Why Dont YOU Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[occidentalis]

Then there are scientific theory's in physics and cosmology often competing and mutually exclusive.

In those cases they are referred to as hypotheses, not theories. Theory is a term used to describe a hypothesis that has been proven, or at least accepted by consensus based on mountains of evidence.

Now I have to swallow "punctuated equilibrium" and "speciation events" in addition to evolution(it gets deeper and deeper).

You're trying to understand the majesty of billions of years of the earth's existance, and you're worried about a little terminology? Perhaps this field isn't for you.

It seems that speciation not only quickly but in rather large jumps.

Yes, this is the case. The most commonly used definition of species is based on reproductive compatibility. So if two organisms (of the opposite sex ;) ) can't breed under normal circumstances, they are not the same species. From an evolutionary point of view, a mutation that reduces breeding compatibility will cause a virtual reduction in effective population size, because it limits the number of individuals the mutant can breed with. Genetic processes such as drift and inbreeding depression will then come into effect as the population size is smaller. These processes (esp. drift) will increase the rate of speciation within that small population. Essentially it becomes a statistical sampling error. You take a small sample of a large population and you are more likely to get non-representative proportions of alleles. In these conditions with rapid propagation of alleles throughout the population you could very quickly (less than 10 generations) have a separate species.

In simpler terms, some kinds of microevolutionary change (those affecting breeding compatibility) will result in macroevolutionary change rather quickly. Once two groups of organisms can't breed with each other, they will diverge rapidly.

(I dont really accept this)I still lack enough evidence to show that your not merely explaining the problem with the fossil record away rather than proving your case.

Basically I think we are still not 100% sure about how microevolution translates to macroevolution. However what we are sure of, is that microevolution does translate to macroevolution, probably via chaotic processes, and it happens quickly. What this means is that the fossil record isn't a problem, it's a solution. The problem is trying to adapt Darwinian ideas of gradual change (Darwin didn't know about genetics, even at the Mendelian stage) to the real universe where things change quickly and suddenly. Personally I think the evidence will come over the next 10 years as our models of complex systems become more advanced and we are able to simulate whole-genome evolutionary processes at the population level. Edited November 20, 2007 by creach

[ballzac]

Then there are scientific theory's in physics and cosmology often competing and mutually exclusive.

All the same they are theory's as they cant all be factual. Being close to fact still shows that the matter is unproven.

It would help if you gave some examples. I certainly can't think of any THEORIES that are competing or mutually exclusive. In case you mention 'string theory': It is actually a collection of hypotheses and shouldn't really be called a theory...but hey, it sounds good.

Sometimes a new theory can be a refinement of an old one, but that is not the same as a condradiction. Special relativity was a refinement of Gallilean and Newtonian theories, and some of the precise results of experiments under certain (extreme) circumstances will not agree precisely with Newtonian predictions, but it would be terribly fallacious to suggest that, because Newton didn't have it 100% right, forces can't accelerate masses etc. In the same way, our understanding of evolutionary biology is incomplete (otherwise ther would be nothing left to learn), but evolution is a well established theory (fact).

I am no biologist, but as far as I know, most problems like understanding how an eye can evolve have been solved. In fact fossils of rudimentary retinal cells etc. have been found.

To be honest, it makes me quite angry that people go around spreading misinformation about things they don't understand. Most people I know don't know much about physics, so if they have an opinion on a physical process, they will ask me about it. If I don't know something, I will ask a lecturer at uni. The point is, that no person who is both intelligent and humble will make up their minds about something they don't understand and then argue with an expert about it.

So again, please give examples of mutually exclusive physical or cosmological theories

[devance]

My social class project was to a observe a monkey in a Zoo,

Which I did for 1 hour and and half got a A- out it.

The monkey threw some small turds and started masturbating.

Evolutionist/creationist is not going to mean much to much longer.

The world according to bibilcal prophesy isn't going to end for another 1,000 years.

