The Theory of Evolution

[Veramocor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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?

Where are your eyes? And aren't you the one without evidence? What use do YOU have for evidence. You believe what you want to believe untroubled by facts or a lack of common sense.

Rip: There's a gap in numberline theory between 10 and 20. I need a transitional number.
Scientist: How bout 15?
Rip: Now there are two gaps.
Scientist: Lets see, 13.5 and 17.5
Rip: Four gaps, you aren't helping yourself your theory sux.

Here's a good website listing some transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Exactly what are you looking for Rip?

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: 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.

And what if that Creator is unimaginably complex so as to have been existing forever?

 

[Caveman]

ID seems like a really lazy argument to me. I feel like they're saying "it's complicated, so God must be responsible."

Actually, ID is certainly not the "lazy way out"... it's is a branch of science that focuses on the statistical probabilities of a given design solution manifesting itself into a biological system.

The math suggests that a supreme entity was responsible for creating lifeforms. There is no bias in true science. When the science has matured to the point that we're capable of quantifying how we came to be, and the logical conclusion is through creation by a supreme entity, we must be mature enough to accept what we can't escape.

With each ID theorem proved, evolution looks more and more like an illogical, unscientific method to arrive at a conclusion. Believing evolution takes much faith...

 

[Whaspe]

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.

A Black Box or a Black Hole?

 

[Whaspe]

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?

Researchers find first evidence of venom system in extinct mammal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Caveman

ID seems like a really lazy argument to me. I feel like they're saying "it's complicated, so God must be responsible."

Actually, ID is certainly not the "lazy way out"... it's is a branch of science that focuses on the statistical probabilities of a given design solution manifesting itself into a biological system.

The math suggests that a supreme entity was responsible for creating lifeforms. There is no bias in true science. When the science has matured to the point that we're capable of quantifying how we came to be, and the logical conclusion is through creation by a supreme entity, we must be mature enough to accept what we can't escape.

With each ID theorem proved, evolution looks more and more like an illogical, unscientific method to arrive at a conclusion. Believing evolution takes much faith...

The statistical probability of life is 100% since it's here to see. The probabilities that it shouldn't be mean nothing, just as the theory that a bumble bee can't fly.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Caveman

ID seems like a really lazy argument to me. I feel like they're saying "it's complicated, so God must be responsible."

Actually, ID is certainly not the "lazy way out"... it's is a branch of science that focuses on the statistical probabilities of a given design solution manifesting itself into a biological system.

ID isn't a science; it's a clever courtroom and public relations tactic used to get creationism into American classrooms called the wedge strategy by its founders at the anti-science Discovery Institute.

The problem with the probability argument is that it's always based on the probability of a biological system arising randomly. However, natural selection isn't a random process, and so these arguments are simply beside the point.

With each ID theorem proved, evolution looks more and more like an illogical, unscientific method to arrive at a conclusion. Believing evolution takes much faith...

ID has no proven theorems or results of any sort.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Caveman

ID seems like a really lazy argument to me. I feel like they're saying "it's complicated, so God must be responsible."

Actually, ID is certainly not the "lazy way out"... it's is a branch of science that focuses on the statistical probabilities of a given design solution manifesting itself into a biological system.

The math suggests that a supreme entity was responsible for creating lifeforms. There is no bias in true science. When the science has matured to the point that we're capable of quantifying how we came to be, and the logical conclusion is through creation by a supreme entity, we must be mature enough to accept what we can't escape.

With each ID theorem proved, evolution looks more and more like an illogical, unscientific method to arrive at a conclusion. Believing evolution takes much faith...

Poppycock! (hehe, that expression is rather odd, but I like it )

What you've described is merely Mathematics and not Science at all. Mathematically speaking it is next to impossible to win the Lottery, but people do all the time. IOWs, low Probability does not equal Impossibility.

 

[Shuxclams]

Gravity has yet to be proven as fact, thus gravity is a theory. Is there Intelligent Gravity too? Maybe its the weight of our sins that keeps us earthbound......











SHUX

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams
Gravity has yet to be proven as fact, thus gravity is a theory. Is there Intelligent Gravity too? Maybe its the weight of our sins that keeps us earthbound......











SHUX

Hmm, maybe that's why we increase in Mass as we age? Intriguing, might also be the reason parents don't throw Newborns into the Air, what if they never fell back ?

 

[stratman]

I definately think things evolve, and that we probably evolved from something else, and that we probably have common ancestry with monkeys or whatever.

