sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,848
- 6,386
- 126
So we're clear now. You're not really interested/just Trolling.
Got it, I'll just go and do something else then.
- Status
So we're clear now. You're not really interested/just Trolling.
Got it, I'll just go and do something else then.
And I quote you from a previous post
"But you can imagine an invisible sky being that magically farts out the universe one day. Then makes man out of some muck and everything else exactly the way it is now.
And your evidence supporting this is.....?
a bunch of religious texts written in the bronze age.
congratz on your debating skillz."
But, no you're not a troll. You're obviously a Renaissance man of the highest order.
Come on now. Let's not be bashful.
I've told you that I think evolution is the best description of how life came to be as it is today.
I don't understand this statement. Describe what you mean by "evolution"?
I'm very interested in your opinions. Too bad you just want to send me links. Sorry we couldn't reason together. Bye.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
There is no principle difference between so-called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." They only differ by degree. To say that you accept "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution" is the same as saying you believe I can walk to the end of my driveway, but not to the end of the street. You've already accepted that I can walk. What's stopping me from reaching the end of the street if I walk for enough time?
See the link supplied by Sandorski. I know it's a lot. There is A LOT of proof for evolution, so that's what you get.
What, you don't accept that the skull of a modern human attached to the jaw of an orangutan (with its teeth filed down to look human) is evidence for macroevolution? Ha.
IME folks who accept microevolution but deny macroevolution usually don't understand the difference between the two. It's not because they're stupid (most of the evolution boosters in this thread don't know more about evolution than those criticizing it), it's simply because evolution runs contrary to their beliefs. For whatever reason, they can accept the irrefutable evidence for microevolution (e.g. the evolution of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria), but can't accept the inferences used to explain macroevolution.
The bottom line is this: the only difference between micro- and macroevolution is in our minds. There is no objective truth (with a little 't' - this is science) separating the two. Microevolution is usually described as evolution on a short enough and small enough scale that human science can irrefutably observe it. Macroevolution on the other hand takes a long time and the magnitude of change is so great that human science can't easily, irrefutably observe it. However, these differences are nothing more than semantics first used by biologists for the sake of convenience, but since exploited by evolution deniers to maintain what they think is a valid position.
Bacteria provide an excellent example. What is a bacterial species? There is more genetic diversity in a petri dish of E. coli than there is in the entire human species. So it's not necessarily a matter of genetic diversity. It's not a reproductive barrier like between humans and macaques, because bacteria don't reproduce sexually. Many bacterial 'species' are defined simply by how they make us sick, and how we can kill them so they don't make us sick. In this case, rather minuscule genetic changes (i.e. mutations conferring resistance to antibiotics) make a hell of a difference to people. So is that microevolution or macroevolution? If you're dying of an infection caused by resistant bacteria, I'd say that's about as real as macroevolution gets.
What about humans? Recent research shows the difference, genetically, between living humans and humans who lived 20,000 years ago is greater than the genetic difference between humans who lived 20,000 years ago and humans who lived 200,000 years ago. Does that mean living humans are a different species than humans who lived 20,000 years ago? Science will not and can not ever answer this question with observable, empirical evidence (unless, of course, time travel gets invented, ha).
The reason why evolution, both its micro and macro varieties, is taught as a legitimate science is that like other sciences, it just plain works. We can use evolutionary theory to predict what will happen in the future based on our understanding of what happened in the past. Look at how the CDC recommends combating diseases today.
The reason why evolution is subject to special criticism is that it challenges traditional religious beliefs. That is, you're descended from an ape-like animal that lived in Africa 6,000,000 years ago, not Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago. Unless you believe the Bible is the literal, revealed Word of God, you shouldn't deny evolution because nothing about evolution is contradictory to what most people consider the heart of faith. It's similarly unfortunate that a few outspoken atheists use evolution to argue against faith, counterproductively polarizing what shouldn't be a debate at all for anyone who isn't an extremely conservative religious person.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,848
- 6,386
- 126
"Reason together" "your opinions", meh, who cares about that. If you wanna Know, I gave you a Link. You don't though, so why should I bother?
PowerEngineer
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2001
- 3,610
- 795
- 136
Originally Posted by PowerEngineer
Come on now. Let's not be bashful.
I've told you that I think evolution is the best description of how life came to be as it is today. Let's balance this discussion out by hearing what your theory is.
I don't understand this statement.
Come on now. Let's not be bashful.
I've told you that I think evolution is the best description of how life came to be as it is today.
Describe what you mean by "evolution"?
Tut... tut...
You shouldn't edit my quotes in an effort to change or disguise their meanings. It smacks of desperation or embarrassment.
