Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Was Darwin wrong ?

Was Darwin wrong ? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2004, 11:00 PM
 
Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Copyright 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak
[Last Update: October 1, 2003]

<snip>
Thank you.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2004, 11:00 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
I defy you to find a difference between your argument and my little tongue-in-cheek example with gravity. What's the difference between wanting to throw about evolution and wanting to throw out gravity, in both cases to accommodate some arbitrary religious belief? In neither case are the mechanisms 100% known.
Two separate possibilities as presented in this thread:

1) gravity doesn't conflict with scripture

2) people understand what gravity actually means, but really have no ****ing clue what they're talking about when they talk about "evolution".

-s*
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2004, 11:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
1) gravity doesn't conflict with scripture
Not with the Christian scripture, no. That's why I invented a made-up religion for the sake of example. I asked for the difference between my example and evolution "conflicting" with the extreme literalist interpretation of the Christian scripture, where in each case you have science conflicting with an arbitrary religious belief.

As for:

2) people understand what gravity actually means, but really have no ****ing clue what they're talking about when they talk about "evolution".
I don't think people understand what gravity actually means. Take, for example, the comment that you can prove gravity by dropping a quarter on the ground. It completely misses the point - for that quarter to fall, it doesn't require that all objects possess gravitational pull. If gravity only worked on Earth but not on the moon, Mars, etc., the quarter would still fall. If Earth's pull were really caused by magnetism or magic or God or whatever, the quarter would still fall, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Not to mention all the complex things that Einstein and others came up with. It's all a little more involved then just whether a damn quarter will fall to the ground or not.

Everyone knows that a quarter will fall to the ground when dropped. Gravity explains why the quarter will fall to the ground. Just like everyone knows that there's a great diversity of life on Earth, and evolution explains why there's a great diversity of life on Earth.

You'd think that people thought things fell up before Newton came along. Or something.
( Last edited by CharlesS; Oct 31, 2004 at 11:35 PM. )

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2004, 11:56 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
I don't think people understand what gravity actually means.
Good points, and you're actually illustrating my point:

People have no idea what "gravity" actually means scientifically, but they *do* know through experience that it means that a quarter will fall down if let go, and it does. And that's what they're talking about, which is fine.

When talking about evolution, people have no idea what it means, but then go off and make bizarre assumptions about what it means, which have nothing to do with the scientific definition or implications. This is also why not being able to personally experience it is such a big thing for the doubters (despite the fact that regular housecleaning with anti-bacterial detergents is practically causing evolution right under their very noses, which courses back to not knowing what to look for because of an ignorance of what the theory actually means).

-s*
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 12:08 AM
 
Originally posted by Krusty:
I can tell you as a former Anthro major who studied a LOT of fossil record (12 years ago now .. plz don't ask for details) that there is an extensive fossil record. Lucy was just a famous, nearly intact one, found in the early 70's which filled one of the "gaps" at the time. There have been many more fossils of Lucy's relatives (known as Australopithecus Afarensis) found since then. There is a nearly continuous fossil record that shows human development through the eons -- they just don't all have rock n' roll names like "Lucy" that everybody knows.
Here is a short list of just a few of the major fossils found and Here is a link to PBS.org that has some nifty discussions and flash animations regarding the "evidence" for evolution -- both in humans and other animals.


See my earlier post .. I agree that there is a large element of faith that goes into scientific inquiry in general. Its a philosophical quandary that no scientist nor philosopher has been able to get past yet.
Good post man.

It's refreshing to see someone post logical answers, instead of spouting off evolution-catch-phrase-cliche and assuming it should be accepted as truth.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 12:10 AM
 
Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Copyright 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak
[Last Update: October 1, 2003]

**condensed

- From here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
good post
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 12:11 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No, that's the other room. I'm here to bash ignorance.

-spheric* (Christian)
Then I'm sure your head is quite sore
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 12:28 AM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
You missed the point. Can you prove that the quarter falls because of gravity, and not simply because of magic / divine influence?

