DescentBB

lol, not intentional ignorance. It's called a blatant disregard for bad science!

Foil wrote:Let's see...

• Scattered topics... check.
• Miscellaneous references to macro vs. micro... check.
• Notes about the nature of science vs. religion... check.
• Signs of flame-war breaking out... check.

Yep, so far it's a typical thread on this topic.

Next up: Scriptures fly, Christians debate the Hebrew "yom", while Atheists throw stones.

Okay, okay!

Watch it happen again in a few months.

Duper wrote:lol, not intentional ignorance. It's called a blatant disregard for bad science!

You believe certain traits are exempt from being selected out in micro-evolution?

Space,

what you have is a lot of fossils that look a like that belong to different creatures. That's it, nothing else. Just because a lot of things LOOK similar is not sufficient evidence to gel \"evolution\". It's a very VERY old idea that Darwin popularized with some very very BAD examples, (as most should know by now) and no real understanding of the complexities of micro or macro biology.

There is NOTHING in the fossil record that gives evidence of evolution. Micro evolution??? pphhft. please. That's a cop-out. Natural adaptation does not equal evolution. No genetic code was improved upon.

Looking at somethings X, Y, & Z and noticing they look alike does NOT mean they evolved into the other. Cramming a bunch of examples into a cookie cutter to support a theory is bad science. \"Our\" understanding of microbiology is such that it antiquates much of what Darwin postulated.

Duper wrote:what you have is a lot of fossils that look a like that belong to different creatures. That's it, nothing else. Just because a lot of things LOOK similar is not sufficient evidence to gel "evolution". It's a very VERY old idea that Darwin popularized with some very very BAD examples, (as most should know by now) and no real understanding of the complexities of micro or macro biology.

Except for the fact that scientists can put the various fossils into time sequences that are consistent with change over time. The fossil record is not just a random assemblage of fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

Find a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian, and evolution will have a hard time explaining it.

In general, the evidence for evolution is pretty good, Dr. Dino, notwithstanding.

There is NOTHING in the fossil record that gives evidence of evolution. Micro evolution??? pphhft. please. That's a cop-out. Natural adaptation does not equal evolution. No genetic code was improved upon.

Wrong, Evolution is all about adaptation. "Improved" has no meaning in biology, in the sense that there is any direction to evolution. More animals survive in a population if they are better adapted to whatever selection pressure is acting on them, and they are able to pass those genes on to their descendants.

See the story around Tiktaalik. Scientists were able to predict were they might find an intermediate fossil in this series, and, when they looked there, they found it.

Looking at somethings X, Y, & Z and noticing they look alike does NOT mean they evolved into the other. Cramming a bunch of examples into a cookie cutter to support a theory is bad science. "Our" understanding of microbiology is such that it antiquates much of what Darwin postulated.

Seems like the idea of evolution as "descent with modification" is doing just fine as a science topic. Many of Darwin's ideas have been modified over time, resulting in a more well adapted theory to describe what we know from the fossil record. So, yeah, the idea of evolution has "evolved" over time; the selection pressure is that the theory must conform to the observed data.

Bet51987 wrote:if you want to believe in both God and an intelligent designer, you must put them in the same bottle.

Not necessarily. One of the things JRR Tolkien set out to do in Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion is demonstrate how a world could have several creators and lesser deities (the Valar and Maiar), despite having a boss-God (Iluvatar).

Belief in God doesn't preclude belief in other intelligent creators, either on a small scale (you created your post) or on a large scale (some angel or equivalent may have created some significant portion of the universe; aliens may have seeded life on earth.)

If you want to believe both in the Biblical God and some other powerful creative entities, you don't necessarily have to put them all in the same bottle, you merely have to make sure the bottles are compatible.

Lothar wrote:If you want to believe both in the Biblical God and some other powerful creative entities, you don't necessarily have to put them all in the same bottle, you merely have to make sure the bottles are compatible.

But the book of Genesis is pretty clear that "God created." "Let there be...".

I get a real kick out of the phrase, "If you want to believe"...

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:if you want to believe in both God and an intelligent designer, you must put them in the same bottle.

Not necessarily. One of the things JRR Tolkien set out to do in Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion is demonstrate how a world could have several creators and lesser deities (the Valar and Maiar), despite having a boss-God (Iluvatar).

Belief in God doesn't preclude belief in other intelligent creators, either on a small scale (you created your post) or on a large scale (some angel or equivalent may have created some significant portion of the universe; aliens may have seeded life on earth.)

If you want to believe both in the Biblical God and some other powerful creative entities, you don't necessarily have to put them all in the same bottle, you merely have to make sure the bottles are compatible.

Wasn't this taken from Greek Mythology. We all know the story. THE OLYMPIANS twelve immortals dwelt in a magnificent palace on the heights of Mount Olympus.

Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Hermes, Hestia, Demeter, Aphrodite, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares and Hephaestus

Which also brings up the myth they may not have been the ones who created the universe because they over threw the Titans. Oceanus and Tethys, Hyperion and Theia, Coeus and Phoebe, Cronus and Rhea, Mnemosyne, Themis, Crius, Iapetus. Then of course which leads to Gaia. Which even gets to stating that she brought forth Uranus, the starry sky. Who was her equal.

the differences between a religion and a cult are the size and the age.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But the book of Genesis is pretty clear that "God created." "Let there be..."

God is explicitly said to have created certain things, but at other times God commands and the things exist with no explicit statement as to process. When it comes to plants and animals, God commands for the earth to grow them, and the earth grows them. When you read over the Egyptian creation myth Genesis 1 was responding to, the clear point is that God is the boss, but it's taking Genesis 1 too far to say there's no possible room for lesser creators. (For the record, I don't think such other creators actually exist, only that both you and Bettina are wrong to say they can't possibly.)

Insurrectionist wrote:Wasn't this taken from Greek Mythology

Tolkien's Iluvatar is clearly in charge, even intentionally creating Melkor as a rebel so that he could make an even more beautiful song and an even more beautiful creation. There are similarities to other mythologies (including Greek), but there are some very important differences as well.

Lothar wrote:When it comes to plants and animals, God commands for the earth to grow them, and the earth grows them.

I know you are talking about something else at the moment, but isn't this completely consistent with evolution? i.e. evolution as the unspecified process?

Here's my two cents, if evolution is real, why dont we see it at all today? I would love for someone to show me a cro-magnon in our present day or what ever the monkey men are called.

S13driftAZ wrote:Here's my two cents, if evolution is real, why dont we see it at all today? I would love for someone to show me a cro-magnon in our present day or what ever the monkey men are called.

You could ask the same question of creation…

The answer is…gone extinct.

S13driftAZ wrote:Here's my two cents, if evolution is real, why dont we see it at all today?

You are. You're just not going to live a few thousand years to see humans evolve.

Isaac wrote:

S13driftAZ wrote:Here's my two cents, if evolution is real, why dont we see it at all today?

You are. You're just not going to live a few thousand years to see humans evolve.

I would think some humans would be evolving as we speak is my point.

I do believe also that evolution is a form of religion. I would get in to an argument about it and whats wrong and whats right but your religion is like your genitalia. You keep it to yourself, and don't go running around showing everyone. Everyone is going to keep thinking theirs is bigger and better, and you'll be the only one with any evidence on the table.

.

I disagree with your take on I.D., Bettina, but I don't really know either. I do know you appear to be parroting what I've heard from others about I.D. But how do you know that?

If it is it is, but I am terribly curious to know how everyone knows with such certainty...

You know that movie Ben Stein made? Some of the I.D.ers seemed to be pretty legit there. And I thought they made some excellent points!

well there's another name for I.D.

Creationism.

S13driftAZ wrote:Here's my two cents, if evolution is real, why dont we see it at all today? I would love for someone to show me a cro-magnon in our present day or what ever the monkey men are called.

Because evolution is a VERY SLOW process. Part of the curriculum in any junior high school will tell you this.

People who are against the concepts of Creationism and Intelligent Design lump I.D. and Creationism together. I've never heard a valid reason for doing so, other than that 'they are the same thing'...

I.D., at least in its' inception is a group of people, with a background in science, who are dissatisfied with evolution--naturalism as an explanation for the world we live in. I think it's pretty revealing how they lose by default (the main thrust of Ben Stein's movie), even with Bee and Ferno, who have joined the growing number of anti-creationists who have developed psychic powers to more efficiently combat this new anti-scientific menace. If only popularly accepted science is good science, then science is in the same hole as the American political arena (there are human beings involved in both, so I guess that could be)...

