

It is impossible for evolution to be disproveed mathmatically at this time because one cannot accuratly determine all of the processes that must be disproved. We are still in a process of discovering what these thinsg are - as the science and our understanding advances. In the meantime evolution is considered factual based on the available - very good empiricale evidence. To deny that it is true is to say that you don't believe in science and scientific method. So yeah - the earth was made in 7 days..is 4,000 years old and all of that...LOL - rihgt..yeah show me the matmatical proof of that! LOL

#58 gurgen

gurgen

    You talking to me?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:tennis, chess, football (the real one), games

Posted 30 January 2004 - 11:34 AM

QUOTE (THOTH @ Jan 30 2004, 11:26 AM)
You exactly "prove" my point...you fail to understand the difference between a "proof" - which exists only in mathmatics and "eveidence" which is in the realm of science.

It is impossible for evolution to be disproveed mathmatically at this time because one cannot accuratly determine all of the processes that must be disproved. We are still in a process of discovering what these thinsg are - as the science and our understanding advances. In the meantime evolution is considered factual based on the available - very good empiricale evidence. To deny that it is true is to say that you don't believe in science and scientific method. So yeah - the earth was made in 7 days..is 4,000 years old and all of that...LOL - rihgt..yeah show me the matmatical proof of that! LOL

'eveidence' as you call it can be a result of a number of thing. Telling people that it happened because of one thing and then failing to show (see I am using the word show since you have a natural distaste for proof) HOW it happened is not really 'the realm of science', it is merely the realm of speculation.

Moreover, where did I say that I believed that the earth was made in 7 days and that it's 4000 years old? I just don't take evolution for granted because everybody else does. Who am I to decide whether God exists? He either does or he doesn't, we'll never find out anyway.

#59 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 11:37 AM

A very brief (but effective) refutation of Eden: (yes its all in the assumptions...matmatics is only as good as what you feed into it and only as applicable as the validity of those same assumptions...)

Adaptive change by mutation has been shown in the laboratory and is not in question. It is quite easy to demonstrate in bacteria, and advantageous forms which were generated by the co-occurrence of multiple mutations are quite possible. Three points are usually being missed by people who make Prof. Eden's mistake:

1 - Disadvantageous forms can persist in the population for a long time;

2 - Multiple ways to the same end (multiple mutations giving the same result) are not only possible but common;

3 - Intermediate steps often have an inobvious advantage in themselves, making them targets of natural selection.

Seriously, there is something badly wrong with the mathematician's models if this story is true. In the first place, there isn't really a necessity for each mutation to occur from a blank slate - virtually all species have a fair amount of diversity. In the second place, there is a considerable amount of recombination - even with base pairs on the same chromosome (crossover) (or maybe the mathematician has never heard of sex :-). Thirdly, the rate of mutations can be measured and is significantly higher than what appears to be implied by the fixing of 6 mutations in 1 billion years. Fourthly, if any intermediate forms have any slight advantage (due to partial implementation of the feature), then those forms will be selected -- and selection is NOT a random process. Fifthly, many single point mutations have similar/identical effect (that is, it wouldn't be necessary for 6 specific mutations to occur but one from each of 6 different sets, a much easier problem).

All I can figure is that the model assumes a population of a single homozygous individual whose progeny never exchange any genetic material and in which the mutated genes never recombine by crossover during mitosis. In other words, sort of like analyzing the aerodynamics of racehorses by assuming a spherical horse

Sounds like he's talking about six simultaneous mutations, which may very well be statistically phenomenal. Not required they be simultaneous by evolution however, and once one mutation is replicating throughout a group of related organisms, the odds then go up that one of them might develop another significant mutation in addition to the one they are now carrying.

etc etc

#60 THOTH

THOTH

    Veteran

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:many

Posted 30 January 2004 - 11:39 AM

QUOTE (gurgen @ Jan 30 2004, 12:34 PM)
'eveidence' as you call it can be a result of a number of thing. Telling people that it happened because of one thing and then failing to show (see I am using the word show since you have a natural distaste for proof) HOW it happened is not really 'the realm of science', it is merely the realm of speculation.

Moreover, where did I say that I believed that the earth was made in 7 days and that it's 4000 years old? I just don't take evolution for granted because everybody else does. Who am I to decide whether God exists? He either does or he doesn't, we'll never find out anyway.

Evolution is not speculation..and more then belief in gravity is...the evidence is clear to see..please spare us...

And please actually (take soem time and) read some of the links I put up...the eveidence is clearly there...clearly...that you don't accept it is just tantamount to rejecting Science...so who is the fool...?

Edited by THOTH, 30 January 2004 - 11:40 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users