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 4)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 07:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
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*
What you are saying here still makes no sense (to me at least... but maybe I'm just dopey).

Natural selection has nothing to do with arise of a new species. In theory, it could help a new species become dominant, but the species must exist, before it can be selected.

Same for a variety within a species. A variation cannot be selected by nature until it exists. Therefore natural selection cannot bring about any variation whatsoever.

Edit:

I'll try to say it another way...

If evolution theory was correct, then it could actually occur without natural selection. It would result in a different set of species/varieties, but it could still occur. The only difference would be that the old species/varieties would not die off due to competition from the new ones. It may mean that the new species/varieties never really make it, because there's not enough of them to compete with the old ones, but they would have still evolved, even if they died off soon afterwards.

Evolution does not require natural selection to be evolution. Even by definition, the two are contrary. Evolution is "A gradual process in which something changes", ie, something new has come about. Natural selection is where one variety/species has outcompeted another and the other has died out completely. So evolution is about the creation of new species/varieties, and natural selection is about the destruction of old species/varieties.

They are in fact complete opposites. Yes, in theory they could work together to form a particular set of species for a specific time, but natural selection is not actually part of the process by which a new species comes about.

My point is merely that proving natural selection does not really help the case for evolution, and evolutionists would do well to avoid using it as evidence.
( Last edited by Brass; Nov 2, 2004 at 07:52 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 07:47 PM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
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.
Fuzzy feel-good thoughts for people who don't want to deal with the harsh realities of nature. Whatever gets you through the night . . .
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:04 PM
 
What disturbs me most about this discussion is that many of the evolutionists here resort to put-down insult tactics against those whose opinions differ to their own. I'm sure that this kind of strategy is what they would often criticise in religous appologists.

So it would seem that many evolutionists treat evolution as a religion, in the way that they become so defensive about it. Why does it matter if not everybody believes it? They may think there is a lot of evidence for it, but that evidence seems week to others. Why criticise them for it?

The evidence for evolution is certainly not as strong as the evidence for gravity, or for the earth revolving around the sun. So please don't critisise people for not taking it as gospel.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Brass:
Natural selection has nothing to do with arise of a new species. In theory, it could help a new species become dominant, but the species must exist, before it can be selected.

Same for a variety within a species. A variation cannot be selected by nature until it exists. Therefore natural selection cannot bring about any variation whatsoever.
What you're saying has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, nor is it in any way related to anything the proponents of evolutionary theory are saying.

If what you write is what you're disagreeing with, then I have to agree with you.

However, the relevant portion of what I wrote is this:

"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."

The point being, for some reason, you're getting hung up on "species", but those are just "landmarks", so to speak. A bad analogy, but it's the best I can think of: You might walk from Canberra to Darwin via Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne. You will find those places on the map, and a bunch of smaller towns and villages you pass through on the way. But the getting there is through the tens of thousands of tiny little steps you make on the way there.

The basic premise of evolution as that the tiniest changes happen ALL THE TIME. Most of them go absolutely unnoticed, some get the individual creature that has them killed. Natural selection means that some of those little variations, as they appear, might be in some way advantageous.

For instance, the bacteria on your toilet: Some of them have a slightly higher tolerance for anti-biotics than others, due to slight genetic variation ever-so-slightly changing their biochemistry. You go at them with anti-biotics. Most die. But a very few have a high enough tolerance to survive just long enough to reproduce. Their offspring are the new population, and they will, on the whole, be more anti-biotic resistant than the previous population, but again, there will be slight variation, with some having slightly higher tolerance. Which will be selected for the next time you go at them with anti-biotic detergent. And so on, until you have your own population of bacteria that are absolutely resistent to your brand of detergent. Substitute "body hair" for "resistance" and "cold climate" for "detergent" for another example. THAT is evolution, and it works on many, many levels.

If it goes on long enough, the population will have evolved enough that scientists can classify it as a new species, but that point is completely arbitrary as far as natural selection and evolution are concerned. (It's really only relevant to our own classification. The creatures don't care.)