After all, people realized that stuff fell down long before Newton discovered gravity.
Whatever you want to call it, I can prove that if I drop a quarter from my hand it will fall until something stops it. This will happen 100% of the time.

Your illustration is intriguing though. If "life" is to be compared to gravity in this sense, then I retract my earlier statement and concede to your notion about proving whether gravity happens b/c of "divine influence" or b/c of some natural occurrence.

With this I would propose a question though. Do we have sufficient evidence to promote one and only one theory of "creation?"
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 12:57 AM
 
Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Copyright 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak
[Last Update: October 1, 2003]

<snip>

- From here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Great post
The only thing that I am reasonably sure of is that anybody who's got an ideology has stopped thinking. - Arthur Miller
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 01:10 AM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
There are gads of evidence. And you're still, well I wouldn't say questioning it - it's more like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "It doesn't exist! I can't hear you! La la la la la la la!"
Sounds about right.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 01:10 AM
 
Originally posted by greenamp:
Whatever you want to call it, I can prove that if I drop a quarter from my hand it will fall until something stops it. This will happen 100% of the time.
Yes, but can you prove why it will fall until something stops it? Observing a phenomena and explaining it are two completely different things. You observe evolution just as often as you do gravity, you just don't realize it and it doesn't happen as noticeably as gravity.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 02:31 AM
 
Originally posted by greenamp:
Whatever you want to call it, I can prove that if I drop a quarter from my hand it will fall until something stops it. This will happen 100% of the time.
You missed my point again. I don't feel like retyping what I wrote earlier, so please go read my post again.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 03:16 AM
 
Originally posted by greenamp:
You seem to have a lot of faith in evolution though
yup, because the EVIDENCE is so completely overwhelming.

the only reason one could be unaffected is if somebody really didn't care. but if you're trying to find an explanation about how nature works (has worked throughout history), i dare anyone to come up with a better explanation, - or even one which comes close. honest challenge.

no single scientific theory (even the one of gravity) is free of problems, and science is an ongoing process. but to claim that believing in any kind of cultural creation myth is the same as believing in a clearly observable scientific process, which has passed the tests of repeatability and predictability about a gazillion times at every major university in the world, takes an enormous amount of denial of scientific evidence and rejection of common sense.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 01:33 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
I think that when someone says something like "Where are the fossils?" and then several other people reply multiple times with several links to information about various different fossils, that they've answered your question.

Various different fossils here and there that they have guessed on. Like I said, this happened on a GRAND SCALE. they should be EVERYWHERE. Such fossils are still pieced together as guesses or ideas. Not that there is anything WRONG with that.

But to act like someone is utterly ignorant for not taking these "proves" as 100% factual proof is as silly as a religious person calling you an idiot for not believing.

I am not saying I don't believe in it. I am saying IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE BIG PICTURE.

Nor would it disprove anything in the religious realm. I find it funny that some people are desperately trying to use Science to disprove the supernatural. They go hand in hand.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 01:35 PM
 
Originally posted by greenamp:
So far the closest thing to evolutionary evidence anyone has produced in this thread was the lucy fossil. No one has answered questions any more directly than with baseless comments like, "it's a fact," "there's tons of evidence,"it's been observed."

I am glad I am not the only one that has seen this.

Also, your gravity example is flawed. I can prove gravity right now by taking a quarter out of my pocket and letting go- it falls. Can you prove evolution that simply?

You seem to have a lot of faith in evolution though
Indeed. Faith plays a part. Some wont admit it though.
     
benign  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 04:52 PM
 
Would a religious man who found a meaningful chunk
of archaeological evidence to counter his superstitious
child like beliefs - destroy it?

Some say this has already happened, many times
before...


Simple Empire...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 05:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I find your lack of faith disturbing. *choke*
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 05:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Originally posted by greenamp:
So far the closest thing to evolutionary evidence anyone has produced in this thread was the lucy fossil. No one has answered questions any more directly than with baseless comments like, "it's a fact," "there's tons of evidence,"it's been observed."
I am glad I am not the only one that has seen this.
There have been plenty of examples in this thread. Of course, this thread does not even begin to scratch the surface of the entire body of evidence for evolution, but is it supposed to? That would make this thread really, really long, and also, I don't see why we have to do all your research for you. Numerous people in here have posted links to other sites where you can look up all you want in detail. People in this thread have answered your questions, whether you'd like to admit it or not, but if you want more information, then why don't you follow the advice of your own scriptures and "Seek, and ye shall find."