But from a some viewpoints the terminal end is very near.

Panic time.

But what to do.

The techs can't come up a solution.

So only the lonely, the political and bankers.

So a crumbling of the environment with nothing to stop it and very fast.

=========================================================

I think evolution is happening, unfortunately I think that a Creationist presentation has never fully considered God abilitys.

[Hagakure]

Unfortunately not only does it not properly fill in the gaps between man and ape, it doesn't even properly fill in gaps between any one species and another.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

[MORG]

So how many of these events occured between horse and giraffe.

This question and your question on monkeys to men reveals a common misunderstanding naysayers of evolution get hung up on.

Monkeys didn't evolve into men (or women). Horses didn't evolve into giraffes.

Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. i.e., at some point in the past, species 'X', a primitive primate that probably looked quite different from both humans and monkeys underwent a change in its overall gene pool. Whatever that change was resulted in one part of the proto-monkey-man's gene pool being separated from the rest. (Here is where you invoke the many, varied, debated and accepted forms of speciation to explain this split).

A schism in the proto-primate gene pool set the two proportions of the now bifurcated meta-population on independent evolutionary trajectories. The frequencies of genes in proto-primate group A now had no influence on the frequencies of genes in proto-primate gene-pool B. From these two lineages arose two distinct species with their own unique histories. One path led to monkeys, another to man but they are contemporaries today with equally rich evolutionary histories.

Horses never evolved into giraffes. In fact, their last common ancestor is to be found even further back in time than the ancestor of humans and monkeys. i.e. the speciation event giving rise to the now horse lineage and now giraffe lineage occurred much earlier.

Take any two life-forms and there is a most-recent common ancestor at the point at which those lineages converge.

[The Dude]

I like the way you explained that. Like an infinitely continuing schism...

"I know the pieces fit, cause i watched them fall away."

...

the constant deviation from perfection.

Shards of gods light evermore complicated and divergent.

All this is a matter of me/you playing hide and seek with ourselves. We as a collective create ever new life forms as the godess/god hides and seeks, it is to fool us from recognising ourself, the veil of reality is what hides the 'other' from us, it is what creates an other out of the self. Take the veil, and see your reflection for what it is:

Creation with the purpose of Occlusion and then Revelation.

The holographic story of hide and seek = evolution of the universe.

[apothecary]

I just wanted to add this interesting piece on evolution, with two of the original divergent evolutionary trajcetories.

Check out the book "The Ancestors Tale" by Richard Dawkins.

Humans and similar animals are deuterostomes (organisms who are created asshole first, mouth second) while there are also protostomes which are mouth first asshole second, then there is a whole other group which only has one hole!

http://www.amazon.com/Ancestors-Tale-Pilgr...n/dp/061861916X

[teonanacatl]

just to add quickly Ive found most christians/creationists dont not believe in evolution, they just dont believe that things can evolve into other organisms.

And on the subject of theories, a lecturer was telling me of a debate between a geologist and a creationist (the aussie who made that creationist museum in america) about the finding of noahs ark. The creationist believed he had found it on mt ararat, but the geologist was arguing that they have looked at it and the supposed ark is really this certain type of rock. The creationist pulled the thats only a theory line and the geologist grabbed an electrical wire ripped it open and said " here touch this its called electricity, its only a theory." needless to say he didnt touch it.

For undeniable proof that god created the earth see

banana, the atheists nightmare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk

[chilli]

just to add quickly Ive found most christians/creationists dont not believe in evolution, they just dont believe that things can evolve into other organisms.

Haha, love the double negative... yeah, I don't think there is anyone around who doesn't believe in micro-evolution, but it's macro-evolution that creationists usually object to, but there are also creationists that believe in macro-evolution.

