Thread: Yet Another Debate on Evolution versus Fundemtal Religioun

Originally Posted by verzen

In a debate, you cannot state something exists, end of story. Please, explain... in scientific terms, why you think he exists. Do NOT just say, "Because the bible says so" Because the bible is one big lie... a fairytale if you will.

my friend, forget about any religion book.

1-God exists because all creatures in life must have been dsigned in a complex way by a mind.

our bodies are devices that do specific functions.

anything with an accurate function must have a maker.

2-he must be one because everything in the world is structured in a similar way.(electrons,protons and neutrons).

evolution is not true simply because there hasn't been any improvement in our DNA throughover our lives.
all changes led to diseases only.
many animals have different abilities and you can't decide sometimes which is better than the other.(one flies,other swims, one runs,one fights and etc).

there should be someone created all these and gave them different powers and skills.(they couldn't have these skills by themselves).

thanx

Originally Posted by ENG.M

Originally Posted by verzen

In a debate, you cannot state something exists, end of story. Please, explain... in scientific terms, why you think he exists. Do NOT just say, "Because the bible says so" Because the bible is one big lie... a fairytale if you will.

my friend, forget about any religion book.

1-God exists because all creatures in life must have been dsigned in a complex way by a mind.

our bodies are devices that do specific functions.

anything with an accurate function must have a maker.

2-he must be one because everything in the world is structured in a similar way.(electrons,protons and neutrons).

evolution is not true simply because there hasn't been any improvement in our DNA throughover our lives.
all changes led to diseases only.
many animals have different abilities and you can't decide sometimes which is better than the other.(one flys,other swims, one runs,one fights and etc).

there should be someone created all these and gave them different powers and skills.(they couldn't have these skills by themselves).

thanx

As to your first point; could not everything be uniform because that is the only way they could have formed? They could not exist in the same place under two completely different sets of physical rules ergo they have to have similar properties.

For your second point toward evolution; I'm not entirely sure you understand the concept correctly as evolution occurs over a long period of time whereas you stated that it doesn't happen during our lifetimes. If evolution has not occured then why are there three distinct versions of the human race, each equipped best to deal with their environments? Infact if you go back even a few millenia you can see a difference between humans then and humans now. The average roman male of the time stood at approximately 5'3", the average in Italy today is approximately 5'10". Also cranial capacity has increased between that time and this.

Evolution doesn't happen in an instant, it usually takes thousands of years
to make any change in our bodies.

The design of each creature is based on the area and the atmosphere where he lives.
The Nordic people usually had tough skin and alot of hair to protect them from the harsh wintery cilamte where they lives.
People who their ancestors lives in middle Asia usually have shrinked eyelids to protect their eyes from the sun.
African people have special dark skin so they are dont get sun bruises that easely...

Undersand that living beings MUST learn to adapt to their living area or else they perish. By scientific terms, God has nothing to do with how we(or anything else) looks today.

Originally Posted by Tenacity

As to your first point; could not everything be uniform because that is the only way they could have formed? They could not exist in the same place under two completely different sets of physical rules ergo they have to have similar properties.

For your second point toward evolution; I'm not entirely sure you understand the concept correctly as evolution occurs over a long period of time whereas you stated that it doesn't happen during our lifetimes. If evolution has not occured then why are there three distinct versions of the human race, each equipped best to deal with their environments? Infact if you go back even a few millenia you can see a difference between humans then and humans now. The average roman male of the time stood at approximately 5'3", the average in Italy today is approximately 5'10". Also cranial capacity has increased between that time and this.[/

I got your point.but why are you saying this? aren't we all part from one nature? is there any natural or other accurate system existing now that occured by chance and we are sure about how it happened?

how can revolution produce cameras, hydrolic systems, sound systems, radar, harmonic technology and more which took people thousands of years to develop and make?

I know you would say that took billions of billions of years to be created under unknown conditions.
I wont discuss the probability of this to happen because that's a very huge number.

I will discuss four issues.
*how do people consider evolution a science while they don't have any clue about it? only imaginations(humans levels are not a strong proof since creatures accommodate with their environments but to a limit they can't exceed)>
*if evolution exists? who made it work? (there must be a mind, a power above all powers.something that everything comes from).
*what about feelings and beauty?how does this theory explain them?

Gentlemen, if we must have yet another debate on creationism versus evolution could we conduct it in a thread set up for that purpose, not in the middle of a quite different thread about Gods.

If you wish to continue pm me and I shall split the relevant posts off.

Originally Posted by Hanuka

Evolution doesn't happen in an instant, it usually takes thousands of years
to make any change in our bodies.