Oh, and by the way:

I am not saying I don't believe in it. I am saying IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE BIG PICTURE.
Says whom? Who decides what the "big picture" is? In the big picture of obtaining a more complete scientific view of the universe, it certainly does matter. If you'd been around during Galileo's time, would you have said "Oh, whether the Earth goes around the sun or the other way around doesn't matter in the big picture, so let's keep teaching people that the sun goes around the earth even though it's misinformation."? What is this "big picture" anyway that evolution doesn't matter to?

Quit trying to pretend that you're not advocating creationism. No one here is buying it. It's just a standard cop-out that I've seen many other creationists use, so they can keep their argument purely negative without the danger of getting asked the nasty question about where the positive evidence for creationism is.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 05:53 PM
 
Ok, I deem this thread finished. If they refuse to understand it, that's their loss, and not much else can be done for them as they shall forever reside within their stubborn caves of minuet knowledge... eating dingleberries.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 06:15 PM
 
Originally posted by benign:
Would a religious man who found a meaningful chunk
of archaeological evidence to counter his superstitious
child like beliefs - destroy it?

Some say this has already happened, many times
before...
Jeesh, don't tell me you are going to start this silly pretentious bit again.

We thought it was over.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 11:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Jeesh, don't tell me you are going to start this silly pretentious bit again.

We thought it was over.
I seriously did NOT miss it at all.

ARG!!!!

Looks like I gotta start my special formatting of my replies to all B9/6Z posts.

benign,
you
are
making
the
forum
hard
to
read
at
a
even
pace
with
your
goofy
formatted
posts.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2004, 11:08 PM
 
"The thing about evolution is that if it hasn't turned your brain inside out, you haven't properly understood it ... Then to my surprise I discovered that it was converging with my growing interest in computers ... The connection lies in the counter-intuitive observation that complex results arise from simple causes, iterated many times over. It's terribly simple to see this happening in the computer ... it all grows out of simple lines of code that start with adding one and one, testing the result, and then doing it again. Being able to watch complexity blossom out of this primitive simplicity is one of the great marvels of our age, greater even than watching man walk on the moon ... It's much more difficult to see it happening in the case of evolution ... our invention of the computer has for the first time let us get a feel for how it works ... It's all part of the same underlying process that we in turn are a part of."

-Douglas Adams

I recommend reading 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins for anyone who's interested in evolution. If you're not interested in evolution, read it anyway - you will be.
|\|0\/\/ 15 7|-|3 71|\/|3
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 12:19 AM
 
to the original poster:

HELL NO
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 12:45 AM
 
When people see the wonderful piece of technology which we are all using right now, the Mac, they automatically assume the existence of its creator, Apple Computer. And yet, when people see all of the awesome sights of our world, including themselves, they believe all of it arose by random chance variation and random selection. If you put a million monkeys on a million typewriters for a billion years, you're never going to get Shakespeare. Most all of you would have the rest of us believe that the natural world - which contains forms infinitely more complex than our vast amount of collective knowledge could ever duplicate - is merely a fortuitous accident. Oh, I've taken my share of anthropology courses, and all of the evolutionary dogma presented in them was thoroughly unconvincing. I challenged my professors' beliefs and found their explanations wanting, but at least they were decent enough to reward my effort with high marks.

