MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   MacNN Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/macnn-lounge/)
-   -   Was Darwin wrong ? (http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lounge/233713/was-darwin-wrong/)

 
benign Oct 30, 2004 07:04 AM
Was Darwin wrong ?
A blogger account of the story and the comments he got...
http://www.ironcircus.com/blog/000267.html
 
chris v Oct 30, 2004 09:57 AM
NG has been doing a relatively good job of taking on junk science the last few issues.

(Spoiler Alert!!!!!!!!!111!!1 AAauuuggghhh!!1!!)







I loved the way that one sucks you in, then clobbers you with the NO.
 
Eug Wanker Oct 30, 2004 10:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by chris v:
NG has been doing a relatively good job of taking on junk science the last few issues.

I loved the way that one sucks you in, then clobbers you with the NO.
You had to blurt out the ending didn't you. ;)
 
chris v Oct 30, 2004 10:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
You had to blurt out the ending didn't you. ;)
Like it was a big surprise.
 
greenamp Oct 30, 2004 10:18 AM
Creation vs. Evolution debate in 3.....2.....1....
 
G4ME Oct 30, 2004 10:30 AM
DUDE, what would aqua be with out Darwin?
 
wataru Oct 30, 2004 10:43 AM
What, are you cross posting every entry in that guy's blog? Give it a rest.
 
Eug Wanker Oct 30, 2004 10:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by G4ME:
DUDE, what would aqua be with out Darwin?
Give it another few hundred years of evolution, and the Finder and window resizing might actually be good.
 
Spheric Harlot Oct 30, 2004 10:53 AM
FORTY-FOUR PERCENT!!!?

:eek: :(
 
Wiskedjak Oct 30, 2004 10:55 AM
Re: Was Darwin wrong ?
Quote
Originally posted by benign:
Was Darwin wrong ?
Considering his theories are over 100 years old, I'm sure he got a few things wrong.
 
Mastrap Oct 30, 2004 11:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
FORTY-FOUR PERCENT!!!?

:eek: :(
Explains a lot, doesn't it?
 
dgs212 Oct 30, 2004 11:14 AM
That question + definitive answer posed by NG reminds me of this:

God FAQ
 
Scientist Oct 30, 2004 03:51 PM
:D
 
Zimphire Oct 30, 2004 03:53 PM
Percentage of this that matters in the big picture.

0%
 
Scientist Oct 30, 2004 04:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Percentage of this that matters in the big picture.

0%
Percentage of what? Who's big picture?
 
Zimphire Oct 30, 2004 04:11 PM
 
Wiskedjak Oct 30, 2004 04:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Scientist:
Percentage of what? Who's big picture?
Anyone's picture. Creationists don't care if Darwin is proven wrong, they already believe he's wrong. Evolutionists will chalk it up to the evolution of knowledge; even Einstein may have been wrong on things.
 
Zimphire Oct 30, 2004 04:21 PM
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.
 
Ganesha Oct 30, 2004 05:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Einstein may have been wrong on things.
Um, Einstein IS wrong, in the same sense Newton is wrong. Einstein's theories while much better then Newton's, still fails to predict the behavior at extreme conditions.
 
greenamp Oct 30, 2004 05:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Anyone's picture. Creationists don't care if Darwin is proven wrong, they already believe he's wrong. Evolutionists will chalk it up to the evolution of knowledge; even Einstein may have been wrong on things.
Evolutionists don't care if Darwin is proven wrong either.

Besides, Darwin does not need to be proven wrong because he was never proven right. ;)
 
itistoday Oct 30, 2004 05:24 PM
Yeah, I read this article. I feel really sorry for anyone (like Zimphire) who disagrees with it. They are... how shall I put this nicely... pussies that can't handle the truth! :)

Before you pipe up and tell me I'm an idiot/wrong or what have you, you should grab yourself a copy of this and read it. If you actually read it and still think it's wrong... then there's little hope for you.