It occurs to me that another reason people find it difficult to get their head around the concept of evolution is because it doesn't really apply to humans so much any more - though it's fairly easy to see that certain physical criteria do increase chances of having sex in certain regions.

-s*
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
For instance, the bacteria on your toilet: Some of them have a slightly higher tolerance for anti-biotics than others, due to slight genetic variation ever-so-slightly changing their biochemistry. You go at them with anti-biotics. Most die. But a very few have a high enough tolerance to survive just long enough to reproduce. Their offspring are the new population, and they will, on the whole, be more anti-biotic resistant than the previous population, but again, there will be slight variation, with some having slightly higher tolerance. Which will be selected for the next time you go at them with anti-biotic detergent. And so on, until you have your own population of bacteria that are absolutely resistent to your brand of detergent. Substitute "body hair" for "resistance" and "cold climate" for "detergent" for another example. THAT is evolution, and it works on many, many levels.
The bacteria that has a greater amount of resistance to that particular negative variable will survive, that is correct. No one's going to disagree with you about natural selection. But that bacteria that you just sat your rump on is always going to be bacteria, throughout nth generations. People who wish to contend their progenitors were pond scum are entitled to do so. You take evolution, I'll take G-d.

On a different note, I saw a pigeon walking on the lawn the other day, and it occurred to me that since his species is habitually bipedal, just as humans are, one could argue he has some connection to Homo sapiens. Plus, the parrot mimics human speech better than any animal on the planet. I think you evolutionists need to readjust your diagrams to incorporate our true forerunner, the birdman. I'll get Harvey on the case.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 08:43 PM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
The bacteria that has a greater amount of resistance to that particular negative variable will survive, that is correct. No one's going to disagree with you about natural selection. But that bacteria that you just sat your rump on is always going to be bacteria, throughout nth generations. People who wish to contend their progenitors were pond scum are entitled to do so. You take evolution, I'll take G-d.
But they're NOT the same bacteria. They're anti-biotic resistant. Sure, they're still bacteria.

But then, we're still hominids. And they had a couple of months/years on your toilet seat, but they've gone through a MAJOR adaptive change.

Give them a couple of million years of changes.

-s*
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 09:10 PM
 
Originally posted by benign:

Google the word fool...
Imgae Googling "benign" is soo much more interesting.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 09:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
The bacteria that has a greater amount of resistance to that particular negative variable will survive, that is correct. No one's going to disagree with you about natural selection. But that bacteria that you just sat your rump on is always going to be bacteria, throughout nth generations.
Nice backpedaling. First you were claiming that species were immutable, now you've fallen back all the way to kingdoms.

So let me get this straight - you are saying his example is invalid because bacteria are supposed to evolve into a whole other kingdom in the span of a couple of weeks. Oooooookay...

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: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 10:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
the relevant portion of what I wrote is this:

"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."
What I am trying to say is really quite simple. Contrary to what you've stated above, natural selection is NOT the mechanism by which characteristics change, no matter how gradually. That is my entire point.

In theory, it may be the mechanism by which such changes persists or die out. However, it is NOT the mechanism by which such changes occur.

I made a deliberate effort in my post to NOT get hung up on the definition of species, because I know that there IS no universal definition. that is why I frequently referred to a "variety/species" instead of just a "species".
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 10:19 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
Nice backpedaling. First you were claiming that species were immutable, now you've fallen back all the way to kingdoms.