I take it you are unwilling to share your own theory on how life came to be as it is today.
:thumbsdown:
Last edited:
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,369
- 12,859
- 136
How astute of you to realize that.
I am also the poster that pwned the last guy who started a Pro Intelligent Design thread.
Don't underestimate me, or others, with strong science and debating skills.
science will always trump faith. Deal with it.
Ah, finally an intelligent post.
I don't have time to discuss it (sleep bekons me), but many legitimate scientists have dissented from Darwinism and embraced intelligent design.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
Keep in mind that in academia, to be a dissenter from the orthodoxy can be a death blow to your career.
I don't have time to discuss it (sleep bekons me), but many legitimate scientists have dissented from Darwinism and embraced intelligent design.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
Keep in mind that in academia, to be a dissenter from the orthodoxy can be a death blow to your career.
You made a statment and I'm asking you to define your terms. Is that unreasonable to you?
No, it won't. There are many, many questions of real importance that science simply can't answer.
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
Your religious brainwashing makes you incapable of understanding and accepting such theories, so why bother?
Besides, it's beneath me to bother explaining such simple and widely accepted concepts to an adult.
Both of your arguments can be turned around and pointed back at you. Every response you have is typical. Unwilling to accept any alternates to your belief and turning to insults thinking this somehow strengthens your position.
Very, very few legitimate biologists dissent from Darwinism. Most scientists who deny evolution hail from other fields and their opinions on the topic are far from expert.
You are correct that dissent from popular scientific ideas can be a death blow to an academic career, but it's more likely to propel your career to impressive heights when you can demonstrate that a long-standing idea is either wrong or needs substantial revision to make it work in light of new evidence.
Darwinism is over 150 years old, and fully predates the modern understanding of genetics. So not only has it withstood all of modern biology's findings, it withstood an entirely new branch of biology. ("Withstood" is probably the wrong term - genetics explained the only real hole in Darwin's original theory - so it strengthened Darwinism.) This does not mean it is correct. It just means that satisfactory evidence showing it is incorrect would be the most important biological theory since, well, Darwinism itself. Anyone who refuted evolution would be hailed as a genius and get treated like a rock star because it would pave the way for generations of new ideas.
Most evolutionary biologists are not die-hard, militant atheists like some of the more outspoken members of the community like Dawkins. Hell most of my colleagues believe in God, even if it's a very secular and non-religious belief. Accepting evolution and being religious/having faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive. All it takes is a flexible mind - though unfortunately plenty of people on both sides aren't very flexible.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
Stats to prove it or it's not true. Darwin wasn't an expert either so it's ridiculous to build a whole scientific schism out of his basic observations. I've heard from experts on both sides and the ones against evolution seem to have it figured out a lot more than those that are for it.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,369
- 12,859
- 136
LOL wut?
this is a good video for those opposing evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b03AWd-UU8&feature=related
and don't even think of bringing up the banana defense.
Scroll down to the bottom of this page: http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
Quick count: 22/100 are biologists.
I'm not sure why you'd assert Darwin wasn't 'an expert.' An expert about what? Biology? Darwin was as learned about biology as anyone could be in his time. He didn't just write about evolution, he wrote dozens of other books and papers and IIRC he was a member of the Royal Society before he wrote the Origin.
Regarding your own experiences, I'm not at all surprised that the experts who make more sense to you also agree with you. You wouldn't be surprised that my own experiences talking to experts on both sides of what I consider an invalid argument (i.e. intelligent design creationism vs. scientific evolutionary biology) are different from yours.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
I didn't have a position on the subject before researching it, so it had nothing to do with who agreed with me. ID isn't exclusively about creationism. Fact is, after I read Billions of Missing Links and seeing the ridiculous speeches from evolution fanatics I had a hard time understanding why anyone actually believes in it.
Well the whole concept of 'a missing link' doesn't make sense to me. There will always be missing links given an incomplete fossil record, just like there are missing links in a family history that doesn't have a complete record. In order for there to be no missing links in evolutionary history, we'd literally have to possess a record of every individual organism that ever lived. The missing links in my own family history start showing up in the late 1800s, so if we can't do it for humans that lived in historical times, we sure as shit can't do it for everything that's ever lived.
I don't disagree that some evolutionary biologists are fanatics whose arguments are invalid at best and incredibly insulting and hateful at worst. However, I think you'd agree that religion has its own fanatics who make invalid arguments and promote irrational hatred. In that sense, you're dismissing the message because you don't like some of the messengers - just like many who support evolution dismiss religion because they don't like some of its messengers.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter