toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Selaphiel]

I don't deny evolution as a general process of change and becoming. It's difficult to deny what is plainly evident from observation. As a matter of fact, we presently see things evolving.

What I disagree with is the application of evolution to explain the origin of the human species. This isn't evident from the science, and I like to keep a healthy dose of philosophical skepticism when it comes to speculative science.

I grant you, on the other hand, that humans presently are evolving (at least in some fashion), and this is an adequate explanation for the various differences we see among different groups of human populations (why Africans are black and Europeans white, for example).

Why exclude certain parts? I would say that humans being the product of evolution is quite evident. Our molecular similarities with, both in terms of function and non-function of certain genes, primates is easily demonstrable. In addition we have plenty of fossil evidence showing intermediary species between apes and man. Nothing speculative about it, it is based on the same evidence as other claims of evolution. There is simply no good reason to assume that man was somehow exempted from the process when it is so evident that we have so much in common with other species. Our uniqueness comes from our large brain which contains complex structures which caused human culture to emerge which again affected further human evolution (One example being the emergence of language stimulating the evolution of more complex "language centers" in the brain).

 

[voltaire]

Our molecular similarities
with, both in terms of
function and non-function
of certain genes, primates
is easily demonstrable. In
addition we have plenty of
fossil evidence showing
intermediary species
between apes and man.------Selaphiel. To jump to the conclusion that man evolved from apes based on the molecular similarities of some gene sequences-not all- is speculative. To say that there are intermediate primates that are neither human or ape is also speculative. Every supposed intermediate primate is either a human or an ape. Name one intermediate form that has a modern human structure that isnt already shared by other apes. This is why we call it speculation.

 

[Selaphiel]

-Selaphiel. To jump to the conclusion that man evolved from apes based on the molecular similarities of some gene sequences-not all- is speculative. To say that there are intermediate primates that are neither human or ape is also speculative. Every supposed intermediate primate is either a human or an ape. Name one intermediate form that has a modern human structure that isnt already shared by other apes. This is why we call it speculation.

Of some similarities? What is your explanation for the similarities (both similarities in broken genes and in functional genes)? The chance that it is a coincidence is so incomprehensibly small that it is not even worth considering.

Either human or ape you say: Entirely different fossils are either human or ape? What are these supposedly eternal ape and human substances you refer to that apparently are some kind of eternal definition of the two species? See a lot of bipedal apes around today voltaire? See a lot of humans with small ape brain cases? That you claim that they are apes or humans do not make it so any more than me calling a dog a bear makes it a bear.

 

[voltaire]

For me, the
most compelling fact is that
the feature that had to
come first in cellular life is
the simplest, and easiest to
demonstrate in the lab. But
back to the point..----barbarian. Yes, it is easy to manufacture amino acids in the lab. What cannot be done is to demonstrate how they could form in nature and stay non-degraded for the millions of years necessary to form a useful structure.

 

[taikoo]

Our molecular similarities
with, both in terms of
function and non-function
of certain genes, primates
is easily demonstrable. In
addition we have plenty of
fossil evidence showing
intermediary species
between apes and man.------Selaphiel. To jump to the conclusion that man evolved from apes based on the molecular similarities of some gene sequences-not all- is speculative. To say that there are intermediate primates that are neither human or ape is also speculative. Every supposed intermediate primate is either a human or an ape. Name one intermediate form that has a modern human structure that isnt already shared by other apes. This is why we call it speculation.

Honestly now volt, you should know by now that science doesnt work with "jumping to conclusions:. That is an utterly inaccurate way of talking and doesnt advance the ball, its more like a foul.

There is far far more to the observation that people are related to the other apes. That people ARE apes. That there is nothing whatever about people that indicates they are a special creation, while everything else on earth evolved. There is an enormous body of data to indicate that people, and all other organisms, did evolve.

its bout as far from jumping to conclusions as you could get.

Id say that reading the bible, then deciding you know exactly what it means, and then deciding that all the evidence that the earth offers, all the work of all the scientist is, wrong, top to bottom inside and out.... despite a profound ignorance on your part of that data, the science involved... THAT is "jumping to conclusions" of the most egregious sort.

As for "neither human nor ape" that is a good example of the ignorance you bring to the table and try to use as an argument

First, humans are apes.