The article is excellent, and really explains what a "theory" is, something that sadly very few people actually understand. Electricity? Yeah, that's a theory, but go argue with your electrical appliances. Evolutionary theory is basically Evolutionary fact, it's simply that you can't point your finger and say, "Ah ha! There it is! Behold! Evolution". However, you can measure it, you can use it to make accurate predictions (just like all electrical appliances work), and it's basically fact.

Do you all realize that it is currently impossible to pinpoint an electron (you know—maybe you don't...—the thing that causes electricity when it moves), because the mere act of observing it causes it to move.

The definition of "theory" in laymans terms: A 'guess' that has been proven to be right LOT of times (hundreds, thousands), but is still not concrete enough (might have a 1% chance of error for one reason or another) to be called 'fact'.

Then you have a thing called 'faith': Something that you have no evidence for and simply believe because your local crook-priest tells you it is so and you can't handle reality so you accept it.
 
Millennium Oct 30, 2004 05:55 PM
The article needn't have been so inflammatory, but it was a good piece.

For the record, I believe in that part of Darwin's theories which have not thus far been disproved (and there were a few things, as there always are; everything can be refined). I believe, as Darwin did, that evolution was one of the mechanisms of creation.
 
Scientist Oct 30, 2004 06:04 PM
Quote
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.
You could have just answered my question in this matter to begin with. It wasn't clear initially if you were refering to evolution itself or the article.
 
Zimphire Oct 30, 2004 06:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by itistoday:
Yeah, I read this article. I feel really sorry for anyone (like Zimphire) who disagrees with it. They are... how shall I put this nicely... pussies that can't handle the truth! :)

You need to go back and read Eistein. I never said I disgreed with it. I said it didn't matter to me either way.

People need to spend more time with their mouth shut, and more time "Listening"

They would have to remove their foots from their mouths a lot less often.

Here, let me give you time to remove yours.
 
Zimphire Oct 30, 2004 06:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Scientist:
You could have just answered my question in this matter to begin with. It wasn't clear initially if you were refering to evolution itself or the article.
I am referring to everything in general. Life itself.
 
Krusty Oct 30, 2004 08:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by itistoday:

The definition of "theory" in laymans terms: A 'guess' that has been proven to be right LOT of times (hundreds, thousands), but is still not concrete enough (might have a 1% chance of error for one reason or another) to be called 'fact'.
Actually, this is merely inductive reasoning which is completely indefensible from a philosophical perspective. Further, there is absolutely no way you can surmise the possible "percentage error" of this method ("might have a 1% chance of error ...") There is a giant universe out there where almost 100% of all things go completely unobserved. The 'facts' that we observe over and over and over again may involve elements completely beyond our ability control them out of our testing.

Having said that. I believe that Evolution theory is basically "right" (or at least much much much more right than creation theory). Just pointing out that any theory developed by scientific induction requires its own sort of 'faith' ... the faith in what is called "the uniformity of nature" -- that what we observe in the present or past can be extrapolated to predict the future because nature works by immutable, permanent rules of behavior. There is absolutely no logical reason to believe in the uniformity of nature .. it is a dogma that must be blindly accepted or the entirety of scientific inquiry is meaningless.
 
Wiskedjak Oct 30, 2004 09:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Millennium:
... I believe, as Darwin did, that evolution was one of the mechanisms of creation.
Agreed. I never really understood why Creationists and Evolutionists were so at odds with each other. The two really have very little to do with each other; one can have evolution in a created world and creation in an evolved world.
 
itistoday Oct 30, 2004 09:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty:
Actually, this is merely inductive reasoning which is completely indefensible from a philosophical perspective. Further, there is absolutely no way you can surmise the possible "percentage error" of this method ("might have a 1% chance of error ...") There is a giant universe out there where almost 100% of all things go completely unobserved. The 'facts' that we observe over and over and over again may involve elements completely beyond our ability control them out of our testing.

Having said that. I believe that Evolution theory is basically "right" (or at least much much much more right than creation theory). Just pointing out that any theory developed by scientific induction requires its own sort of 'faith' ... the faith in what is called "the uniformity of nature" -- that what we observe in the present or past can be extrapolated to predict the future because nature works by immutable, permanent rules of behavior. There is absolutely no logical reason to believe in the uniformity of nature .. it is a dogma that must be blindly accepted or the entirety of scientific inquiry is meaningless.
Just a note, creation is not a theory, I don't know if you meant to call it that or not...

There are plenty of reasons to "believe" in the uniformity of nature: Because it's been uniform all this time. Newtons laws are always right on our scale. However, they don't apply on large scales, or small scales, this problem is being worked on (see String Theory).
 
itistoday Oct 30, 2004 09:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Agreed. I never really understood why Creationists and Evolutionists were so at odds with each other. The two really have very little to do with each other; one can have evolution in a created world and creation in an evolved world.
The Bible says animals, in their present form, were just "created" by God one lovely day. Evolution says they evolved from a "stew" of organic material to micro-organisms, and onto present day creatures.

The two viewpoints are highly contradictory.
 
Wiskedjak Oct 30, 2004 09:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by itistoday:
The Bible says animals, in their present form, were just "created" by God one lovely day. Evolution says they evolved from a "stew" of organic material to micro-organisms, and onto present day creatures.
The Bible doesn't clearly express how God "created" life, beyond saying that he created man from the dust of the ground. Life being created from dust and life evolving from stew doesn't sound too terribly different.

As for animals being created in their present state by God one lovely day, I doubt may Creationists would argue that God also created bischon-schitsus or dairy cows on that same day; both have been artificially "evolved" from whatever they were originally through human intervention
 
i_rooster Oct 30, 2004 10:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by itistoday:
The Bible says animals, in their present form, were just "created" by God one lovely day. Evolution says they evolved from a "stew" of organic material to micro-organisms, and onto present day creatures.

The two viewpoints are highly contradictory.
What if God actually wants you to believe that things evolved through natural selection acting through the survival of the fittest? May be that is why he made Darwin! So not believing in evolution makes you a heathen!
 
itistoday Oct 30, 2004 10:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by i_rooster:
What if God actually wants you to believe that things evolved through natural selection acting through the survival of the fittest? May be that is why he made Darwin! So not believing in evolution makes you a heathen!
You might be on to something there... :D
 
CharlesS Oct 31, 2004 12:58 AM
Something actually interesting being posted by benign? WTF? :confused:

Looks like a good article. Maybe I'll have to go check it out...
 
Twilly Spree Oct 31, 2004 06:26 AM
Off topic: I was surprized b9 passed the 999 post mark.

Has his account been hi-jacked or what :)
 
pathogen Oct 31, 2004 06:45 AM
I'n going to vomit. Too many people in the world still defending Creationism. Hell, 1 is too many.

Happy Halloween!
 
greenamp Oct 31, 2004 07:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by pathogen:
I'n going to vomit. Too many people in the world still defending Creationism. Hell, 1 is too many.

Happy Halloween!
Care to share with us your recipe for omniscience?
 
Cohiba Oct 31, 2004 08:42 AM
I do not see the problem of people defending creationism, it has not been proven wrong, so it would at least behoove you to understand what it is and means. Me on the other hand, I believe in evolution. It makes sense. Then again, evolution has basically, well, stopped.

Evolution requires natural selection. That is what evolution is all about. But, all of the people who have practiced natural selection, well, are in the bad parts of history. Hitler did a good job preaching natural selection. All of you (hopefully) do not like Hitler anymore. Welfare, unemployment, allowing crippled people to breed, etc. etc. ends natural selection, and then evolution.

Now, if mankind starts evolving people (making the better human in a test tube), well that kind of makes evolution go away. The world does not create evolution, but we do. Technically, then, we become the creationists, and then creationism becomes what is proven, at least for the new "super human" (as it can be pin pointed).

However, I for one will welcome our new super human overlords, WILL YOU?