The design of each creature is based on the area and the atmosphere where he lives.
The Nordic people usually had tough skin and alot of hair to protect them from the harsh wintery cilamte where they lives.
People who their ancestors lives in middle Asia usually have shrinked eyelids to protect their eyes from the sun.
African people have special dark skin so they are dont get sun bruises that easely...

Undersand that living beings MUST learn to adapt to their living area or else they perish. By scientific terms, God has nothing to do with how we(or anything else) looks today.

I understand from your talks that their bodies have been adapted with different enviroments.

that means there was a mind that created these rules or put these features in their bodies depending on different envirnoments.

how can their bodies by themselves create something they need? do they have minds?

or there should be a God to plan for this technology or evolution as they call.

Originally Posted by ENG.M

I got your point.but why are you saying this? aren't we all part from one nature? is there any natural or other accurate system existing now that occured by chance and we are sure about how it happened?

how can revolution produce cameras, hydrolic systems, sound systems, radar, harmonic technology and more which took people thousands of years to develop and make?

Evolution(if you mean evolution offcourse) didnt produce technologies, WE-Humans did. Actually you answer your own question...

I know you would say that took billions of billions of years to be created under unknown conditions.
I wont discuss the probability of this to happen because that's a very huge number.

Water and correct planet positioning from a sun give you the perfect conditions to create life, it's not that complicated...
The probability of finding such a planet is really distant, but luckily Earth god lucky :P

I will discuss four issues.
*how do people consider evolution a science while they don't have any clue about it? only imaginations(humans levels are not a strong proof since creatures accommodate with their environments but to a limit they can't exceed)>

You know that little areas in science called archeology and paleontology?...
The answers are there...

*if evolution exists? who made it work? (there must be a mind, a power above all powers.something that everything comes from).

Evolution is not a machine, no one makes it "work"...
It is something that living things do...

*what about feelings and beauty?how does this theory explain them?

Feelings is somewhat a blurry area in science so I can't give you an answer for now...
And as for beauty, it's all relative for the observer...

Originally Posted by Hanuka

Evolution(if you mean evolution offcourse) didnt produce technologies, WE-Humans did. Actually you answer your own question...

(yeah ,evolution for sure lol)
I meant human ears, eyes, animal radars and other technological systems in nature which are more complex than what we made.

Originally Posted by Hanuka

Water and correct planet positioning from a sun give you the perfect conditions to create life, it's not that complicated...
The probability of finding such a planet is really distant, but luckily Earth god lucky :P

who created the sun? who gave it this huge amount of power?
who made these correct positions.

Originally Posted by Hanuka

You know that little areas in science called archeology and paleontology?...
The answers are there...

thanx, I will check them out.

Originally Posted by Hanuka

Evolution is not a machine, no one makes it "work"...
It is something that living things do...

so it is a mechanism

a mechanism needs a designer I think.

Originally Posted by Hanuka

Feelings is somewhat a blurry area in science so I can't give you an answer for now...
And as for beauty, it's all relative for the observer...

feelings are the most difficult thing to evolution.
feelings should havse come from a feeling storage (a soul) not a material system.

and you are right , beauty is relative, you have the same idea as mine about it.

see you tomorrow.
good night and thoughts.

Originally Posted by ENG.M

who created the sun? who gave it this huge amount of power?
who made these correct positions.

sorry , I just wanted to say something about the sentence I wrote above before I go to sleep.(it is already 3 am here).

if the sun stands by itself(which is difficult because it is only fires and may be more but we don't know) and it is the source of everything, then we all must be grateful to it and worship it.

the sun is our God in this case.(I don't agree and I will tell you tomorrow why).

have a nice weekend

Do you thank the coffee before you drink it?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Do you thank the coffee before you drink it?

you make coffee and it doesn't make you.

as evolution says, the sun could be the biggest factor for making us.

the sun made us or contributed hugely in creation.

at the end, evolution is a religion and our God is nature.

Not the sun, nor nature in its meaning as all of life, but the universe and everything in it. That is just the way it is. The only possible place (for me) where a god could have played a part is at the moment of creation, or the big bang. Everything else can be the result of the laws of physics at work in my opinion. That does NOT take away any of the sheer grandness of it all in the least bit, to me. Love is still love and the feeling is just as strong and real, whether it is the result of a soul or an adapted trait. What we do and feel for and to each other is just as important, whether it is God’s will or an adapted survival mechanism.

This Eng guy... he is quickly becoming a nuisance that must be put down..... *mutter* *mutter* Prepare thy self...

To be honest I don't actually mind if there is a god provided he obeys the laws of Physics.

Originally Posted by Tenacity

To be honest I don't actually mind if there is a god provided he obeys the laws of Physics.

me too.
I don't say that evolution is completely wrong.