Edited November 21, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[teonanacatl]

ooops lol

One thing about christainity is its all gods word so if you can disproove one part of it the rest is by default wrong. If you want good points to argue then leave evolution alone, who cares they will be all geared up to dispute it. Go instead for geological things, ie continental drift, distribution of fossils due to continental drift. If you want to be fancy and give them no leg to stand on then quote the RATE (radio isotopes and the age of the earth) group, they are advocated for young earth. They actually used science like procedures to proove that the rate of radioactive decay was not constant and they say that it all happened in a period of time coninciding with either genesis or the flood, now they actually have dates to go with this. So either during the flood or genesis a massive amount of radioactive decay occured.

One would assume that all this decay would be enough to destroy all life forms on earth so genesis is a good option for when this occured. This leaves two fatal flaws in their plans, one is that we could calculate the amount of decay believed to occur and convert it into energy and determine how much the earths surface would have increased and granted we know how slow it cools we can work out if this occured, it didnt the earth is too cold now for such extreme generation of heat.

My favourite is that after this mass decay event radioactive decay became constant. This means that what ever died after this event would be able to be rradiodated using conventional techniques without having to worry about about changes in radioactive decay. This means everything is fiar game as one would assume that the decay was over before inhabitants were placed on the earth.

The other option is that the great decay occured during the flood and that the massive amounts of water sheilded the ark from radioactive decay and heat produced. As there was dinosaurs on the ark this would mean they sruvived the great decay and so the most recent dinosaurs dated could be said to be without the influence of the great decay.

The other thing is that they will say continental drift occured during the flood aswell as the magnetic pole switching, so how to explain the distribution of animals across the world.

Soem other interesting points is if eve was created from adams rib then she is a clone, therefore she was a he, unless ofcourse she was converted into women but god doesnt mention that.

Anyway ive had a few of these conversations

Also according to my christain friends everything god made is of god, therefore plant drugs are of god and not evil as some have said.

[Mycot]

If you want good points to argue then leave evolution alone, who cares they will be all geared up to dispute it. .

Ha Ha, perhaps we should have asked "Do you beleive in the "Big Bang Theory".

Funny enough I don't believe in the "Big Bang Theory" either.

Its not that I am a religious nutter, but like Shulgin (see argument in Pikhal or Tikhal) my reason does not allow me to accept the theory as truth. This doesn't neccesarily mean that there is something wrong with Shulgins or my own logic but more that we dont believe in something just because an expert says its so.

Talking of experts the lecturer in Teonanacatl's post could brush up on his logic.

[chilli]

One thing about christainity is its all gods word so if you can disproove one part of it the rest is by default wrong.

You seem to be think all or most Christians are Biblical inerrantists.

If you want good points to argue then leave evolution alone, who cares they will be all geared up to dispute it. Go instead for geological things, ie continental drift, distribution of fossils due to continental drift. If you want to be fancy and give them no leg to stand on then quote the RATE (radio isotopes and the age of the earth) group, they are advocated for young earth. They actually used science like procedures to proove that the rate of radioactive decay was not constant and they say that it all happened in a period of time coninciding with either genesis or the flood, now they actually have dates to go with this. So either during the flood or genesis a massive amount of radioactive decay occured.

One would assume that all this decay would be enough to destroy all life forms on earth so genesis is a good option for when this occured. This leaves two fatal flaws in their plans, one is that we could calculate the amount of decay believed to occur and convert it into energy and determine how much the earths surface would have increased and granted we know how slow it cools we can work out if this occured, it didnt the earth is too cold now for such extreme generation of heat.

My favourite is that after this mass decay event radioactive decay became constant. This means that what ever died after this event would be able to be rradiodated using conventional techniques without having to worry about about changes in radioactive decay. This means everything is fiar game as one would assume that the decay was over before inhabitants were placed on the earth.

The other option is that the great decay occured during the flood and that the massive amounts of water sheilded the ark from radioactive decay and heat produced. As there was dinosaurs on the ark this would mean they sruvived the great decay and so the most recent dinosaurs dated could be said to be without the influence of the great decay.

