The Theory of Evolution

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is no way to believe in it in a non-faith manner. Yes we witness natural selection everyday, but the whole scope of evolution is unknowable as of right now, and perhaps forever. Although I don't believe it to be as big a leap as believing what one book from 2000 years ago says. I mean isn't the Odyssey roughly that old, I don't believe in Cyclops and Sirens...

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

why not? that's quite the claim to make.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.

Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?

Do those experiments that create super viruses/super bacteria by exposing them to anti-biotics count?

Or do you not consider that evidence of evolution?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: sandorski
No, I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept it as the best explanation based on Scientific Principles.

Yup.

Should really be termed the Principle of Evolution by now given the mountain of evidence supporting it (and nothing Scientific opposing it).

You should read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. I wanted to get a pro and a con book on the subject, and this dude's a biochemist and his angle has nothing to do with espousing creationism (although creationists use his arguments anyway). He raises some good questions.

I have read enough of it and talked to enough biochemists to conclude that his "irreducibly complex" argument is unsubstantiated.

Might want to look here:

nullTalk Origins

 

[piasabird]

All Fossils prove is there are some extinct animals.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I know people, mostly catholics who are religious and recognize evolution evidence.

Yea, i have met some too. I call them hypocrites. On one hand they have the philosophy of "reject or ignore all that disagrees with my current approach to information gathering." While simultaneously adopting the philosophy of "seek out every and all pieces of empirical evidence that disagree with my current approach to information gathering." How can you simultaneously reject/ignore all that you vehmently seek out?

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Stunt
I know people, mostly catholics who are religious and recognize evolution evidence.

Yea, i have met some too. I call them hypocrites. On one hand they have the philosophy of "reject or ignore all that disagrees with my current approach to information gathering." While simultaneously adopting the philosophy of "seek out every and all pieces of empirical evidence that disagree with my current approach to information gathering." How can you simultaneously reject/ignore all that you vehmently seek out?

i think you are assuming too much.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Tab
Where is the "I have no idea what I beileve opition?"...

Rahvin, you're blankly saying evolution is fact... So then why is commonly called a "theory"?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Man, love these posts in evolutionary threads. Sometimes they make my belly ache from laughing so hard though. :frown:

Im just going to assume that someone else already handled this and Rips ignorances.

 

[dmcowen674]

It directly contradicts the teachings of the bible

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It directly contradicts the teachings of the bible

only if you are unreasonable enough to take the bible literally.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It directly contradicts the teachings of the bible

only if you are unreasonable enough to take the bible literally.

We live in "unreasonable" times.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Stunt
I know people, mostly catholics who are religious and recognize evolution evidence.

Yea, i have met some too. I call them hypocrites. On one hand they have the philosophy of "reject or ignore all that disagrees with my current approach to information gathering." While simultaneously adopting the philosophy of "seek out every and all pieces of empirical evidence that disagree with my current approach to information gathering." How can you simultaneously reject/ignore all that you vehmently seek out?

i think you are assuming too much.

Nope. If you approach life with a rigid belief system and you reject/ignore any and all ideas, approaches, philosophies, evidence, etc that contradict with your belief (all religions share this quality). You can not simultaneously seek out those things which contradict your belief (what science does)--unless you plan to immediately reject/ignore them to remain true to your belief. Which is it going to be? Because you can not have both simultaneously.

 

[azazyel]

http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-04/cover/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2541393.stm

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Technially, evolution deals with what happened after life began. I was just curious about what people thought regarding the origin of life.

One wonders why such an intellectually curious fellow as yourself, who obviously has no hidden agenda in asking this question, would not also be curious about what people think regarding the origin of God?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is no way to believe in it in a non-faith manner. Yes we witness natural selection everyday, but the whole scope of evolution is unknowable as of right now, and perhaps forever. Although I don't believe it to be as big a leap as believing what one book from 2000 years ago says. I mean isn't the Odyssey roughly that old, I don't believe in Cyclops and Sirens...

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

First of all, "Natural Selection" is only a part of the modern theory of Evolution. So if you're claiming that only a portion of the theory of evolution is incapable of explaining what the full theory of evolution explains, then your point is trivially obvious.

But if you're making a claim about the full theory of evolution, then perhaps you had better provide specific details to back up your claim.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Intelligent Design is a belief and not science. You can't prove Intelligent Design, the entire discussion is moot on whether it should be taught or not.

Personally, I believe in some measure of intelligent design, but that doesn't stop me from accepting the currently accepted model of evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Intelligent Design is a belief and not science. You can't prove Intelligent Design, the entire discussion is moot on whether it should be taught or not.

Personally, I believe in some measure of intelligent design, but that doesn't stop me from accepting the currently accepted model of evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Intelligent design is infinitely regressive, and therefore useless:

1. A highly complex entity cannot have been created by "random chance". Therefore, an "intelligence" must have designed and created the highly complex entity.