I say that whether it is creation or evolution , there must be a powerful mind behind everything.

some power that set the rules in our lives.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Everything else can be the result of the laws of physics at work in my opinion.

who set the mechanisms of these rules?
who made these rules work?

my argument here is :
*do you think evolution doesn't need God?
*do you believe or disbelieve in God and why?

these could be discussed in another thread.

thanx and have a nice weekend.

Originally Posted by verzen

This Eng guy... he is quickly becoming a nuisance that must be put down..... *mutter* *mutter* Prepare thy self...

oh man!
just ignore me simply if I am annoying you.
it is not a war or competition.
I am here to share my ideas so I can know where the wrong is in them and learn new things.

Yeah verzen goes on about other people being a nuisance when he is actually looking in the mirror. (I'm saying that verzen although calls people a nuisance, he himself as a result does the same to himself).

My apologies for the typographical errors in the title of this split thread. Perhaps two pints at lunch time is a bad idea.

Thankyou Ophi

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

My apologies for the typographical errors in the title of this split thread. Perhaps two pints at lunch time is a bad idea.

no worries man.thank you alot.

Originally Posted by ENG.M

I don't say that evolution is completely wrong.

I say that whether it is creation or evolution , there must be a powerful mind behind everything.

some power that set the rules in our lives.

who set the mechanisms of the world rules?
who made these rules work?

my argument here is :
*do you think evolution doesn't need God?
*do you believe or disbelieve in God and why?

so ,it isn't about opposing the whole evolution idea.
it is about saying that creation or evolution need a designer.

Originally Posted by ENG.M

1-God exists because all creatures in life must have been dsigned in a complex way by a mind.

our bodies are devices that do specific functions.

anything with an accurate function must have a maker.

That is the typical argument indoctrinated, ignorant theists continue to promote, without having a shred of knowledge into what it is their arguing against.

2-he must be one because everything in the world is structured in a similar way.(electrons,protons and neutrons).

The indoctrinated, ignorant theist ignores any alternatives to explanations that don't involve their gods.

evolution is not true simply because there hasn't been any improvement in our DNA throughover our lives.
all changes led to diseases only.
many animals have different abilities and you can't decide sometimes which is better than the other.(one flies,other swims, one runs,one fights and etc).

The indoctrinated, ignorant theist continues to argue against that which they haven't a clue about. Their laughable assertions unfortunately are not comical, but instead sad as yet another human intellect falls prey to the indoctrination and slavery of cults.

Originally Posted by (Q)

That is the typical argument indoctrinated, ignorant theists continue to promote, without having a shred of knowledge into what it is their arguing against.

yeah, it is typical but there are many prooves about it.
this argument doesn't ignore any other view, it is suggesting the most reasonable idea in my opinion.

Originally Posted by (Q)

The indoctrinated, ignorant theist ignores any alternatives to explanations that don't involve their gods.

it is true that if you don't undrstand something, it doesn't mean it is not correct.
but we need to have constants and reasonable bases of knowledge.
science is in agreement with religion.
theists consider God as the first minds of all minds.
their explanation relies on the fact that all organising and accuracy in the world needed a mind.
this is the only possibility in my opinion.
if you don't want to involve God in evolution then tell me:
did chance produce any accurate system in our lives and don't forget that nature is included in our life.

Originally Posted by (Q)

The indoctrinated, ignorant theist continues to argue against that which they haven't a clue about. Their laughable assertions unfortunately are not comical, but instead sad as yet another human intellect falls prey to the indoctrination and slavery of cults.

many clues but I think that some evolutionists are contradicting their minds by saying that blind nature or chance alone could produce billions of wounderful complicated powerful systems which are perfect and not like any man made ones.

every creature complex system is a clue.

do you know how many complex and simple creature systems exist?
is chance very powerful like this. I don't think so.

I agree with you that people have been using God and religions throughout history badly.
people were killed in name of God many times but why don't we blame ourselves instead of blaming God.

God is kindness simply because he created all kindness in the world.
he created evil to test people , to know what path they are gonna choose.

Living systems are in no way perfect, there isn't a single organism on Earth that could be described as perfect. Moreover, evolution theory has nothing to do with origin of life, all it refutes is the Christian view that life is static, but this is an obvious lie if you look at the fossil record.

Often biologist will speak of biological systems with teleos in mind, applying perceived purposes to them, but one should remind oneself that these systems do not have an intended purpose it just helps to use the idea of a purpose to help determine what would promote the retention of these traits.

ENG.M's statement is the Intelligent Design concept, nothing new here. The concept has been rejected by science community at large. Evolution theory, on the other hand, has been accepted as the most likely explanation of diversity of lives on earth, although it has not addressed the origin of life.
There are also numerous websites explaining the evolution theory, if you would care to look. Evolution is not about eyes, ears, peacock tails popping up by random chance. It is about minuscule, gradual change of inheritance over a very very very long period of time.