The other thing is that they will say continental drift occured during the flood aswell as the magnetic pole switching, so how to explain the distribution of animals across the world.

Soem other interesting points is if eve was created from adams rib then she is a clone, therefore she was a he, unless ofcourse she was converted into women but god doesnt mention that.

You seem to think all or most Christians are young earth creationists.

Also according to my christain friends everything god made is of god, therefore plant drugs are of god and not evil as some have said.

Yes, we were looking at Genesis in a Bible study a few months back, and they were making the point that God declared that the material world is good... Anglicans seem to partiocularly emphasize this point, I think it's probably because they like a beer and cigar every now and then. Anyway, I said if every created thing is good, then what about magic mushrooms, cannabis, mescaline containing cacti etc. Haha, they had to agree they are all good, but they qualified it by saying the way people use them is not necessarily good. How convenient...

By the way that banana thing was hilarious and sick, I want to see the whole clip. I have a morbid fascination with things like that.

Edited November 22, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[occidentalis]

Anyway, I said if every created thing is good, then what about magic mushrooms, cannabis, mescaline containing cacti etc. Haha, they had to agree they are all good, but they qualified it by saying the way people use them is not necessarily good. How convenient...

I tend to agree with this prima facie

drugs are not good or bad per se

the way people use them is.

[chilli]

I tend to agree with this prima facie

drugs are not good or bad per se

the way people use them is.

I think something similar, but I think they meant that using drugs recreationally was bad.

[occidentalis]

I think something similar, but I think they meant that using drugs recreationally was bad.

Yeah

usually this is a fairly easily pointed-out hypocrisy, because nearly everyone uses some kind of drug or drugs recreationally

however in those who genuinely don't, I guess it's a valid opinion

[chilli]

Yeah

usually this is a fairly easily pointed-out hypocrisy, because nearly everyone uses some kind of drug or drugs recreationally

however in those who genuinely don't, I guess it's a valid opinion

Well these guys love their beer, wine and cigars... plus coke for the littlies! But yeah, in moderation I think is the idea (which doesn't seem to always be adhered to ;)

The problem is how do you use psychedelics in moderation? This is what is impossible to explain to people who because of their ignorance (neutral sense of the word) compare the effects of LSD to drunkenness.

Edited November 22, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[teonanacatl]

No IB I dont think all Biblical inerrantists nor all young earth creationists. My discussions at university however have only been with young earth believers who believe god is perfect and therefore infalable. I quite like the idea of a god who isnt perfect. So yeah forgive me for using christain to mean young earth creationists.

Talking of experts the lecturer in Teonanacatl's post could brush up on his logic.

How so?

Edited to say.

I dont care what people think or believe in people are free to do as they choose and I think everyone is right in terms of a god aslong as they are true to themselves. The discussions I had with my friends spawned as general "so thats what you believe in discussion" and turned into very informative and scientific discussion about the proof or problems with both the science being portrayed by christians and general science. If they want to report this stuff as science then they should defend it as scientists.

Edited November 22, 2007 by teonanacatl

[phloom]

In Richard Dawkins book, "the blind watchmaker" he alludes to inorganic substances ie clay particles (and viruses?) displaying reproductive or semisentient behaviour. This is a long way from describing the process of the inorganic becoming organic, but he also puts forth a good point of our innate fallability to understand processes that can and do occur over geological timespans ie billions of years.

I suppose its possible that without any tested evidence this impasse will remain unresoved? Perhaps life can be created from base materials in a lab, will it solve this debate. What I mean is that if we were created by god in 'his' image then should we not have the power to create life?

[teonanacatl]

I also take the stance that sure a god may have created the universe but that doesnt mean we couldnt form on our own and vice versa.

[phloom]

mmmm fully. the syntax of this debate is confusing, I suppose you also need to imput alot of philosophy and linguistics as well as biology and theology.