Just something to think about.
 
greenamp Oct 31, 2004 09:27 AM
If evolution is correct...

1)why has evolution never been "observed?"
2)where are the fossils of the "transitional forms?"
3)where is the "missing link" connecting humans to apes?

Until these questions can be answered, evolution requires of its believers just as much "blind faith" as does creation from its believers.
 
MilkmanDan Oct 31, 2004 09:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
The Bible doesn't clearly express how God "created" life, beyond saying that he created man from the dust of the ground. Life being created from dust and life evolving from stew doesn't sound too terribly different.

As for animals being created in their present state by God one lovely day, I doubt may Creationists would argue that God also created bischon-schitsus or dairy cows on that same day; both have been artificially "evolved" from whatever they were originally through human intervention
The odd thing is, many actually do.

I like the answer to the dinosaur question I sometimes get. "Fossils are Gods way of testing us." No way to argue against that one.
 
phoenixboy70 Oct 31, 2004 09:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Cohiba:
Technically, then, we become the creationists, and then creationism becomes what is proven, at least for the new "super human" (as it can be pin pointed)...
nature will find a way...

/jeff goldblum :D

honestly, i've read quite a few books about evolution, the theory seems very plausible/sound to me (especially since it can be adapted to so many non-biological aspects of life). really fascinating stuff.

as a kid i also read many books that involved monsters, vampires, gods, angels, aliens etc. i have a pretty clear concept about what belongs into the realm of fiction/myth, and what doesn't.

nobody has ever proven to me that vampires don't exist. yet, i am as sure they belong to the world of imagination and make believe, just as i am sure that when i leap from a 10 story building i will fall downwards...

i dunno, maybe one day i'll come in contact with a real vampire. - until then, i'll stick to darwin. :thumbsup:

off to the halloween party now... :D
 
itistoday Oct 31, 2004 09:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
If evolution is correct...

1)why has evolution never been "observed?"
2)where are the fossils of the "transitional forms?"
3)where is the "missing link" connecting humans to apes?

Until these questions can be answered, evolution requires of its believers just as much "blind faith" as does creation from its believers.
Uh, all these questions have been answered I"m pretty sure. Evolution is observed all the time. Darwin observed it and that's why he came up with the theory. Your dog, is the result of "controlled" evolution. There are fossils of the "transitional forms", they are simply the fossils of similar species. There are hundreds of species of lizards, while they are all similar, each specializes at something depending on the environment it lives in. There are thousdands fossils (don't know the names of them) of the "transitional" animals from land-walking animals to birds, from fish to land animals, etc. And the "missing link" as you call it, that connects us to apes, does exist. I forget the names of them, but I think one of them is called "proto-man" and something else.

I'm sure you've seen this picture (couldn't find a non-messed with version :)):
http://filepile.davidoneill.net/funnies/Evolution.JPG
Well, the animals in each one of those stages has been found.
 
phoenixboy70 Oct 31, 2004 09:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
1)why has evolution never been "observed?"
it has. many many times.

Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
2)where are the fossils of the "transitional forms?"
all over the place.

Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
3)where is the "missing link" connecting humans to apes?
depends on the definition of human and ape. there are many quite well preserved fossilized skeletons that "describe" the evoltion from australopithicus aferensis to homo sapiens sapiens.

Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
Until these questions can be answered, evolution requires of its believers just as much "blind faith" as does creation from its believers.
no, it requiers FAR less faith. the key difference is evidence. as in every other matter of deliberation. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO! EVIDENCE FOR CREATION.

answer to many questions:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
 
greenamp Oct 31, 2004 09:55 AM
When referencing the bible, one has to take a few things in to account. For starters, the bible as we know it today was not written in the sense that an author sits down and writes a book. It was compiled of different writings and accounts from varying authors from varying time periods. Now in the Christian sense, these authors were "inspired" by God as to what to write. But one must take note that in this case, the inspired writings were meant to be read by a certain audience, and were written in a way in which that certain audience would best understand. So in that respect, much of the writing of the creation is prose.

The bible is not the science book of creation, and it was never meant to be.
 
chris v Oct 31, 2004 09:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
If evolution is correct...

1)why has evolution never been "observed?"
2)where are the fossils of the "transitional forms?"
3)where is the "missing link" connecting humans to apes?

Until these questions can be answered, evolution requires of its believers just as much "blind faith" as does creation from its believers.
1. Evolution HAS been observed, again and again. Species mutation is an observable phoenomenon, from breeding of domesticated animals to mutation of resistant strains of virus/bacteria. Read the NG article.

2. There are plenty of transitional fossils. We're ALL transitional. Archeopterix? More recent examples-- Blind cave species that still have eye sockets. Penguns, whose wings are evolving from devices for flying into flippers for swimming. Look around you, the evidence is everywhere.

3. Apes have evolved simultaneously, along a seperate branch from a common ancestor. Again, read a little bit. Plenty of fossil evidence. The record might not be absolutely complete, but it SURE has more pieces than the Creation myth.

Proivide me with one single piece of physical evidence that even points to the validity of Creationism. Go ahead.
 
itistoday Oct 31, 2004 09:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
The bible is not the science book of creation, and it was never meant to be.
That's because a "science book of creation" is an oxymoron.
 
greenamp Oct 31, 2004 10:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
it has. many many times.



all over the place.



depends on the definition of human and ape. there are many quite well preserved fossilized skeletons that "describe" the evoltion from australopithicus aferensis to homo sapiens sapiens.



no, it requiers FAR less faith. the key difference is evidence. as in every other matter of deliberation. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO! EVIDENCE FOR CREATION.

answer to many questions:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
I appreciate your response, but in all sincerity, you did not answer the questions. Please keep in mind that I am not trying to debunk evolution as a means to support creationism, but simply pointing out the flaws in labeling evolution a science.

Please support your claims with showing: where/when evolution has been observed; pictures or links to pictures of these missing link fossils.

Evolution is a philosophy, not a science, for the mere fact that "evidence" is a relative term.
 
chris v Oct 31, 2004 10:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
If evolution is correct...

1)why has evolution never been "observed?"
2)where are the fossils of the "transitional forms?"
3)where is the "missing link" connecting humans to apes?

Until these questions can be answered, evolution requires of its believers just as much "blind faith" as does creation from its believers.
That's like saying "this puzzle has not been fully assembled, therefore we cannot accept that the picture contains fruit."

http://www.brainsbreaker.com/jigsaw_puzzle_sample.jpg
 
Wiskedjak Oct 31, 2004 10:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
If evolution is correct...

1)why has evolution never been "observed?"
Go visit a farm. NONE of the animals there existed in their present form even a few hundred years ago.
 
itistoday Oct 31, 2004 10:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by chris v:
That's like saying "this puzzle has not been fully assembled, therefore we cannot accept that the picture contains fruit."

http://www.brainsbreaker.com/jigsaw_puzzle_sample.jpg
Wow, that's a really good analogy... Props. Except in the case of evolution, only about two pieces are missing :p
 
itistoday Oct 31, 2004 10:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by greenamp:
I appreciate your response, but in all sincerity, you did not answer the questions. Please keep in mind that I am not trying to debunk evolution as a means to support creationism, but simply pointing out the flaws in labeling evolution a science.

Please support your claims with showing: where/when evolution has been observed; pictures or links to pictures of these missing link fossils.

Evolution is a philosophy, not a science, for the mere fact that "evidence" is a relative term.
Uh, Chris_v and I have already answered your questions. You are wrong :cool:

It's not your fault, you were just never taught properly about evolution and that is why you are ignorant about it. Before you go around here flaunting your ignorance do some research, and perhaps even read the article the original post refers to. It's quite good, and will teach you a lot of things. Evolution is not a philosophy, evolution is a science, and there is no gray ground here, that is simply fact.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2