If you are arging against evolution, I hate to break it to you but evolution is fact. We have seen creatures and bacteria evolve as time goes on. We have seen new starnds of diseases arise from an original disease. There is both type I and type II aids. There is also another strain labeled type III that is evolving from one of those types in response to the drugs we are using against it.

Have you ever heard of vestigial organs? These are organs that creatures have that have absolutely no use today but did in the past. A blind cave fish called C. Astyanax Mexicanus has eyes but can't see. A blind salamander known as Proteus anguinus has eyes that have been completely sealed by the eyelid. Dandelions reproduce without fertilization yet produce pollen. A type of weevil known as A. Apterocyclus Honolulensis has perfectly formed beetle wings yet they are fused to body by wing covers. How would you account for these types of things if evolution does not exist?

Current religious thinking is that God created the circumstances that eventually led into the creation of our Universe but that is a far reach from the bible. And until this can be proven or disproven, which I doubt it ever will, discussions on this topic from both sides will be merely arguing from their own beliefs.

Originally Posted by ENG.M

did chance produce any accurate system in our lives and don't forget that nature is included in our life

but I think that some evolutionists are contradicting their minds by saying that blind nature or chance alone could produce billions of wounderful complicated powerful systems which are perfect and not like any man made ones.

You are quite correct: the diversity of life has not been produced by blind chance. It has been produced by natural selection and sexual selection acting upon mutations that are produced by blind chance. Chance is half of the equation. The other half is selection. Selection is not blind.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Living systems are in no way perfect, there isn't a single organism on Earth that could be described as perfect. Moreover, evolution theory has nothing to do with origin of life, all it refutes is the Christian view that life is static, but this is an obvious lie if you look at the fossil record.

All it refutes is the view of very few Christians that "life is static".

Even the YEC who fight tooth and nail against the idea of macro-evolution will often recognize that living systems are neither perfect nor static.

Besides God's ingenious system of micro-evolution, many seem to think that mankind has fallen from a perfect state in which our first ancestors were created. What is peculiar is that they seem to think this "perfect" state includes being unable to know the difference between right and wrong. Apparently that made them perfectly docile and obedient robots to do whatever they were told - even if this meant that they were dumb as horse piss, I guess. Perhaps this explains why these sort seem to by trying to get dumber and dumber all the time just like these perfect ancestors they believe in.

Even in the middle ages, before there was any idea of evolution, the view of man was often not one of stasis. But in this case it was one of inexorable decay from a time of "giants" in the age of ancient Greek philosophy, apparently. It is a wonder that the advent of modern science could arise from such an environment -- no doubt it was a reaction against this rather depressing philosophy.

All your doing Eng, is using a cop out for design. Instead of actually trying to figure out how something works, you say that something or someone must have designed it.


How did the sun get created?
Eng - Someone must have designed the sun!
Verzen - The sun use to be a gas giant. When a spark of electricity hit the gas giant, the entire gas giant went up in flames and continously burns, since new gases are introduced to the sun with the sole purpous to be burned as fuel.

How do people evolve?
Eng - Someone must have designed evolution!
Verzen - Depending on the atmosphere and the conditions that people live in, human beings must evolve depending on the climate or they will die. Some what of a, "Survival of the fittest" if you will.

How did life start?
Eng - Someone must have designed life!
Verzen - A combination of the sun and water, plus various other factor's from chemicals helped start and create life. Mold was formed, being a sort of nutrient for these organism's. Once the organism's cells split, it goes from a single celled organism to a multi celled organism. This process takes billions of years. Eventually, after 7 billion years, it produces human's. The tree's and grass and plants are just evolved versions of this mold. In a way, Earth is a rock covered in mold and other various organism's.

See how it's sounding? For each some what explanable definition, since you arn't able to explain it, you say that god created it.
Thats the same thing that happened with Zeus and aphrodite. Can't explain lightning? Zeus is angry. Can't explain that feeling when you fall in love? Must be a gift from aphrodite. Now we know how lightning is created, we don't need zeus any more.
Now we know how we get that feeling where we fall in love (do to chemicals in the body) Now we don't need aphrodite any more.

I'll say it again, the belief in a god and the explanation of what a god did is a cop out for knowledge on a subject.

Originally Posted by ENG.M

yeah, it is typical but there are many prooves about it.
this argument doesn't ignore any other view, it is suggesting the most reasonable idea in my opinion.

Prooves?

So, it's reasonable to suggest an invisible and undetectable entity of your contrivance is responsible for creating everything? This is supposed to be an argument?

It is absurd, at best, and insulting to ones intelligence.

but we need to have constants and reasonable bases of knowledge.
science is in agreement with religion.