I think science's role is to describe what happens, and it is necessary and good that it does so. I think religion's role is seperate. I think religion's role is to relay the purpose of everything happening the way it does. I think that, no matter how much science discovers, the question "What is the meaning of all of this?" will remain valid.

Cheers.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Stunt
One key point to make is that Evolution does not even start to explain creation.

See thats the thing. I'm not sure the Theory of Evolution is intended to explain creation at all, simply the change in species over time and how current species came to be. If you want theories about life being creating from the "primordial soup" try abiogenesis. If evolution is taken for what it is supposed to be taken as, none of these arguements would ever exist.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 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.

Organisms require basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction, correct?

How did lungs form if lungs are necessary for our lives from the start? How did we reproduce if it took millions of years for our reproductive system to evolve?

How can an unintelligent process like natural selection which demands progress at every step of change account for the formation of an eye? What evolutionary advantage did a non functioning transitional "eye" have?

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

what is the science of emotion? what evolutionary path can we assume we've taken so that morality and emotion play the pivotal roles they do in the "advancement" of our species? science isn't our set of laws.... it's our building blocks. the periodic table is merely a small corner of the map, who knows how far "evolution" could have taken us had we not stopped to take a time out for fighting wars and making money.

science says we'll destroy the earth long before evolution has a chance to make it's next step. when did spawn become creator? how were we able to transcend the process only to make it act in accordance with our behavior?

 

[Riprorin]

Natural selection is derived in part from the concept of the survival of the fittest.

In a "fit" society, people would look out for themselves, advance themselves at the expense of others, and even destroy others if possible. Natural selection demands that the powerful live and thrive and the weak be destroyed. Barbarism would prevail.

Yet, people exhibit mercy, pity, and compassion, all of which inhibit natural selection.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 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.

Organisms require basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction, correct?

How did lungs form if lungs are necessary for our lives from the start? How did we reproduce if it took millions of years for our reproductive system to evolve?

How can an unintelligent process like natural selection which demands progress at every step of change account for the formation of an eye? What evolutionary advantage did a non functioning transitional "eye" have?

Rip, our cells are respiring constantly and they don't need lungs. A cell is a highly complex system and we have only begun to understand the complexities, not to mention the amount of communication that occurs between neighboring cells. It all starts with surface area to volume ratios. That's why our cells are filled with membranous sacs called organelles. If you look at a developing embryo it doesn't have a respiratory system right from the start. You start with one cell... Why do human embryos have gills? What function do they play? Why is it that when you compare human embryo's with chicken or pigs they are all structurally identical? And what do you mean by unintelligent natural selection? From my point of veiw it's outright genius. I understand where you are coming from because I have been there myself. But the reality is that evolution is sound science. This doesn't have to be in opposition to your beliefs but it will broaden them. Private message me if your open to discussing more.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Natural selection is derived in part from the concept of the survival of the fittest.

In a "fit" society, people would look out for themselves, advance themselves at the expense of others, and even destroy others if possible. Natural selection demands that the powerful live and thrive and the weak be destroyed. Barbarism would prevail.

Yet, people exhibit mercy, pity, and compassion, all of which inhibit natural selection.

This isn't true. Natural Selection simply says that the fittest will survive. But what does fitness really mean? Not necessarily physical strength. The other point to make here is that evolution works at the population level. In this way an individual may lose out, and even those individuals with "superior fitness" may not always pass on their genes. Fittness is all relative to environmental cues.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Natural selection is derived in part from the concept of the survival of the fittest.

In a "fit" society, people would look out for themselves, advance themselves at the expense of others, and even destroy others if possible. Natural selection demands that the powerful live and thrive and the weak be destroyed. Barbarism would prevail.

Yet, people exhibit mercy, pity, and compassion, all of which inhibit natural selection.

LOL! In the course of human evolution:

the tribe/community/family >>> Individual

One man could not hunt and bring down some of the meat sources around, ie mastodons and other larger mammals. Also, gathering in a group would yield the greater possibility in finding sources.

Naturally, the dependence on other humans increased with specialization, in the development of farming, commerce, and government.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Natural selection is derived in part from the concept of the survival of the fittest.

In a "fit" society, people would look out for themselves, advance themselves at the expense of others, and even destroy others if possible. Natural selection demands that the powerful live and thrive and the weak be destroyed. Barbarism would prevail.

Yet, people exhibit mercy, pity, and compassion, all of which inhibit natural selection.