Ferno wrote:Because evolution is a VERY SLOW process. Part of the curriculum in any junior high school will tell you this.

Actually, the theory is that evolution to this point has been a very LONG process. So long in fact that it has been stated that it is mathematically ridiculous. (I'm sorry, are we not considering that bit of 'SCIENCE!'?)

mathematically ridiculous?

dude.. it's biology. not calculus.


and stated by who?

.

Ferno wrote: Part of the curriculum in any junior high school will tell you this.

I call that indoctrination. But since it's in the schools it's ok.

Ferno wrote:Mathematically ridiculous?

dude.. it's biology. not calculus.


and stated by who?

It's been shown a number of times by different sources (most of them not Christian) that the origin of life described by Darwin is well past (or into) the range that is "tatistical impossible. " I forget the exact number.

Duper wrote:
I call that indoctrination. But since it's in the schools it's ok.

nothing to say to this except: facepalm

It's been shown a number of times by different sources (most of them not Christian) that the origin of life described by Darwin is well past (or into) the range that is "tatistical impossible. " I forget the exact number.

well the thing is about the theory of evolution (and I stress THEORY) is that it is simply a 'work in progress'. And the thing about mathematics is it's not a closed intellectual system either. so it can't either prove or disprove a theory.

Duper wrote:It's been shown a number of times by different sources (most of them not Christian) that the origin of life described by Darwin is well past (or into) the range that is "tatistical impossible. " I forget the exact number.

Damn dude, it’s really hard to use accelerators on your posts…

But anyway, that’s got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard as an argument against evolution.

Does Darwin’s theory even try to explain the origin of life, I always thought it was the origin of species.

*edit*

My day has been too chaotic and I've barely had time to put two thoughts together in order. I'm going to go do some reading and then I'll try to post something more intelligent than a lot of tired, hungry, blither.

S13driftAZ wrote:Here's my two cents, if evolution is real, why dont we see it at all today? I would love for someone to show me a cro-magnon in our present day or what ever the monkey men are called.

That would be "ape" men, not monkey men.

The answer is that you do see it (evolution) happening today, if you know what to look for. The raw material for evolution are mutations -

[4] The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. The average rate of point mutations is about 20-30 in a billion per individual. Almost all point mutations in multi-cellular organisms are strictly neutral. In human beings 90-97% of the DNA is "junk DNA" that does nothing (as best as can be determined.) One third of the changes to codons (sections of DNA that code for proteins) are silent; that is, the DNA changes, but the the amino acid coded for remains the same. Thus 93-98% of all point mutations in humans are strictly neutral.

Of the remaining 2-7% almost all of them are also neutral. A typical protein is a sequence of about 1,000 amino acids which folds up around a reaction site consisting of about 50 amino acids. Changes in the reaction site have a strong effect on the properties of the protein; changes elsewhere often do not unless they affect the folding pattern. As a result, less than 1% of the point mutations are subject to selection. [7]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Evolution is more a population level phenomenon, rather than an individual level phenomenon. You have to observe changes in a population over a certain period of time, and under given selection pressures, in order to ascertain differences. See more discussion and references here.

Ferno wrote:

Sgt. Thorne wrote:So long in fact that it has been stated that it is mathematically ridiculous.

mathematically ridiculous?

dude.. it's biology. not calculus.

For discussion around abiogenesis, see here

Funny how every one here knows and knows a lot. I find even more interesting when you watch those show on this subject of evolution you always here the words \"we think\" We think man evolved from ape. Fact is we may never know. IN THEORY, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Even aliens seeding the earth. One all knowing God can create the world. Man can even evolve from a ape.

Lets get at least this much straight…the theory doesn’t state that man evolved from apes. It states that man and apes evolved from the same ancestors.

The difference in DNA between Humans & Chimpanzees is 1%. Is it really so hard to believe that over a 6 million year period, DNA could change ½ of a percent*

*Humans diverging in one direction & Chimps diverging in another, resulting in 1%.

more specific: the theory is that the homo genus did evolve from earlier animals, then diverged into two main branches. one leading to chimpanzees and the other into modern man

yep. see the discussion around the recent Ardipithecus finds.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... t-at-last/

Spidey wrote:Is it really so hard to believe that over a 6 million year period, DNA could change ½ of a percent*

I find it ridiculous for you to even ask that question of a bulletin board full of people who will probably never fully grasp the real-life concept of DNA and how, precisely, it operates.