From insulting the intelligence to bold faced lies. Science is on the opposite end of any "agreements" with religion and provides knowledge while religion provides delusional childish fantasies.

theists consider God as the first minds of all minds.
their explanation relies on the fact that all organising and accuracy in the world needed a mind.
this is the only possibility in my opinion.

Yes, I understand that god delusions are the only possible explanations for ignorant theists. It isn't even an explanation as you have demonstrated, but merely an indoctrinated assertion.

if you don't want to involve God in evolution then tell me:
did chance produce any accurate system in our lives and don't forget that nature is included in our life.

While your ignorance regarding evolution has been demonstrated in spades, it would be prudent for you to take the time to understand the subject matter rather than making an ass of yourself.

many clues but I think that some evolutionists are contradicting their minds by saying that blind nature or chance alone could produce billions of wounderful complicated powerful systems which are perfect and not like any man made ones.

every creature complex system is a clue.

do you know how many complex and simple creature systems exist?
is chance very powerful like this. I don't think so.

You don't think so because you have no idea what you're talking about. Chance alone is not what evolution is about. Read a book, put the bible down.

I agree with you that people have been using God and religions throughout history badly.
people were killed in name of God many times but why don't we blame ourselves instead of blaming God.

We shouldn't blame ourselves, it is the belief in religious doctrine that is to blame.

[quoteGod is kindness simply because he created all kindness in the world.
he created evil to test people , to know what path they are gonna choose.[/quote]

Complete and utter bullshit, childhood fantasies. Grow up.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Science is on the opposite end of any "agreements" with religion and provides knowledge while religion provides delusional childish fantasies.

Your comments are wide of the mark.

Let us consider some of Einstein's remarks:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man".

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path of genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through the striving for rational knowledge."

from Heinz R. Pagels, The Dreams of Reason Bantam 1989 page 155.

"A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
from Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions Three Rivers Press 1982

You need to widen your understanding of what religion is, (Q).

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by (Q)

Science is on the opposite end of any "agreements" with religion and provides knowledge while religion provides delusional childish fantasies.

Your comments are wide of the mark.

Let us consider some of Einstein's remarks:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man".

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path of genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through the striving for rational knowledge."

from Heinz R. Pagels, The Dreams of Reason Bantam 1989 page 155.

"A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
from Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions Three Rivers Press 1982

You need to widen your understanding of what religion is, (Q).

Though I certainly agree with your last statement and disagree with the statement made by Q, I will add in Q's defense that this understanding of the word "religion" is hardly a widespread one. Most of those who consider themselves religious or involved in religion (including myself) for example would hardly agree with the last of these statements of Einstein. That is not to say that there isn't a tiny bit of truth in what Einstein is saying. There is a kind of humility before the evidence of nature and sincerity in the search for the truth that the scientist has and which those in traditional religion often lack.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by (Q)

Science is on the opposite end of any "agreements" with religion and provides knowledge while religion provides delusional childish fantasies.

Your comments are wide of the mark.

Let us consider some of Einstein's remarks:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man".

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path of genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through the striving for rational knowledge."

from Heinz R. Pagels, The Dreams of Reason Bantam 1989 page 155.

"A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
from Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions Three Rivers Press 1982

You need to widen your understanding of what religion is, (Q).

Many make the same mistake regarding Einsteins quotes, you are no exception.

Perhaps you need to correct your understanding of religion.

Good day everyone,

we got a variety of ideas in here.

*first, to believe , you don't need to read any holy book because I think that some parts are fantasies.

*second,I understand that most articles and books have defined evolution as a mix of chance and natural selection.

*third,there is a difference betwen how something occured and who made it happen(any cause needs a causer)


*evolutionists are suggesting that nature is infinite, does an infinite thing need to be very powerful?
nature is not that powerful , we control nature.

*cases of adapting to enviroments are not supporting evolution as much as they are doing to creation because these adaption manners need a mind.
how can bodies know what to do when an enviroment changes.

*did evolution explain how feelings evolved.

*the guy who asked me to grow up.I will say'use your mind'

Originally Posted by ENG.M

*second,I understand that most articles and books have defined evolution as a mix of chance and natural selection.

Your understanding is flawed. Find out what evolution is all about and come back with an understanding.

*third,there is a difference betwen how something occured and who made it happen(any cause needs a causer)

What is the cause of your god?

*evolutionists are suggesting that nature is infinite, does an infinite thing need to be very powerful?

No, they don't suggest anything of the sort. Where do you get your information?

nature is not that powerful , we control nature.

We are part of nature.

*cases of adapting to enviroments are not supporting evolution as much as they are doing to creation because these adaption manners need a mind.
how can bodies know what to do when an enviroment changes.

Gibberish.

*did evolution explain how feelings evolved.

Yes, evolution can explain how feelings evolved.

*the guy who asked me to grow up.I will say'use your mind'

Put down the bible and pick up a book on evolution.

any cause needs a causer

The causer need not be a "who".

*evolutionists are suggesting that nature is infinite, does an infinite thing need to be very powerful?
nature is not that powerful , we control nature.

What do you mean by "nature is infinite". And why does that have to make it powerful? Destroying nature and controlling it is not the same thing. Sure, we can adapt our environment to fit our needs, but to a much lesser degree than you seem to be realising. Natural disasters kill many people each year.

because these adaption manners need a mind.
how can bodies know what to do when an enviroment changes.

These are arguments from ignorance. Please do some reading on the subject first. Here is a page with quite a few links you could visit. I invite you to do so: Adaptation

*did evolution explain how feelings evolved.

Actually, it is doing so with increasing fidelity. Again, a page with some good links: Evolutionary Psychology

Originally Posted by (Q)

Your understanding is flawed. Find out what evolution is all about and come back with an understanding.

I don't need to. it is obvious.why don't study your body and see its miracles.
please try to be more respectable later when debating.

Originally Posted by (Q)

What is the cause of your god?

he is out of our nature laws.

Originally Posted by (Q)

No, they don't suggest anything of the sort. Where do you get your information?

do you mean there was a begining? then there is a maker.

Originally Posted by (Q)

We are part of nature.

if so.then give any accurate systems in our lives that came from chance.

Originally Posted by (Q)

*cases of adapting to enviroments are not supporting evolution as much as they are doing to creation because these adaption manners need a mind.
how can bodies know what to do when an enviroment changes.

Gibberish.

explain your point instead of expressing your anger.
:-D

Originally Posted by (Q)

Yes, evolution can explain how feelings evolved.

how my dear friend?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Put down the bible and pick up a book on evolution.

why evolution book specifically.why not a scientific book.
evolution books are imaginary ones.

one more time, respect other views.discuss your points and don't try to contemn other belives.this is not a war.it is a place to get knowledge.

peace

Originally Posted by ENG.M

I don't need to. it is obvious.why don't study your body and see its miracles.
please try to be more respectable later when debating.

If you wish to debate something it is best to know both sides of the argument. That would mean looking into evolution more deeply. Evolution is a fact. We've seen evolution occuring in different species and it is being recorded. You don't seem to understand this.

I've actually done a search for Proofs of Evolution on Google and you can't believe how many people have written absolutely bogus articles that evolution is a hoax when there are proofs all around us.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Though I certainly agree with your last statement and disagree with the statement made by Q, I will add in Q's defense that this understanding of the word "religion" is hardly a widespread one. Most of those who consider themselves religious or involved in religion (including myself) for example would hardly agree with the last of these statements of Einstein. That is not to say that there isn't a tiny bit of truth in what Einstein is saying. There is a kind of humility before the evidence of nature and sincerity in the search for the truth that the scientist has and which those in traditional religion often lack.

Mitchell, I was not meaning to imply that I agreed with each of Einstein's points here. Rather I sought to demonstrate that the most famous scientist of the 20th century saw no conflict between his concept of religion and his science. Equally there are many scientists who would echo many, or all of these sentiments.

I might just as readily have quoted Joe Bloggs, down the road, whose sense of spirtual oneness with the Universe met no meaningful support from orthodox religion. (However, more people are familiar with Einstein than with Joe.) Indeed, (Q)'s consistent, ideological attacks on religion are attacks only on orthodox religion. This is the point he remains blind to.

Originally Posted by BumFluff

I've actually done a search for Proofs of Evolution on Google and you can't believe how many people have written absolutely bogus articles that evolution is a hoax when there are proofs all around us.

thanx everyone.

this is the end of discussion for me.

I will do what the gentleman above asked me to and read deeply about evolution.

if any of you recommend any reference.please help.

thank you Ophiolite for creating this thread.

have nice thoughts everybody

Originally Posted by ENG.M

if any of you recommend any reference.please help.[/color]

The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins
(But touch nothing else by the man or you will be corrupted forever :wink: )
Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniell C. Dennet
But only if you are comfortable with a fairly long dense book.

Good luck with your reading. Come back here anytime to seek clarification on any point.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by ENG.M

if any of you recommend any reference.please help.[/color]

The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins

I think "Climbing Mount Improbable" is a better work by that author. "Ancestor's Tale" might seem a tad too speculative.

What I don't understand about evolution is where did it all start. There is a scientific law stating that all life must come from some preexisting life so how does that apply to evolution?

Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

What I don't understand about evolution is where did it all start. There is a scientific law stating that all life must come from some preexisting life so how does that apply to evolution?

This is a matter of origin of life, which involves theories of chemical evolution. It is seperate from standard evolution.

Moreover, abiogenesis is impossible in todays world where complex organic molecules are destroyed by the oxidizing environment or consumed by other organisms. In a reducing world where no cellular life existed to destroy complex organic molecules abiogenesis could occur.

Francesco Redi's theory of biogenesis is thus not applicable to the question of the origin of life.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

What I don't understand about evolution is where did it all start. There is a scientific law stating that all life must come from some preexisting life so how does that apply to evolution?

This is a matter of origin of life, which involves theories of chemical evolution. It is seperate from standard evolution.

Moreover, abiogenesis is impossible in todays world where complex organic molecules are destroyed by the oxidizing environment or consumed by other organisms. In a reducing world where no cellular life existed to destroy complex organic molecules abiogenesis could occur.

Francesco Redi's theory of biogenesis is thus not applicable to the question of the origin of life.

I still don't understand fully why biogenesis can't applied to the origin of life. Why is it seperate? For what reasons? Laws are seen to be true in all cases then why not this one?

If I understand you correctly biogenesis can't be applied to today's world is because of the hostile environment would not allow molecule's to form. In that case what was Earth's early environment and how did that allow the molecules to form.

But my main question still stands. How does evolution suggest that life formed. How did nonliving matter become living matter?

There is a difference between abiogenesis and biogenesis. Abiogenesis is life from non-life, while biogenesis is life from life, i.e. egg-organism-egg-etc.

The difference between today and 3.5+ bya is the presence of oxygen. Oxygen readily bonds to a wide variety of compounds (combustion, etc) and so can destroy an unadapted organism without much trouble. In the early earth there was no free oxygen until anaerobic microbes started producing it as waist, i.e. photosynthesis and others I think. So the first organisms had to have originated out of non-life. There are many theories surrounding abiogenesis, all of them having (experimentally demonstrated in some cases) self replicating molecules that can undergo a form of evolution as a result of copy mistakes being perpetuated. Cell membranes could have originated from lipids bonding to these molecules and forming spherical globules, also experimentally demonstrated. There are just so many ways for it to have happened, some more probable than others and none being complete theories, but in my mind it is already more than enough to convince me. IMHO

Early Earth was under constant bombardment from meteorites which have been shown to carry organic molecules, which mean that complex organic molecules would exist on the early Earth, since nothing would be around to destroy them. Also, the reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) of early Earth allows the formation of complex molecules. There was no other life present to consume pre-life.

Today the Earth has a 18% oxygen atmosphere as a result of evolution of cyanobacteria (which occured around 3.5 bya, which is observable through strata of oxydized iron). Oxygen readily bonds to and destroys complex organic molecules, and if that doesn't happen the ubiquitous bacteria found everywhere on Earth would consume them.

Kalster outlined the basic theories of abiogenesis fairly well. Other theories are panspermia (life came from space, or the basic building blocks came from space), and then there is the theory of piggy-backing on clay crystals.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by ENG.M

if any of you recommend any reference.please help.[/color]

The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins

I think "Climbing Mount Improbable" is a better work by that author. "Ancestor's Tale" might seem a tad too speculative.

Climbing Mount Improbable, which I have on my bookshelf, is one of the reasons I despise and deplore Hawkins. In it he makes unwarranted assumptions, clothing them with the raiment of validated observation and established hypothesis. His take on evolution may stem from a scientific basis, but he promotes it with an ideological zeal little different - except from perspective - from that of a creationist. The Ancestor's Tale is the one exception from all his work that is reserved, scholarly, balanced and relevant.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Climbing Mount Improbable, which I have on my bookshelf, is one of the reasons I despise and deplore Hawkins. In it he makes unwarranted assumptions, clothing them with the raiment of validated observation and established hypothesis. His take on evolution may stem from a scientific basis, but he promotes it with an ideological zeal little different - except from perspective - from that of a creationist. The Ancestor's Tale is the one exception from all his work that is reserved, scholarly, balanced and relevant.

I am startled to hear you say that, since you first recommended the book to me. I was delighted by his coining of the word designoid. But perhaps I missed some things in the book since you say this. I did skim a great deal of it. I do know how ideological Dawkins can be. I certainly did not care for "The Selfish Gene".

Originally Posted by ENG.M

I don't need to. it is obvious.why don't study your body and see its miracles. please try to be more respectable later when debating.

Then, if you refuse to understand that which you attempt to refute and will only cling to religious nonsense, you will get no respect whatsoever, nor will deserve it.

the is out of our nature laws.

Utter nonsense.

do you mean there was a begining? then there is a maker.

That is a religiously indoctrinated delusion.

if so.then give any accurate systems in our lives that came from chance.