So let me get this straight - you are saying his example is invalid because bacteria are supposed to evolve into a whole other kingdom in the span of a couple of weeks. Oooooookay...
Give him a break though... the most common definition of species does not apply to bacteria (or to any asexually reproductive organism). In fact there is no good definition of species that works in all situations, without being completely arbitrary. Makes many scientific arguments very difficult to execute - not just evolutionary ones.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 10:22 PM
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
For instance, the bacteria on your toilet...[/QUOTE

How dare you suggest that my toilet is not kept impeccably clean!
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 10:36 PM
 
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2004, 10:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this.
I think the hygene of my bathroom is worth defending!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 01:26 AM
 
Originally posted by benign:

Google the word fool...
[bringing it down to a grade three level]hehehehe you were looking for pics of yourself[/bringing it down to a grade three level]
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 01:41 AM
 
Originally posted by Brass:
However, the same cannot be said for the origin of new species.
wow, i really don't understand how you could say this. the same "mechanism" of evolution that causes variety within a species also causes a new species to evolve or be extinct. i.e. the adaptation to a certain environment causes a species either to change, or, if the adaptation isn't successful, leads to extinction.

as for the argument that "macro-evolution" isn't an observable fact, i would say that if one was to follow this line of thought, one would have to indeed question all validity of history itself. who alive today actually observed the fall of rome, the conquests of alexander the great etc. ? all of us rely on written accounts of historical occurrences, which have been "cross referenced" many times in order to solidify their credibility.

hey, if one was able to stay alive for a few thousand years, one would in fact be able to observe the rise of a new species. it just all depends on where you draw the line. the strength of evolutionary theory is that it can be cross referenced beyond cultural boundaries and ethnocentric prejudices.

again, i haven't seen or heard a BETTER explanation (no, ALL religions don't even come close, since they ALWAYS have heavy ethnocentric prejudices built in) that works on SO MANY different levels (way beyond the realm of science). for me, understanding how the universe around me works plays a fairly important role in regards to how i conduct myself and how i make my decisions. maybe one day somebody will tell a better "story" about what "is"...until then...
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 01:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
On a different note, I saw a pigeon walking on the lawn the other day, and it occurred to me that since his species is habitually bipedal, just as humans are, one could argue he has some connection to Homo sapiens.
classic error. take a look at fishes and dolphins or whales for example. if one was to go solely on appearance, one could conclude that the two animals are closely (in evolutionary terms) related since they "look alike" and even share the same environment. yet, if one "looks more closely" one would find out that dolphins and whales are MUCH closer related to humans, than they are to any other kind of fish. the same argument could be made for bats and birds etc.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:03 AM
 
in the end it depends on your definition of evolution some of us believe it is differences within a genus while others believe it has to be completely new world book 2003 believes its differences within a genus caused by natural or artificial selection
Evolution is a process of change over time. The word evolution may refer to various types of change. For example, scientists generally describe the formation of the universe as having occurred through evolution. Many astronomers think that the stars and planets evolved from a huge cloud of hot gases. Anthropologists study the evolution of human culture from hunting and gathering societies to complex, industrialized societies.

Most commonly, however, evolution refers to the formation and development of life on earth. The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed through the ages to produce millions of species is known as the theory of organic evolution. Most people call it simply the theory of evolution.

The French naturalist Chevalier de Lamarck proposed a theory of evolution in 1809. But evolution did not receive widespread scientific consideration until the late 1850's, when British naturalist Charles R. Darwin presented his theory of evolution. Since then, advances in various scientific fields have resulted in refinements of the theory. The main ideas of evolution, however, have remained largely unchanged.

This article discusses the main ideas of evolutionary theory and the scientific evidence that supports the theory. For information about other types of evolution, see the World Book articles on UNIVERSE (Changing views of the universe) and EARTH (History of Earth).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 02:50 AM
 
Originally posted by Brass:
What I am trying to say is really quite simple. Contrary to what you've stated above, natural selection is NOT the mechanism by which characteristics change, no matter how gradually. That is my entire point.

In theory, it may be the mechanism by which such changes persists or die out. However, it is NOT the mechanism by which such changes occur.

I made a deliberate effort in my post to NOT get hung up on the definition of species, because I know that there IS no universal definition. that is why I frequently referred to a "variety/species" instead of just a "species".
That is good, because as I mentioned above, the term "species" is entirely irrelevant. In general, the evolving organisms can't care less about what we choose to call them at any specific point in time.