Absurd. We are here and we have compassion. That means compassion has adaptive advantage. What is is what works or does not harm.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Natural selection is derived in part from the concept of the survival of the fittest.

In a "fit" society, people would look out for themselves, advance themselves at the expense of others, and even destroy others if possible. Natural selection demands that the powerful live and thrive and the weak be destroyed. Barbarism would prevail.

Yet, people exhibit mercy, pity, and compassion, all of which inhibit natural selection.

Absurd. We are here and we have compassion. That means compassion has adaptive advantage. What is is what works or does not harm.

Yeah, obviously we're here as we're having a conversation on Anandtech.

But clearly, we're NOT here as a product of natural selection.

 

[MicroChrome]

Originally posted by: loki8481
ID seems like a really lazy argument to me. I feel like they're saying "it's complicated, so God must be responsible."

personally, I don't know how my stereo works, but I'm not about to tell people it was crafted by the hand of God

You could say the same thing about your car and your computer. I am sure ID did not create your latest computer or car... Yes it did evolve and if it was not the latest, greatest, fastest... I would have not paid for it. $$ talks BS walks.

Just take a look at the evolution of the car or computer... Or stereo for that matter.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Organisms require basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction, correct?

How did lungs form if lungs are necessary for our lives from the start? How did we reproduce if it took millions of years for our reproductive system to evolve?

How can an unintelligent process like natural selection which demands progress at every step of change account for the formation of an eye? What evolutionary advantage did a non functioning transitional "eye" have?

You're making several unwarranted assumptions:

You're assuming "lungs are necessary for our lives from the start". Lungs and gills are actually quite similar strutures. In both structures, oxygen passes through a membrane in one direction and carbon dioxide passes through the membrane in the other direction. The only difference between the two structures is that gills perform their gas exchange using water as the , whereas lungs perform their gas exchange using air.

There are obviously transitional forms. For example, there are today fish that can survive out of water for many hours or even days. The key to their survival is that their gills behave actually mostly like a gill and a little like a lung: These fish need very little water to serve as the exchange medium; as long as the "gill-lung" is moist, the organ can still use water as the exchange medium. Is it so hard to see that lungs are just a further evolution of the gill-lungs of these modern fish, and that a gradual transition occurred from pure gill, to GILL-lung, to gill-lung, to gill-LUNG, to pure lung?

So, no, we didn't "need lungs from the start".

As to eyes: Someone in this thread has already posted a link (See about halfway down) to a site that provides a credible set of transitions that led from blindness to a light-sensitive patch, to a binocular light-sensitive patch, to a directional binocular light-sensitive curved organ, to a lens-containing directional binocular light-sensitive organ, to the modern eye. "Light-perceiving organs" (a generic name for eyes) can easily evolve from simpler to more complex forms.

Finally, stop making the ludicrous argument that "natural selection" can't explain this or that. "Natural selection" is the theory proposed by Darwin and Wallance in 1857. A LOT has changed in evolutionary theory in the past 147 years, and decrying "natural selection" is like decrying Newtonian physics because Newton can't explain the existence of black holes. Do you REALLY think it's so surprising that in the 147 years since Natural Selection was forumulated there might have been a few changes here and there?

Just for your information, there are in fact at least FOUR main mechanisms to evolution: natural selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, and mutation. Without all of these mechanisms (and a number of other, more minor mechanisms) working together in various combinations, most of the life forms on this planet would never have arisen.

Your "reasoning process" is akin to what that of the ancients: You assume that if you can't readily explain something, the supernatural must be the answer.

Think of all the things that science was unable to explain 100 years ago. Do you think that the conclusion, "God must be the explanation" was valid back then, in light of what we know now?

By the same token, there are many things we don't yet understand now. Do you really think science won't be able to explain many/most of these things 100 years from now?

The answer to ignorance isn't "more God". It's "more science".

 

[0marTheZealot]

Rip, you try the same old arguments that have debunked for 30+ years in the field of Biology. Go learn some science.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
what is the science of emotion? what evolutionary path can we assume we've taken so that morality and emotion play the pivotal roles they do in the "advancement" of our species? science isn't our set of laws.... it's our building blocks. the periodic table is merely a small corner of the map, who knows how far "evolution" could have taken us had we not stopped to take a time out for fighting wars and making money.

science says we'll destroy the earth long before evolution has a chance to make it's next step. when did spawn become creator? how were we able to transcend the process only to make it act in accordance with our behavior?

 

[Cerb]

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?

Wow, dude, that one was easier than I thought it'd be!
Google "dinosaurs birds"