It would be entirely possible that an omnipotent 'god' could create a universe with life and all yet remain altogether removed and uninvolved in the whole process. Meaning that for a truly conscious organism (humans) with our good intentions and efforts to come up with these facts and theories (that work) we could be in the same position.

Suppose a 'god ' exists, life was created originally and all the diversity has emerged by 'itself' from this original divine spark. Then ID and evolution are both true.

Doesnt give any clues about the actual intentions of this 'being'; that there is any purpose to existance. We could be merely a giant larva lamp for such an entity to observe for an eternity. Maybe the idea of god having thoughts or purpose is absurd in itself.

[chilli]

No IB I dont think all Biblical inerrantists nor all young earth creationists. My discussions at university however have only been with young earth believers who believe god is perfect and therefore infalable. I quite like the idea of a god who isnt perfect. So yeah forgive me for using christain to mean young earth creationists.

Yeah, it's understandable, seeing as they are usually the most outspoken, and they have a history of getting lots of publicity for their stupidity.

[The Dude]

Yeah, it's understandable, seeing as they are usually the most outspoken, and they have a history of getting lots of publicity for their stupidity.

On that note, i'd reference an old argument I had with you IB where I was poking fun at the idea of the christian bible being a 100% pure unadulterated transcription of 'god'. It's all an interpretation, however the christians I've spoken to believe in its absolute authority for the reason its the "direct word of god". This was what the argument was about, their beliefs, not what you see as The christian belief (if there is a standard). It was that specific point that I found stupid and made fun of... I just like rehashing old stuff in other peoples threads, and there were too many tangent points to counter in that other thread... point is I'm still right.

Edited November 22, 2007 by El Duderino

[chilli]

On that note, i'd reference an old argument I had with you IB where I was poking fun at the idea of the christian bible being a 100% pure unadulterated transcription of 'god'. It's all an interpretation, however the christians I've spoken to believe in its absolute authority for the reason its the "direct word of god". This was what the argument was about, their beliefs, not what you see as The christian belief (if there is a standard). It was that specific point that I found stupid and made fun of... I just like rehashing old stuff in other peoples threads, and there were too many points to counter in that other thread... point is I'm still right.

wut?

[The Dude]

wut?

goddammit...

reffering to that stupid argument in the "books that changed your life thread" where I was taking the piss out of the claim that the bible is a direct transcription of god. which you stated as a christian belief to later say that i misrepresented christians as they actually believe in revelation outside of the bible (still, this doesnt change the fact that the bible is a direct transcription, only the fact it is an incomplete transcription)... point is going by what YOU said i took the piss out of christians and got in a fucking tedious argument debating semantics about stuff like 'transcription' 'revelation' and 'possession' when I really think you got what I was saying and were more interested in being right, instead of agreeing we both know the claim to be fallacious. Especially if you are familiar with the type of behaviour I'm talking about and even have a name for it "Biblical inerrantists"

anyway .... it's fucking stupid bringing up old shit, this just reminded me.

[chilli]

goddammit...

reffering to that stupid argument in the "books that changed your life thread" where I was taking the piss out of the claim that the bible is a direct transcription of god. which you stated as a christian belief to later say that i misrepresented christians as they actually believe in revelation outside of the bible (still, this doesnt change the fact that the bible is a direct transcription, only the fact it is an incomplete transcription)... point is going by what YOU said i took the piss out of christians and got in a fucking tedious argument debating semantics about stuff like 'transcription' 'revelation' and 'possession' when I really think you got what I was saying and were more interested in being right, instead of agreeing we both know the claim to be fallacious. Especially if you are familiar with the type of behaviour I'm talking about and even have a name for it "Biblical inerrantists"

anyway .... it's fucking stupid bringing up old shit, this just reminded me.

Oh, right... I guess I gratefully let that thread die because it seemed like it was getting weird, and now it is way weirder.