And you are correct, natural selection is not the mechanism by which variation appears: that is mutation and genetic recombination (the latter only in sexually reproducing organisms). Natural selection is merely the process by which those variations which are advantageous become the common form, while the others die out.

And I hope you're kidding about the toilet.

-s*
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:00 AM
 
Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
classic error. take a look at fishes and dolphins or whales for example. if one was to go solely on appearance, one could conclude that the two animals are closely (in evolutionary terms) related since they "look alike" and even share the same environment. yet, if one "looks more closely" one would find out that dolphins and whales are MUCH closer related to humans, than they are to any other kind of fish. the same argument could be made for bats and birds etc.
Uh, I hope you saw that the paragraph to which you refer was obviously a joke. There was the wink smilie, and the link to Harvey Birdman, get it?

Anyway, Charles, you attacked the point I made about bacteria remaining as bacteria no matter how many generations of selection impact it. I was not aware that I needed to clarify: I make the same point whether we're discussing kingdom, phyla, class, genus or species. The same holds for every plant and animal species, in my opinion. A fish will beget fish, a lizard will beget lizards, a cat will beget cats, a cow will beget cows, a dolphin will beget dolphins, and a human will beget humans, each after their kind, as long as they exist on this earth. In any case, I hope we can refrain from ad hominem swipes and remain on civil terms.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:02 AM
 
I guess that's fine, but total disregard for even the slightest bit of scientifically accurate terminology makes it pretty much impossible to discuss the subject.

But that's the way it is, I guess.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:36 AM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
The same holds for every plant and animal species, in my opinion. A fish will beget fish, a lizard will beget lizards, a cat will beget cats, a cow will beget cows, a dolphin will beget dolphins, and a human will beget humans, each after their kind, as long as they exist on this earth.
err, so you're basically saying that if "evolution" doesn't (visibly??) occur (actually it does) over the span of a single generation, it doesn't occur at all?

maybe this analogy might help: evolution is what happens "between the lines".
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:43 AM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
Uh, I hope you saw that the paragraph to which you refer was obviously a joke. There was the wink smilie, and the link to Harvey Birdman, get it?
oh, sorry to jump the gun there. but it's a mistake many people make when trying to (on a mere level of appearance) classify things they see.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 03:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And you are correct, natural selection is not the mechanism by which variation appears: that is mutation and genetic recombination (the latter only in sexually reproducing organisms).
i would say though that both are part of the same "mechanism" and pretty much inseperable from each other. natural selection + mutation and genetic recombination = "mechanism" of evolution.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 05:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Brass:
The evidence for evolution is certainly not as strong as the evidence for gravity, or for the earth revolving around the sun. So please don't critisise people for not taking it as gospel.
Actually, I'd probably say the current theories of gravity are shakier than the theory of evolution. AFAIK no one has been able to detect the graviton yet - the stuff is still purely theoretical. With evolution, we have tons of fossils, genetic evidence, etc. Of course, I'm no expert on this, so I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Brass:
Give him a break though... the most common definition of species does not apply to bacteria (or to any asexually reproductive organism). In fact there is no good definition of species that works in all situations, without being completely arbitrary. Makes many scientific arguments very difficult to execute - not just evolutionary ones.
But wait, I thought there was this magic barrier between species that evolution can't cross! OMG, WTF!!!1!11!!1

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: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 11:21 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And you are correct, natural selection is not the mechanism by which variation appears: that is mutation and genetic recombination (the latter only in sexually reproducing organisms). Natural selection is merely the process by which those variations which are advantageous become the common form, while the others die out.
Or, due to factors such as geographic isolation, fork to become non-interbreedable and thus a new species.

(Said before, but it adds nicely to this summary.)

