An interesting flaw in evolutionary thinking

[killface]

<< The evolutionary arguement is based on luck. >>


Yes it is, but at least it's based on science. Creationism is based solely on faith. Science is by no means perfect, but it most certainly is the best tool we have.



<< I'll admit that people are getting taller as I'm about a foot taller than my grandparents but I really don't see any advantages to that. >>



Well, short guys can never have a "love at first sight" experience from across a crowded room

 

[BornStar]

Be my guest, laugh all you want. Comedy is one of the few releases we have left and some people still get offended by it (see the red neck neighbor). And no, I'm not saying I'm discrimated against, I think discrimination is one of the dumbest excuses you can ever use. I meant attacks against my personal beliefs (read: attacking me for being a creationist). I'm apparently a minority in here which is something I'm willing to accept. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, what I'm saying is I don't agree with it and doubt that I ever will.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< Texmaster for Elite >>

Elledan, is that a childish attack on Texmaster? lol

 

[BornStar]

<< Well, short guys can never have a "love at first sight" experience from across a crowded room >>



Hey, never thought about that one. I take it back, I like being tall. That and keepaway is much more amusing.

My scientific upbringing was not neglected, my father is a chemist and I'm currently studying to be a computer engineer. I just think that the incredible amount of luck involved in evolution is well beyond what can be normally expected. Every mutation we've seen has resulted in premature death for the most part. Does that mean we have been perfected and there's nowhere else to go?

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Texmaster for Elite >>

Elledan, is that a childish attack on Texmaster? lol >>


No, Tex and I are buddies now

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<<

<< The evolutionary arguement is based on luck. >>


Yes it is, but at least it's based on science. Creationism is based solely on faith. Science is by no means perfect, but it most certainly is the best tool we have. >>

If evolution isn't based on faith, than neither is any religion

Evolution is based on a faith in scientists that one day they'll come up with something significant to finally prove all the rampent theories of which they constantly spew.

"We don't know how exactly, but I believe we'll figure it out eventually."

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<<

<<

<< Texmaster for Elite >>

Elledan, is that a childish attack on Texmaster? lol >>


No, Tex and I are buddies now >>

And I'm a born again athiest evolutionist. lmao

 

[Fausto]

<< No, Tex and I are buddies now >>


That explains all the orders coming in from "Hades, HL" for parkas and moonboots we've been seeing...

Fausto

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<<

<< Texmaster for Elite >>

Elledan, is that a childish attack on Texmaster? lol >>


No, Tex and I are buddies now >>

And I'm a born again athiest evolutionist. lmao >>


Why don't you ask him yourself? We no longer bear any hostile feelings towards each other. Unlike someone like you, Tex and I are capable of forgiving each other.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<< The evolutionary arguement is based on luck. >>


Yes it is, but at least it's based on science. Creationism is based solely on faith. Science is by no means perfect, but it most certainly is the best tool we have. >>

If evolution isn't based on faith, than neither is any religion

Evolution is based on a faith in scientists that one day they'll come up with something significant to finally prove all the rampent theories of which they constantly spew.

"We don't know how exactly, but I believe we'll figure it out eventually." >>


ROFLMAO!!

Uhm, you're kidding, right?

Fact is that evolution is based on empirical evidence. There are no conflicting theories or thesises.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<<

<<

<<

<<

<< Texmaster for Elite >>

Elledan, is that a childish attack on Texmaster? lol >>


No, Tex and I are buddies now >>

And I'm a born again athiest evolutionist. lmao >>


Why don't you ask him yourself? We no longer bear any hostile feelings towards each other. Unlike someone like you, Tex and I are capable of forgiving each other. >>

I see you're off to a good start throwing insults and generalizations about people.

Have a nice day...

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<<

<<

<<

<< Texmaster for Elite >>

Elledan, is that a childish attack on Texmaster? lol >>


No, Tex and I are buddies now >>

And I'm a born again athiest evolutionist. lmao >>


Why don't you ask him yourself? We no longer bear any hostile feelings towards each other. Unlike someone like you, Tex and I are capable of forgiving each other. >>

I see you're off to a good start throwing insults and generalizations about people.