I'm not here to persuade any of you to believe there is more to existence than secular humanism. You're entitled to your beliefs, just as those of us who choose to believe in the L-rd are entitled to ours. It is my opinion, for what it's worth, that if you believe there is nothing beyond the secular world, that there are no greater truths beyond empirical observation, then you are admitting that existence is meaningless. I believe that life is meaningful, and that life has a purpose. I believe there are spiritual consequences for our positive and negative conduct. I believe there is justice in the universe. Perhaps you'll counter with the claim that only feeble minds believe in such concepts. So be it.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 01:59 AM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
You missed my point again. I don't feel like retyping what I wrote earlier, so please go read my post again.
You should have read my entire post before commenting. You misunderstood what I was saying.
     
benign  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 09:17 AM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
...I believe there is justice in the universe. Perhaps you'll counter with the claim that only feeble minds believe in such concepts. So be it.





Simple Empire...
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 09:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
...And yet, when people see all of the awesome sights of our world, including themselves, they believe all of it arose by random chance variation and random selection. If you put a million monkeys on a million typewriters for a billion years, you're never going to get Shakespeare. Most all of you would have the rest of us believe that the natural world - which contains forms infinitely more complex than our vast amount of collective knowledge could ever duplicate - is merely a fortuitous accident...


read this book. if you already have and still think the way you do in your post, i can't help you.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 10:57 AM
 
Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
Pic of book by fantastic science writer.

read this book. if you already have and still think the way you do in your post, i can't help you.

What he said.

Trouble is, there's only one book these people will read.
|\|0\/\/ 15 7|-|3 71|\/|3
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 11:32 AM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
When people see the wonderful piece of technology which we are all using right now, the Mac, they automatically assume the existence of its creator, Apple Computer.
Actually, when some people see the wonderful piece of technology which we are all using right now, the Mac, they automatically remember the existence of its creator, Charles Babbage. Everything that has happened since then is just incremental development (yes, some of it groundbreaking) following a few simple rules and incorporating several factors over the past 100+ years.

If you don't believe that, read "In the beginning was the command line" by Neal Stephenson. It's available for download here: http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html

Apple Computer making your Mac is, in the stream of things, equivalent to my parents having made me. Neither happened in a vacuum by an act of God.
     
benign  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 11:50 AM
 


Simple Empire...
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 12:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
When people see the wonderful piece of technology which we are all using right now, the Mac, they automatically assume the existence of its creator, Apple Computer. And yet, when people see all of the awesome sights of our world, including themselves, they believe all of it arose by random chance variation and random selection. If you put a million monkeys on a million typewriters for a billion years, you're never going to get Shakespeare. Most all of you would have the rest of us believe that the natural world - which contains forms infinitely more complex than our vast amount of collective knowledge could ever duplicate - is merely a fortuitous accident.
You make a few erroneous assumptions/comparisons:
1. You assume a human is the "shakespeare" of the natural world. The human is not perfect - we still do stupid things, get diseases, etc. Humans might be considered "something close to shakespeare"
2. In your monkey analogy, to resemble the natural world, start killing monkeys that don't write anything closely resembling shakespeare. Leave only the monkeys that can learn from the monkeys that can write shakespeare (or close to it). Introduce new monkeys - kill the ones that can't learn, let the ones that can learn survive. After several iterations of this, you'll find all of the monkeys can write something close to shakespeare.

People who criticize evolution do so because they make false assumptions. Creationists think the world is "too perfect" to happen on its own. It isn't perfect, creationists just ignore the fact that the failures didn't survive to be observed in present day.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NOT in The People's Theocratic Republic of Homophobia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 12:45 PM
 
I just love the creationists arguments for the new 'Hobbit' people. Too funny. The amount of scholarly gymnastics they are willing to take is just... breathtaking.

I'm following this thread, interesting.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=103284
Who, or what actually won the US election? Intolerance. The Bush campaign was built around pushing God down people's throats; attacking Gays; and more Guns for the idiotic. Gays, Guns & God. Congratulations, you just participated in one big joke.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 02:32 PM
 
Originally posted by benign:
That's
a
nifty
little
sculpture.
Do
You
own
it?

If
not,
how
can
I
buy
one?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 03:09 PM
 
The real question is if you believe you have your dad's nose or your moms hair do you believe in evolution?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 04:38 PM
 
Originally posted by macaddict0001:
The real question is if you believe you have your dad's nose or your moms hair do you believe in evolution?
That is called genetics.