J
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 04:55 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And you are correct, natural selection is not the mechanism by which variation appears: that is mutation and genetic recombination (the latter only in sexually reproducing organisms). Natural selection is merely the process by which those variations which are advantageous become the common form, while the others die out.
Yay, finally we can agree on something!

This is actually the point I was trying to make. From there, in theory, evolution could happen without natural selection, but obviously the resulting set of variations/species would be very different. I guess what I was trying to say is that evolutionists ought to steer clear of the common argument that proving natural selection to be fact is evidence for evolution. Natural selection does not cause the existence of any new species/variety, it only trims which ones survive.

And I hope you're kidding about the toilet.

-s*
Why would I joke about my toilet? Toilets are very serious business. Nobody makes jokes about toilets!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:
Actually, I'd probably say the current theories of gravity are shakier than the theory of evolution. AFAIK no one has been able to detect the graviton yet - the stuff is still purely theoretical. With evolution, we have tons of fossils, genetic evidence, etc. Of course, I'm no expert on this, so I could be wrong.
I think you may have missed my point about the gravity analogy.

I was trying to say that gravity is actually very easy to prove. Just drop something. Or place two object close to each other in calm water. Gravity obviously does exist in some form or other. We don't know all the details but you can easily prove that it exists. The theories behind how it works, or the extent of it are not so certain.

With evolution, it is the other way around. Some of the related theories (eg, genetic mutation, etc) are well established and can be proven. However, evolution itself cannot be proven so easily, as it cannot be observed or experimented with in the same way that gravity can.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 05:05 PM
 
Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
as for the argument that "macro-evolution" isn't an observable fact, i would say that if one was to follow this line of thought, one would have to indeed question all validity of history itself. who alive today actually observed the fall of rome, the conquests of alexander the great etc. ? all of us rely on written accounts of historical occurrences, which have been "cross referenced" many times in order to solidify their credibility.

hey, if one was able to stay alive for a few thousand years, one would in fact be able to observe the rise of a new species. it just all depends on where you draw the line. the strength of evolutionary theory is that it can be cross referenced beyond cultural boundaries and ethnocentric prejudices.
Well, people DID observe the events of history and documented them. We trust them (although there may be cases where things were not recoreded correctly, in most cases there are enough corroborating accounts to make them believable - ie, it was effectively repeatedly observed).

People have been around for thousands of years... just not the same people. Although according to evolution theory, it would need to be millions of years to see any new species.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 05:08 PM
 
Well, I think everyones getting bored with this thread. I'm sure I'm not going to convince anyone to change their minds, and I've not come across anything convincing enough to change my mind. But it's an interesting intellectual exercise (except for when the appologists get obnoxious towards anyone who dissagrees with them).

I think I'll go and have a meeting with the bacteria on the toilet seat here (not my toilet of course... I'm at work).


oh! By coicidence, somebody just emailed me this joke, which is kind of (exceedingly vaguely) relevant:


Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away at
a tiny, although measurable distance from the earth
every year.

If you do the math, you can calculate that 85 million
years ago the moon was orbiting the earth at a
distance of about 35 feet from the earth's surface.

This would explain the death of the dinosaurs. The
tallest ones, anyway.
( Last edited by Brass; Nov 3, 2004 at 05:18 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 06:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Brass:
Yay, finally we can agree on something!

This is actually the point I was trying to make. From there, in theory, evolution could happen without natural selection, but obviously the resulting set of variations/species would be very different. I guess what I was trying to say is that evolutionists ought to steer clear of the common argument that proving natural selection to be fact is evidence for evolution. Natural selection does not cause the existence of any new species/variety, it only trims which ones survive.
That's the point, though - without it, there is no pressure for change. Variations just occur, but the population as a whole remains stagnant - with the variations present.

The human race is a good example of such a situation, since our medical and social advances (provided access to health care is a given) give most everybody fairly equal chances of procreation.

btw: Nothing wrong with a good dose of toilet humor every once in a while.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2004, 11:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Brass:
This is actually the point I was trying to make. From there, in theory, evolution could happen without natural selection, but obviously the resulting set of variations/species would be very different. I guess what I was trying to say is that evolutionists ought to steer clear of the common argument that proving natural selection to be fact is evidence for evolution. Natural selection does not cause the existence of any new species/variety, it only trims which ones survive.
Argh. Natural selection isn't evidence for evolution, it's the very thing that makes it work. You can't separate natural selection from evolution because it's fundamental to it. There were theories of evolution before Darwin's came out - the thing that makes Darwin's theory unique is not evolution but rather evolution via natural selection.

"I'm tired of people using electricity as evidence for Macs!" Sheesh.

Originally posted by Brass:
I think you may have missed my point about the gravity analogy.

I was trying to say that gravity is actually very easy to prove. Just drop something. Or place two object close to each other in calm water.
No. Gravity explains why you see that happen. The fact that something will fall when you drop it was nothing new when Newton came out with his theory!

By the same token, you can say evolution is very easy to prove. Just look at the diversity of life that exists on Earth. Jeez Louise. I think we probably know less about how gravity works than about how evolution works, so maybe gravity is actually a less certain theory. Not that either gravity or evolution are ever going to be overthrown.

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: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 12:00 AM
 
Just curious. How do creationists explain homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo sapien? Did God go through a few rough drafts or something before deciding on homo sapien-sapiens?
"…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
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 01:20 AM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
Just curious. How do creationists explain homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo sapien? Did God go through a few rough drafts or something before deciding on homo sapien-sapiens?
Take a modern physical anthropology course, and you'll find out that much of your information and preconceptions are outdated.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:01 AM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
Take a modern physical anthropology course, and you'll find out that much of your information and preconceptions are outdated.
in what regards?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:15 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, No, I don't believe he is wrong.

I don't know.

I don't care.

It's not that important to me in the big picture.
There is no big picture. Get off your high horse.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:21 AM
 
Originally posted by Brass:
Although according to evolution theory, it would need to be millions of years to see any new species.
yes, and that's exactly the point! by default there needs to be an explanation in order to fill in the gaps, and "evolution" is simply the best method we have found to date (or at least that I know of). sure, in the future there might be better, more plausible, explanations, - but by merely knocking holes into the existing one you really don't establish anything new.

to me there is actually no difference between saying, "space aliens" came to earth and tampered with the genetic material to create a variety of species, or god created all species in 6 days etc. for both, there is ZERO credible evidence. now take into consideration a theory which (like all) has its week points, but has TONS of corroborating evidence. too me, at least, the choice is quite easy.

just out of curiosity, what is your explanation of how nature works since you quite obviously believe that "evolution" isn't the correct answer?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:33 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I read the thread. I just didn't buy all the answers or excuses.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:33 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am a big supporter of biogenesis. As it has been shown to happen.
Depends on your definition of biogenesis.

If your definition is that life always arises from previously existing life and never from things which are not alive, then you need to take into account that "always" and "never" are strong words...
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 03:39 AM
 
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 05:07 AM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Student Journalists Against Evolution
The admitted ultimate goal of the ID movement is to topple natural science (they berate it as “materialism”) from its pedestal in Western culture and to replace it with “theistic science.”
BWAAHAHAAA!!!

tough chance, fu<kos!
( Last edited by phoenixboy70; Nov 4, 2004 at 06:15 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 06:13 AM
 
Originally posted by Big Mac:
Take a modern physical anthropology course, and you'll find out that much of your information and preconceptions are outdated.
This should be fun.

:: fetches popcorn ::
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 07:07 AM
 
Originally posted by CharlesS:

Obviously, this proves that those who believe in "gravity" have just as much faith as those who believe in the Church of Magic Fall-Downiness.
Actually, the scientific concept of gravity is the church of Magic Fall-Downiness.