Have a nice day... >>


What are you talking about? You're the person who takes an issue from one thread to another. You're the person who started the insulting in that particular thread. And then you complain about me?

Wow, that's what I call hypocritical.

 

[killface]

<< Evolution is based on a faith in scientists that one day they'll come up with something significant to finally prove all the rampent theories of which they constantly spew. >>


Evolution is not a theory. It is a FACT. Religions just choose to ignore the facts in order to stay consistent with the bible.


<< Every mutation we've seen has resulted in premature death for the most part. Does that mean we have been perfected and there's nowhere else to go? >>


Most mutations are completely harmless. We only hear about the ones that cause death. As for having no where else to go, we don't really need to go anywhere. We've been able to adapt to our surroundings externally through our intelligence. Plus, as has been stated many times in this thread, evolution takes a long time. Our lives and written history is simply too short for us to observe any changes in ourselves.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

<< After all Darwin's philisophy is basically "survival of the fittest", so with that in mind its hard to beleive that a harsh enviorment would give an organism enough time to develop whats needed to survive. If an organism is not fit to deal with its situation or surroundings then chances are that it will likely perish before it can evolve into something else.
>>



That's not survival of of the fittest, thats the theory of natural selection which is credited to Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.

 

[Turkey]

Elledan had it right on the first page...

Evolution and natural selection are two different ideas. The "theory" of evolution states that a species turns into another species due to environmental factors, while natural selection states the length of time needed, what environmental factors play most heavily, and all the other details. Evolution is the what, natural selection is the how. And evolution is accepted by virtually every scientist who has cared to look closely at the fossil record, but natural selection is pretty much a pile of poo that had profound social effects in the mid-late 19th century when it came out.

 

[BornStar]

<< Evolution is not a theory. It is a FACT. Religions just choose to ignore the facts in order to stay consistent with the bible. >>



"Evolution is a theory, one that has increasingly been supported by a mounting body of genetic evidence." - Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology

The earth being flat was a fact too...

edit: I should point out that I don't necessarily agree with the part after the comma

 

[reitz]

<< If evolution isn't based on faith, than neither is any religion

Evolution is based on a faith in scientists that one day they'll come up with something significant to finally prove all the rampent theories of which they constantly spew.

"We don't know how exactly, but I believe we'll figure it out eventually." >>

Evolution, like any belief not based entirely on personally-observed and -verified occurances, requires some level of "faith". Comparing it to any major religion is nonsense, though.

Evolution is not a theory. Biologists (and anyone who actually understands the scientific concepts) regard evolution as a science. Those who dismiss it as an incorrect "theory" do so either out of ignorance or fear. There is not a single "contradiction", "flaw", or "inconsistency" in evolutionary thinking...every "problem" with it you think you can find has already been answered. The evidence most of the anti-evolution crowd claim doesn't exist is in reality quite convincing and readily available.

Creationism (literal Bible interpretation) on the other hand is a direct contradiction to the physical evidence found so far (genetic similarities, fossil record, observed micro-evolution, etc.). A literal belief in creation requires one to discard an entire sub-section of science with verifiable, observable evidence for a belief that is over 2000 years old and at best a second-hand account. Maybe I'm wrong, but there does seem to be a small leap of faith here.

The existence of evolution does not have to invalidate any religion. The priciples and processes are completely irrelevent to the more important aspects of most religions (i.e. the New Testament). Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution as more than just a theory. The "resentment" of evolution comes from the hardcore literalists who place all of their faith in one ancient book; they react with fear towards any ideas which may invalidate portions of their own. "Believing" in evolution does mean one can't believe in the Bible. It only means one can't believe in every single word of the Bible as a factual and historical account.

 

[BornStar]

evolution as defined by Marriam-Webster: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations". I see the word theory in that sentence. Nowhere does it say that science is fact. Science is based on theories that on occasion prove to be plausible. Ever seen the Darkness Suckers email about how light bulbs actually suck darkness, not produce light. Pretty hard to disprove.