And you should give back your dad's nose.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 04:47 PM
 
Originally posted by Kilbey:
That is called genetics.
hm.

Last I checked, there was a fairly relevant connection between "evolution" and "genetics".

How can that be, I wonder...
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 05:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Kilbey:
That is called genetics.

And you should give back your dad's nose.
well the logic behind that is that if you take two parents with a big nose(for example)then adopt that characteristic into a child, the child can have children with someone with a big nose and before you know it everyone has a big nose therefore the human race has gone through an evolutionary change to all have big noses.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 05:21 PM
 
Originally posted by macaddict0001:
well the logic behind that is that if you take two parents with a big nose(for example)then adopt that characteristic into a child, the child can have children with someone with a big nose and before you know it everyone has a big nose therefore the human race has gone through an evolutionary change to all have big noses.
no, it's all due to the lack of personal responsibility. don't blame anybody else for your big nose!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 06:44 PM
 
Question for the evolution-haters:

There's a species of bird living in Canada. The bird is generally brown in colour, allowing it to blend in with it's environment and hide from it predators, which quite like it's taste when they can find it. 1 in 1000 of these birds is born white but they are quickly snatched up by their predators since their only defence is blending in and white kinda stands out.

Skip forward a few hundred years. Global climate has changed and things in Canada have gotten MUCH cooler. The environment of the little bird is now quite white due to snow coverage. Now, it is the brown coloured little birds that stand out while the rarer white birds of the same species blends in.

What do you suppose will happen to this species of bird over the next few hundred years?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 06:55 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
I believe, as Darwin did, that evolution was one of the mechanisms of creation.
Why do folks have such a hard time with this? Evolution IS NOT inconsistent with a belief in God. Amazing.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: With my kitties!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 07:32 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
2) people understand what gravity actually means, but really have no ****ing clue what they're talking about when they talk about "evolution".
People understand what gravity does, yet they have no idea what gravity is.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 07:35 PM
 
One very odd thing about the evolution theory, as originated by Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" is the idea that Natural Selection actually has anything to do with evolution (the origin of new species).

We've all been told for generations how the two are inextricably linked, but you only have to actually start thinking for youself to realise how ridiculous that is.

Natural selection has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the evolution of new species. Natural selection is about the demise of old species (or varieties within a single species) and has nothing whatsoever to do with originating new species. Ie, it has nothing to do with evolution at all.

IF new species were to ever appear, the natural selection could possibly cause them to become dominant over the old species occupying the same ecological niche. But that is not evolution of new species. the species MUST have already eveloved BEFORE natural selection can have any effect on it whatsoever.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: With my kitties!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 07:38 PM
 
Originally posted by phoenixboy70:


read this book. if you already have and still think the way you do in your post, i can't help you.
Interesting... so I gather the point of this book is how this beautiful universe came into being with neither author nor plan.
     
benign  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 07:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Kilbey:
That's
a
nifty
little
sculpture.
Do
You
own
it?

If
not,
how
can
I
buy
one?

Google the word fool...


Simple Empire...
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 07:41 PM
 
Another point about the observing of evolution:

The evolution of a new species has never been observed.

This is what makes it a bit dubious, and only a theory. Using the gravity analogy that others have been using: Gravity has been observed, and is therefore considered scientific fact. Ie, place two objects close to each other and motionless, with no force holding them in place and they move towards each other. How it happens is not entirely certain, so the mechanisms behind gravity are theory, but gravity itself is proven fact, and is can be repeatedly observable.

With evolution, it has never been observed. Nobody has ever observed a new species originating in nature. What has been observed is changes within a species. Eg, the domestic dog is the same species as the ancient wild dog. Genetically, they are the same species, even though it appears very different.

Natural selection can be proven to cause some variations withing a species to become dominant. This can be easily observed and proven as fact.