No gravity-theory can explain why two masses are magically falling to each other. Newton's theory just explains that the magical falling down of an apple to earth is the same magical falling down that causes the moon to rotate around the earth, or to fall to earth but to always miss it, and explains what rules that magical falling down puts upon the material objects.

Einstein just issued the theory that the masses magically deform spacetime and that the masses in that deformed spacetime are part of that deformed spacetime and appear to be falling to each other because of that deformed spacetime, but couldn't explain why or how masses are deforming spacetime.

Taliesin
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 10:09 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, No, I don't believe he is wrong.

I don't know.

I don't care.

It's not that important to me in the big picture.
Originally posted by Stradlater:
There is no big picture. Get off your high horse.
that would be why its not important to him


as to the poster above me masses deform spacetime(in my beliefs) because of their electro-magnetic fields.
( Last edited by macaddict0001; Nov 4, 2004 at 10:23 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 10:29 AM
 
Originally posted by macaddict0001:
that would be why its not important to him


as to the poster above me masses deform spacetime(in my beliefs) because of their electro-magnetic fields.
which work how exactly?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 01:06 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually, the scientific concept of gravity is the church of Magic Fall-Downiness.

No gravity-theory can explain why two masses are magically falling to each other. Newton's theory just explains that the magical falling down of an apple to earth is the same magical falling down that causes the moon to rotate around the earth, or to fall to earth but to always miss it, and explains what rules that magical falling down puts upon the material objects.

Einstein just issued the theory that the masses magically deform spacetime and that the masses in that deformed spacetime are part of that deformed spacetime and appear to be falling to each other because of that deformed spacetime, but couldn't explain why or how masses are deforming spacetime.

Taliesin
That's kind of part of my point. I think we actually know more about evolution than we do about gravity.

However, I have to disagree with your statement of gravity being the Church of Magic Fall-Downiness. In the scientific concept, gravity is caused by natural forces which simply aren't understood yet. In the Church of Magic Fall-Downiness, falling down is caused directly by an intervention from the God of Magic Fall-Downiness. It is necessary to pray to this god three times a day, to keep him from slacking off and making everyone float off the Earth into space. Also, the God of Magic Fall-Downiness accepts tithes, and if you bribe him enough by doing so, he will grant you the ability of flight. If not, at least he will keep from getting mad and making you float off the Earth. So, since I am the High Priest of Magic Fall-Downiness, you can send your tithes to me via PayPal to my e-mail address, and I will see to it personally that you don't float off the Earth.
( Last edited by CharlesS; Nov 4, 2004 at 01:21 PM. )

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: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2004, 02:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
which work how exactly?
well since its possible to create artificial gravity through the use of powerful electromagnetic fields...
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2004, 06:10 AM
 
Originally posted by macaddict0001:
as to the poster above me masses deform spacetime(in my beliefs) because of their electro-magnetic fields.
I beg to differ, electro-magnetic fields can be completely blocked, yet gravity still achieves to attract nonetheless.

Taliesin
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2004, 06:25 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I beg to differ, electro-magnetic fields can be completely blocked, yet gravity still achieves to attract nonetheless.

Taliesin
Ah, yes, you are of course correct.

Magnetism != Gravity.

Also, it is very easy to artificially create evolution through artificial selection. We call it "breeding". Go visit an orchard, a rose garden, or a dog-kennel for proof, if you won't believe that detergent-resistant bacteria exist.

-s*
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2004, 06:36 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Ah, yes, you are of course correct.

Magnetism != Gravity.

Also, it is very easy to artificially create evolution through artificial selection. We call it "breeding". Go visit an orchard, a rose garden, or a dog-kennel for proof, if you won't believe that detergent-resistant bacteria exist.

-s*
I'm confused, is the paragraph about evolution directed at me? I haven't taken any side of the discussion in this thread, I have merely replied to in the subject of gravity and physics, that's all.

Taliesin
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2004, 06:59 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I'm confused, is the paragraph about evolution directed at me?
no.

go back to bed.
     
 
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 12:23 AM.
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