The question in my mind is not what vague mathematical quantity of change is plausible, but what nature of change, *exactly* are we talking about, and is there a real-life precedent for it?

If this were good science instead of naturalistic dogma masquerading as science the precedent actually should have come *first*.

Charles Darwin’s theories on human evolution sent the scientific community into a frenzy in the middle of the 19th century. He theorized that humans were derived from apes.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Spidey wrote:Is it really so hard to believe that over a 6 million year period, DNA could change ½ of a percent*

I find it ridiculous for you to even ask that question of a bulletin board full of people who will probably never fully grasp the real-life concept of DNA and how, precisely, it operates.

Yup, just as ridiculous as asking people to believe that humans were created by magic.

.

Spidey wrote:Yup, just as ridiculous as asking people to believe that humans were created by magic.

Hey, if I'm wrong then call me out on it, but don't be a ★■◆● and start throwing accusations because you somehow don't feel I have the right to make sense.

In retrospect, I think you probably took what I said fairly personally. I guess I can't really help that. It's kind of my nature to strongly resist things that I feel distort reality. If I'm critical (even very critical) in my replies it's not for lack of respect, intellectual estimation, or affection, it's just because I feel you're wrong. Frankly, I think asking more than that of this medium is asking too much, most of the time--The force that I feel a point deserves might otherwise be lost in disclaimers and apologies, at best, and at worst the point itself might be obfuscated.

I have news for you Thorne…the world doesn’t revolve around you, or your little version of the truth.

JFTR, I wasn’t speaking of you, just the idea in general.

You insult me, then you expect some sort of respectful response…Lol, I’m not about to be talked down to by someone who’s brain is stuck 2000 years in the past.

I personally believe in creationism. Im gonna have to say really, an explosion created life? Sure BANG happened and all the essential elements were there and blah blah blah... asteroids collided... bada-bing there's a planet. So this planet cools and now where does life begin? Bacteria just *happened* i guess.
And then bacteria evolves in the oceans and then their fish and then they make feet! They walk onto land and i guess something there must've provided food. and there was food for that food.
then a whole bunch of time went by and things went well and we get animals (that somehow have amazing indescribable traits, that science cant figure out yet, that obviously these animals \"devoloped\" by themselves) and wonderful apes; and more stuff goes well and finally were at the point where all the body hair we have is on our legs, crotch chest and head. Must mean were humans now! Woo! we invent language and then someone gets knocked up and we create the man darwin that came up with a THEORY.

My point is here, how can we say we weren't designed? Our bodies just \"adapted\" and now we have an amazing complex system of organs that cooperate perfectly with each other, and most of all... the paradox known as grey matter. How the hell did evolution do this??? A brain? Scientists havent even scratched the surface on knowing what the heck that piece of goo does! Its outstanding people can wake up in the morning, go out on their front porch each day, and see all of the things on this earth working in perfect harmony, and say \"yawn, im glad everyone evolved.\"

Read above. I shouldn't have posted yet because I wasn't done with the second half.

If your telling me to read above: I'm not gonna call you out. There's no point. All I did is provide my opinion so I can see who can flame me the hardest and disprove me in some way. A bit trollish, but I'm not trying to make people angry; just giving them a bit more of a harder argument.

EDIT: woo boy, my argument might've contradicted one of my earlier posts... eh, never mind, I don't care.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I.D., at least in its' inception is a group of people, with a background in science, who are dissatisfied with evolution--naturalism as an explanation for the world we live in. I think it's pretty revealing how they lose by default...

Because as long as "ID" is a list of nitpicks of biological evolution, then it isn't science. Evolution vs. ID is a false dichotomy, so if you want to show that something is designed, then you can't do it by showing why it couldn't have evolved. No scientific theory can be considered true solely on the basis that another one is false.

Unless ID can reformulate itself into a science, then it will always scientifically lose by default.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I find it ridiculous for you to even ask that question of a bulletin board full of people who will probably never fully grasp the real-life concept of DNA and how, precisely, it operates.

Insincere. If we were to poll people who actually do understand how DNA operates and ask them the same thing, then you would be unsatisfied with their answer too and probably just appeal to some kind of vast liberal conspiracy to explain it.