 

[bugsysiegel]

Yeah, but the bible is right on, like all the mention of dinasaurs.

 

[reitz]

<< Ever seen the Darkness Suckers email about how light bulbs actually suck darkness, not produce light. Pretty hard to disprove. >>

There is no need to disprove something that has absolutely no basis in fact.

Find me any flaw or contradiction in evolutionary science, and I'll bet I can easily answer 90% of them, and I didn't even finish the degree. Evolution is an early topic in Biology, and is not really even questioned anymore. Like I said, the "flaws" people point out are based upon a flawed understanding of evolution.

 

[rahvin]

<< evolution as defined by Marriam-Webster: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations". I see the word theory in that sentence. Nowhere does it say that science is fact. Science is based on theories that on occasion prove to be plausible. Ever seen the Darkness Suckers email about how light bulbs actually suck darkness, not produce light. Pretty hard to disprove. >>



The common definition and the scientific definition are two entirely different things. (just as I wouldn't consult the dictionary for the proper mix structure of concrete) Evolution is a FACT and a theory. Evolution is an observed, documented and experimentally verified occurance, how it operates is a theory. A theory IS supported by verifiable and substantial evidence.

You have an ignorance of basic scientific principles. May I suggest you educate yourself. (anyone that could think the chain of illogic in the Darkness suckers email is plausible demonstrates this, but let me guess you were just yanking our chain on this one too after someone points it out, huh?)

 

[BornStar]

Just because something can't be disproved doesn't make it a fact. I would like to see you disprove the darkness suckers. I don't agree with the email, but I think it to be very good food for thought. We all know that light bulbs produce light, however turning it around like that makes a very convincing arguement that is very difficult to disprove. If you think you can do so, I would appreciate any thoughts.

 

[BornStar]

I don't think that I demonstrate ignorance and I think you have no reason to judge my intelligence as you don't know me personally. As I already stated before, I find it very unethical to attack someone's religious beliefs and I would like to think that people don't have to resort to making fun of people to resolve an argument.

 

[CQuinn]

<< evolution as defined by Marriam-Webster: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations". I see the word theory in that sentence. Nowhere does it say that science is fact. Science is based on theories that on occasion prove to be plausible. Ever seen the Darkness Suckers email about how light bulbs actually suck darkness, not produce light. Pretty hard to disprove. >>



Nice try, it helps your arguement if you can manage to make a point without hiding evidence to the contrary:

From the Merriam-Webster website:

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'l&uuml;-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

The definition you are trying to apply is the 4th common usage, it cannot be accurately applied without taking the
preceding meanings into account.

You are right on one thing, Science is not fact... True Science is based on examination of the given FACTS that we have at hand. Theory is what we use to try and fill in any gaps in our understanding of Science, when
we gain enough evidence to prove (or disprove) a theory, then we consider it scientifically valid, or we start looking
for new theories.

An attempt to divert this thread further notwithstanding, anyone with (again) an elementary understanding of the scientific principles behind how lightbulbs work can easily disprove the Darkness Sucker hypothesis.
(A Hypothesis being a pre-theory so detached from reality that it is usually consider easier to prove them
wrong than it would be to actually think up an expirement that could prove them right).

 

[reitz]

<< Just because something can't be disproved doesn't make it a fact. >>

No, but the evidence that supports it, does.

<< I would like to see you disprove the darkness suckers. >>

They're not even possible; the concept is based on twisted logic and misinterpretations. I might as well try to disprove the existence of giant invisible rabid bats that devour little kids in their sleep... How is this relevant to evolution? You're just dancing around the valid arguments.

<< I don't think that I demonstrate ignorance and I think you have no reason to judge my intelligence as you don't know me personally. >>

Where did I judge your intelligence? I can't seem to find it.

<< As I already stated before, I find it very unethical to attack someone's religious beliefs and I would like to think that people don't have to resort to making fun of people to resolve an argument. >>

I don't even know your religious beliefs, how am I attacking them?

What's the point of posting to a thread like this if you're not going to offer rational, logical arguments and support your own position?