However, the same cannot be said for the origin of new species.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:07 PM
 
Originally posted by hayesk:
You make a few erroneous assumptions/comparisons:
1. You assume a human is the "shakespeare" of the natural world. The human is not perfect - we still do stupid things, get diseases, etc. Humans might be considered "something close to shakespeare"
2. In your monkey analogy, to resemble the natural world, start killing monkeys that don't write anything closely resembling shakespeare. Leave only the monkeys that can learn from the monkeys that can write shakespeare (or close to it). Introduce new monkeys - kill the ones that can't learn, let the ones that can learn survive. After several iterations of this, you'll find all of the monkeys can write something close to shakespeare.

People who criticize evolution do so because they make false assumptions. Creationists think the world is "too perfect" to happen on its own. It isn't perfect, creationists just ignore the fact that the failures didn't survive to be observed in present day.
This doesn't fit the analogy at all. Your suggested experiment means that a super-power of some sort, who knows good design when he/she sees it, will make sure that things conform to that design. Ie, he may as well just sit at the typewriter himself, rather than shoot all the poor monkeys that don't get it anywhere near right. Either way, it is his design, and he is the author.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NOT in The People's Theocratic Republic of Homophobia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:14 PM
 
The problem as I see it, is that it's not whether a supreme being, or deity created all of this; but rather do any of these religions, or religious texts even remotely contain an atom's worth of truth as to what they claim. Do they have any truth to the reality of what caused this universe?
Meaning, I consider the possibility of a higher intervention, but to leap to the conclusion that it has anything to do with some Biblical character, is just too preposterous, based on what Biblical/sacerd texts claim.
( Last edited by An Alias; Nov 2, 2004 at 08:22 PM. )
Who, or what actually won the US election? Intolerance. The Bush campaign was built around pushing God down people's throats; attacking Gays; and more Guns for the idiotic. Gays, Guns & God. Congratulations, you just participated in one big joke.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:15 PM
 
Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
no, it's all due to the lack of personal responsibility. don't blame anybody else for your big nose!
<MP>
Who you calling "Big-Nose", eh?
</MP>
     
benign  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A couple of stones from the sun.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:28 PM
 
Evolution is just a theory - In a hundred years time, there may well
be a more expansive, mind boggling brilliant theory devised from
the ever widening field of secular study, continuing to be free from archaic
superstitious dogma which pins man down as forever a child.
Dogma that has to be taught and is not self evident.
Religion is always a fixed, immutable and unquestionable whole that
traps man in a degenerate cage of superstitious childishness.

All religion - is a series of fake redundant stories with no
inherent truth or merit - that makes any believer in it, a mental dodo.

The true thinking man needs no fairy stories to live a strong, full life.


Simple Empire...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Brass:
One very odd thing about the evolution theory, as originated by Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" is the idea that Natural Selection actually has anything to do with evolution (the origin of new species).

We've all been told for generations how the two are inextricably linked, but you only have to actually start thinking for youself to realise how ridiculous that is.

Natural selection has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the evolution of new species. Natural selection is about the demise of old species (or varieties within a single species) and has nothing whatsoever to do with originating new species. Ie, it has nothing to do with evolution at all.

IF new species were to ever appear, the natural selection could possibly cause them to become dominant over the old species occupying the same ecological niche. But that is not evolution of new species. the species MUST have already eveloved BEFORE natural selection can have any effect on it whatsoever.
No. I'm afraid there's a number of misconceptions in your post.

One of the situations in which speciation occurs is in physical separation, where separated populations evolve differently, adapting to their respective environments in different ways. This can be observed, and it was exactly this scenario, seen on the Galapagos Islands, that prompted Darwin to his theory.

Natural selection has EVERYTHING to do with the evolution of new species. It is the gradual mechanism by which characteristics change over tens of generations, because certain variations have an adaptive advantage. The arisal of a new "species" is a fairly arbitrary point on this gradual progression of change; one of the defining criteria is the inability to produce viable offspring through cross-breeding (such as with donkeys and horses, which are very, very closely related, but only produce infertile offspring - mules). So arisal of a new species within a single location over time is rather difficult to "prove", since it's difficult to interbreed a changed population with its own ancestors.

The single location, however, is entirely irrelevant to evolution, speciation, or natural selection.

-s*
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2