2. A designer/creator of a highly complex entity must itself be a highly complex entity. Go to step 1.

 

[ahurtt]

I've never been one to rule out either creation or evolution. I do believe that we, or the beginnings from which we evolved, got here somehow that science has yet to adequately explain. I don't see why creation and evoltion have to be mutually exclusive. Isn't it possible that everything was created intentionally. . .the seed sown if you will. . .and then we evolved from there? It's just a matter of the sequence of events to me more than did only one happen or the other. Couldn't it just be one happened and THEN the other?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is no way to believe in it in a non-faith manner. Yes we witness natural selection everyday, but the whole scope of evolution is unknowable as of right now, and perhaps forever. Although I don't believe it to be as big a leap as believing what one book from 2000 years ago says. I mean isn't the Odyssey roughly that old, I don't believe in Cyclops and Sirens...

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

First of all, "Natural Selection" is only a part of the modern theory of Evolution. So if you're claiming that only a portion of the theory of evolution is incapable of explaining what the full theory of evolution explains, then your point is trivially obvious.

But if you're making a claim about the full theory of evolution, then perhaps you had better provide specific details to back up your claim.

Show me where natural slection or mutation has led to a higher-order organism?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is no way to believe in it in a non-faith manner. Yes we witness natural selection everyday, but the whole scope of evolution is unknowable as of right now, and perhaps forever. Although I don't believe it to be as big a leap as believing what one book from 2000 years ago says. I mean isn't the Odyssey roughly that old, I don't believe in Cyclops and Sirens...

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

First of all, "Natural Selection" is only a part of the modern theory of Evolution. So if you're claiming that only a portion of the theory of evolution is incapable of explaining what the full theory of evolution explains, then your point is trivially obvious.

But if you're making a claim about the full theory of evolution, then perhaps you had better provide specific details to back up your claim.

Show me where natural slection or mutation has led to a higher-order organism?

Look in the mirror.
and that wasn't meant as a slam

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Show me where natural slection or mutation has led to a higher-order organism?

What is a higher-order organism? What test would allow me to distinguish a higher-order organism from a lower-order one?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Show me where natural slection or mutation has led to a higher-order organism?

What is a higher-order organism? What test would allow me to distinguish a higher-order organism from a lower-order one?

Any definition and test that proves his point, all others are naturally excluded.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is no way to believe in it in a non-faith manner. Yes we witness natural selection everyday, but the whole scope of evolution is unknowable as of right now, and perhaps forever. Although I don't believe it to be as big a leap as believing what one book from 2000 years ago says. I mean isn't the Odyssey roughly that old, I don't believe in Cyclops and Sirens...

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

First of all, "Natural Selection" is only a part of the modern theory of Evolution. So if you're claiming that only a portion of the theory of evolution is incapable of explaining what the full theory of evolution explains, then your point is trivially obvious.

But if you're making a claim about the full theory of evolution, then perhaps you had better provide specific details to back up your claim.

Show me where natural slection or mutation has led to a higher-order organism?

YOU made an extreme statement: Evolution incapable of explaining how simpler organisms can evolve into more complex ones. I responded to YOUR statement by asking you to back it up with something substantive. Please do so.

When YOU have responded to MY question, I will respond to YOURS.

 

[dannybin1742]

Show me where natural slection or mutation has led to a higher-order organism?

3 forms of hiv with different tolerances to drugs, super resistant bacteria that cannot be treated with any antibiotics ...........shall i continue?

 

[dannybin1742]

some bacteria have actually evolved drug transporters that have the ability to move toxic drugs back out of the cell, i read a structure paper on this last year (x-ray crystalography paper)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I've never been one to rule out either creation or evolution. I do believe that we, or the beginnings from which we evolved, got here somehow that science has yet to adequately explain. I don't see why creation and evoltion have to be mutually exclusive. Isn't it possible that everything was created intentionally. . .the seed sown if you will. . .and then we evolved from there? It's just a matter of the sequence of events to me more than did only one happen or the other. Couldn't it just be one happened and THEN the other?

This is an interesting point. It is possible that a god Created everything and Science is merely discovering How that god did it. It would be perfectly expected that that is what would occur, if a god had Created everything to begin with.

Where many Creationists/ID theorists fail is in their insistance of a short timeline and in their suspiscion of Science. The whole idea of a Young Earth has been disproven a long time ago and anyone holding that view is simply out of touch with Reality. Those who hold that Evolutionists are simply part of a Religious Belief system or are part of an Anti-God/Christian/Religious conspiracy are equally out of touch with Reality. Evolutionary Science is merely trying to discover/explain our beginings based on what has been Observed and otherwise Discovered using Scientific Principles. We've(humanity) been through this circus many times in History, Flat/Round Earth, the rate Heavy/Light Weight objects fall, which celestial object Orbits who, etc. Repeatedly Scientific Principles have been proven to be the best way to accurately answer these questions.