You could perhaps look at all the intermediate canines between wolf and chihuahua. Then say these are neither chihuahua nor canine.
but it would make no sense would it?

The exact details of human history are not known but there are some fine examples of earlier forms. this guy....http://logicalscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/homoerectus-skull.jpg

was making fire about a million years ago.

but I think youd notice a face like that on the subway!


Earlier there were these guys who walked upright

http://www.sculpturegallery.com/three/australopithecus2.jpg

do you feel this just doesnt mean anything at all?

 

[taikoo]

For me, the
most compelling fact is that
the feature that had to
come first in cellular life is
the simplest, and easiest to
demonstrate in the lab. But
back to the point..----barbarian. Yes, it is easy to manufacture amino acids in the lab. What cannot be done is to demonstrate how they could form in nature and stay non-degraded for the millions of years necessary to form a useful structure.

Amino acids have been detected in comets for goodness sake! They self assemble under quite a variety of conditions.

What has not been demonstrated (quite different from cannot) yet is how life originated.

Where did you get the speculation that individual molecules need to exist for millions of years in order for life to start? If you know your chemistry at all you should know that reactions take place at a speed that is beyond human capacity to visualize.

 

[Alate_One]

What do I have to do? Call you stupid since you are being stupid? Your statement doesn't stand and I gave you this huge sign in my last post trying to point you away from being stupid, but you just swerved right into stupid like I didn't try and help at all.

Because if you're just saying everyone likes to be rich and powerful without context then your statement doesn't connect to the rest of what you said in your original post. You made that statement in reference to *why* scientists keep supporting evolution.

And a bonus hint because you are female: if you couldn't tell, when I said that people pursue riches, and/or fame, and/or power, it did not mean that people only want to be millionaires or better; It doesn't mean they want fame like a rock star; It doesn't mean they want power like a politician. It means we all pursue something when we do our work, whether it be money, and/or impressing someone, and/or being able to make people do what we want them to do. Getting fired usually doesn't accomplish any one of those three.

If the essence of what you were saying was everyone likes to have a job, and scientists need to support evolution to keep their jobs, why didn't you just say that?

I think you've been caught you in your own words and now you're trying to pin it on me as misunderstanding you, though perhaps you didn't intend to imply what you did. We always seem to get into the same sort of argument, you saying one thing and then trying to spin it another when called on it. It's all a distraction from the discussion anyway.

 

[Traditio]

Why exclude certain parts?

Because I hold that man transcends the natural order in virtue of being rational.

I would say that humans being the product of evolution is quite evident. Our molecular similarities with, both in terms of function and non-function of certain genes, primates is easily demonstrable. In addition we have plenty of fossil evidence showing intermediary species between apes and man.

You're assuming evolution in the so called "support." As it stands, there is no necessary and immediate relationship between premises (similarities, fossil record, etc.) and conclusion (that man evolved from pre-existing organisms).

Nothing speculative about it, it is based on the same evidence as other claims of evolution. There is simply no good reason to assume that man was somehow exempted from the process when it is so evident that we have so much in common with other species.

Do you deny that it's possible that man did not evolve from pre-existing organisms? Is there a necessity between evidence and conclusion?

Our uniqueness comes from our large brain which contains complex structures which caused human culture to emerge which again affected further human evolution (One example being the emergence of language stimulating the evolution of more complex "language centers" in the brain).

Selaphiel, I know for a fact that you read my posts regularly. Whenever I make a thread, I see your name at the bottom where it says "current users viewing this thread." I'm sure you already know my answer. :idunno:

 

[Alate_One]

By the way, was that a Dimetrodon a few pages back?

No, that was a slightly more advanced mammal-like reptile (dimetrodon was a more primitive mammal-like reptile-a pelycosaur), a gorgonopsid - member of the group called therapsids (that's the big toothy picture). They flourished until the mass extinction at the end of the permian.

Here's an artist's depiction of one. The fur and colors are speculative of course but we know they were related to mammals and they were the first "sabre toothed" creatures to walk the earth.

This is an illustration from the book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero
It shows the transitions from Pelycosaurs to Therapsids and later mammals. I can dig up photos of the rest of the actual skeletons if you want.

 

[Traditio]

Alate_One, what have you done to my screen? You've widened everything out. GRRR! :madmad:

 

[taikoo]

Because I hold that man transcends the natural order in virtue of being rational.



You're assuming evolution in the so called "support." As it stands, there is no necessary and immediate necessity between premises (similarities, fossil record, etc.) and conclusion (that man evolved from pre-existing organisms).



Do you deny that it's possible that man did not evolve from pre-existing organisms? Is there a necessity between evidence and conclusion?



Selaphiel, I know for a fact that you read my posts regularly. Whenever I make a thread, I see your name at the bottom where it says "current users viewing this thread." I'm sure you already know my answer. :idunno:

Do you deny that it's possible that man did not evolve from pre-existing organisms? Is there a necessity between evidence and conclusion?

Lets say there is a court case, and you are on trial for your life.
The evidence against your is truly massive. Thousands of video cameras recorded the crime; eye witnesses, fingerprints, you name it.
Enough to fill volumes, cross correlated by every known branch of physical science.

Your defense attorney looks to the jury and says...." do you deny that it is possible that my client did not commit this crime? is there necessity between evidence and conclusion"?

I think your heart would sink at the worthlessness of this appeal.

Once the jury worked thru the double negative, I think we know what the verdict would be.

You could of course have as your story that a flying saucer popped up, released a doppleganger and blamed the whole thing on you.

I mean its possible isnt it?

 

[Traditio]

I mean its possible isnt it?

But I have one massive piece of evidence which defeats all of those myriad pieces of "evidence." I think that I exist.

 

[Selaphiel]

Because I hold that man transcends the natural order in virtue of being rational.

Man possess a greater capacity for rational thought, but we are not the only rational creature. Rational is in the end a fancy word for producing reasonable solutions to whatever challenges that are presented to us, something most animals can do. Dogs for example can solve problems and adapt behavior that is rational. They clearly have a conception of seeing logical connection between behavior the exhibit and responses from the owner. This is of course even clearer in higher animals such as primates. So for me there is not two sides rational/not rational, it is gradual.

Do you deny that it's possible that man did not evolve from pre-existing organisms? Is there a necessity between evidence and conclusion?

I do not flat out deny any possibility, but there is no reason to entertain a possibility that has no evidence for it. I simply have no reason to entertain the idea that humans were not a product of evolution given the evidence we have for it and the lack of evidence for any other explanation.

Selaphiel, I know for a fact that you read my posts regularly. Whenever I make a thread, I see your name at the bottom where it says "current users viewing this thread." I'm sure you already know my answer.

Of course I do, I know perfectly well that you are a supporter of Plato's dualism and I'm sure you know equally well that I am not

 

[taikoo]

But I have one massive piece of evidence which defeats all of those myriad pieces of "evidence." I think that I exist.

I dont think that would convince a jury either, even if they could figure out what that is supposed to mean.

They might consider that you were not competent to stand trial tho...

 

[Cracked]

The theory of Evolution was created in order to disprove the existence of a Creator.

I don't think so. I believe Darwin said that he didn't see a necessary conflict between theism and evolution.

EDIT: It is true, however, that many atheists champion it for that reason, however.

 

[taikoo]

I don't think so. I believe Darwin said that he didn't see a necessary conflict between theism and evolution.

EDIT: It is true, however, that many atheists champion it for that reason, however.

Speaking for myself, I dont "champion it", I just am rational enough to see that it for what it is. That doesnt make me special of course, the educated world save the few educated fundies all do the same.

 

[nicholsmom]

Just to be clear, nm scientific THEORIES in biology (other than evolution) include:

Germ Theory of disease

Cell Theory

Gene Theory

Theory of Heredity

Look at the rest of the list, which one has been overturned recently?

Oh sorry, I thought you meant science I didn't realize you were only interested in biology

 

[Alate_One]

Oh sorry, I thought you meant science I didn't realize you were only interested in biology

. . . Evolution is a biological theory. In any case name us a *theory* in any area of science that has been overturned in recent years.

 

[chair]

Hello Chair.

That is an amazing assumption. I have had some someone say to me the Geologic Column is "fact" when I said it was a concept. And then had HOX genes, I think, tied in to the recapitulation theory - I dunno hard to say what that was about.

Do you think I am afraid?
Your ability to process information is in question now.

Alateone posted a pic of creatures not found together but nicely settled in in their epoch slots. But I think these finds are not about when these creatures lived but about where they settled.
Look at his pic.

I asked him how he sees progression instead of something else, he did not answer.

The Old Testament talks about something we can hardly imagine when we read prophecy.
The Old Testament speaks in various places but it can be hard to understand, imho.

Ex: Job 9:6 NIV, Job 38:12-13 NIV, Isaiah 2:21-22 NIV, Isaiah 13:13 NIV, Isaiah 24:19-20 NIV, Isaiah 30:28 NIV, Isaiah 54:9-10 NIV

So it becomes more clear to me when I think about a New Testament verse in conjunction with them: Hebrews 12:26 -27 NIV

I rarely read any geologist who sees the Geologic Time Scale to be a record of the remains that settled after an earth changing event that went on after these creatures were overwhelmed and died.

It appears almost a game to underestimate the Flood and not see
it as the actual end of the world and beginning of a new one.

Nevertheless how geologists could ever think they see life instead of death may be the result some kind of deception.

I don't understand part of your post. What do the "Old Testament" verses have to do with anything?

Let me ask you this:
If you were convinced that the theory of evolution was true- what would it do to your faith?

 

[nicholsmom]

200 years ago was really the great "flowering" of scientific knowledge. The last vestiges of unscientific ancient ideas were overturned then. Spontaneous generation and geocentrism were ancient greek ideas, not ideas that were scientifically tested. Spontaneous generation had already been undermined back in 1668 by Francesco Redi.

Sure, so the consensus, for awhile got it right (as far as we know now). Then when a better tool came along - the microscope - SG came back with a vengeance. So with better tools for understanding, the scientists of the day knew better than those poor fools of yesterday and took up SG until Pasteur laid it to rest. Of course we are even now revising germ theory, and some serious scientists question the idea that AIDS comes from the HIV. Some diseases do NOT come from germs... Which isn't to say that germ theory is debunked, but it does give me pause.

Yes we have done this before, and I still find it ridiculous that you think ancient ideas that were never scientifically tested are equivalent to modern evolutionary theory which is rigorously tested constantly.

See, it's that that I have trouble with because, to follow scientific method, scientific experiments must be reproducible, and closed, and stuff like that. Show me a scientific experiment that demonstrates evolution.

What we seem to have with the evolutionary theory is an explanation - a conclusion - rather than a testable idea. There are no hypotheses in the study of evolutionary processes that can be tested without "if we find and dig up ..." or "if we do not find ... when we also find ..." It just looks so unscientific to me. I can't help it.

Let's have a look at some of the ancients who did quite well in spite of lack of peer review (and who would be at least equivalent to today's scientists and used methods to rival theirs):
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Hooke, Descartes ...

I think that you should re-think that notion that "good science" is only the stuff of the most recent 200 years...

Caloric theory was never "overturned" in a sense, kinetic theory is simply a clearer more accurate explanation.

That's crap. They just worded kinetic theory to save face for Lavoisier. It's like saying that the psychic was right because ... well, it's true that I was born, he got that part right... Lavoisier was a preeminent scientist and no-one was interested in embarrassing him.

No we are never debunking earlier theories. Give me something actually *recent* that was overturned if you think scientific breakthroughs are overturning theories.

You and I clearly see this standard differently. I've given examples that satisfy me, but they do not satisfy you. It's the same in reverse though - you give me information concerning the evidence for evolution, and it satisfies you, but clearly not me.

I don't think that I'm being unreasonable in my standard for evidence concerning evolution, and I can understand your standard for evidence of the debunking of scientific theories (so - I hesitate to say it - your standard is not unreasonable :noid. So what's the difference? I think it's faith. I believe in an omnipotent God who is perfectly capable of not only preserving His Word inviolate, but also of directing our understanding of what is contained therein. I more readily trust God's Word than you do concerning things like the global flood and the appearance of age in the creation. I read the book of Job and know that God is a God of the Big Miracle. He is mighty and immeasurable and supernatural. I read about angels and demons and know that there is a spirit world interacting with the natural world in ways that I cannot know or be certain of.

The supernatural cannot be isolated in a natural lab, and men (even scientists) are fallible whereas God is not.