Stop asking meaningless questions.

*cases of adapting to enviroments are not supporting evolution as much as they are doing to creation because these adaption manners need a mind.
how can bodies know what to do when an enviroment changes.

More meaningless nonsense.

explain your point instead of expressing your anger.

Then, stop insulting my intelligence with religiously indoctrinated garbage and get an education before spouting nonsense.

why evolution book specifically.why not a scientific book.
evolution books are imaginary ones.

So, books on evolution are imaginary and your gods are real? Idiot.

one more time, respect other views.discuss your points and don't try to contemn other belives.this is not a war.it is a place to get knowledge.

You are clearly not here to gain any knowledge whatsoever, but are here to preach your religiously indoctrinated creationism crap. Your views do not deserve a shred of respect.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Indeed, (Q)'s consistent, ideological attacks on religion are attacks only on orthodox religion. This is the point he remains blind to.

I have yet to distinguish one indoctrinated cult over another. Please do demonstrate your claim.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

His take on evolution may stem from a scientific basis, but he promotes it with an ideological zeal little different - except from perspective - from that of a creationist.

Utter nonsense.

Would Dawkins need to promote evolution at all when 3/4 of the worlds population believes in childish fairy tales?

If that is YOUR perspective of Dawkins, then your opinions are to be taken with a grain of (pillar) salt.

From what I can gather there is no agreement on how life began according to Evolution. Scientists don't know how it started, just that it did.

Has there ever been any experiments that proved Evolution to be true or is it still a theory.

Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

From what I can gather there is no agreement on how life began according to Evolution. Scientists don't know how it started, just that it did.

Has there ever been any experiments that proved Evolution to be true or is it still a theory.

Evolution is fact. We have seen creatures, bacteria and the like evolve in the last 100 years. How do you think AIDs type I type II and type III came about? How do viruses become immune to the drugs that treat them without evolution? The question todays religious folk are asking is somethign similar to "Dig God make the Big Bang". Scientists in the laboratory have taken the basic constituents of what they believe life on early earth was like and went through various experiments in order to make life from those early constituents but all they've been able to do thus far is create basic proteins. Obviously there is something we're missing but it's an ongoing process of trial and error.

Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

From what I can gather there is no agreement on how life began according to Evolution. Scientists don't know how it started, just that it did.

What are you talking about? :? Abiogenesis?

Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

Has there ever been any experiments that proved Evolution to be true or is it still a theory.

A scientific theory is:

Originally Posted by Dictionary

Theory

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

If you're looking for evidence for evolution, just go here

Ghost asked somewhat rhetorically:

Has there ever been any experiments that proved Evolution to be true or is it still a theory.

Well, evolution will always be a theory but some aspects of evolution have been shown to be true while others remain only speculation.

bumfluff says:

Evolution is fact. We have seen creatures, bacteria and the like evolve in the last 100 years. How do you think AIDs type I type II and type III came about? How do viruses become immune to the drugs that treat them without evolution? The question todays religious folk are asking is somethign similar to "Dig God make the Big Bang". Scientists in the laboratory have taken the basic constituents of what they believe life on early earth was like and went through various experiments in order to make life from those early constituents but all they've been able to do thus far is create basic proteins. Obviously there is something we're missing but it's an ongoing process of trial and error.

Evolution, at best, is partial fact. The things Bum mentions about bacteria and viruses are prime examples of microevolution -- that whch takes place through adaptation and which can be seen in almost all plants and animals and which creates new variations and species of the same animals. This is microevolution and is fact.

What bacteria and viruses do not do is "evolve" into other forms of life. No matter how many adaptations we note in viruses, they always remain viruses. For a new life form to come from viruses would be an example of macroevolution which is not fact.

No matter how many adaptations and speciations we find in pigeons, they remain pigeons. And the same is true of all plants and animals, we have no observation, nor do we have any laboratorily developed change, in which any plant or any animal has changed into anything other than a variation or speciation of it predecessors.

We have experimented with fruit flies for more than 100 years now because of their short reproductive cycle of 14 days. We have subjected those things to every suspected cause of mutation. We have bred them to the optimum reaches of their genetic possibilities. But never have we ever produced anything other than another fruit fly. And this involves more than a million generations of fruit flies.

The fact of microevolution is then used to validate macroevolution, the process by which evolution enthusiasts claim plants and animals moved up (or down) the taxonomy charts from simple plants and animals to more and more complex plants and animals. This is the process which allegedly turned fish into land animals and by which reptiles became birds and mammals.

The main problem is that the process of adaptation leading to minor changes cannot account for our known vast biodiversity when that slow process is subjected to the time line of life. This is further complicated by massive extinctions along the way which reduce the time available even more.

Using microevolution to validate macroevolution is tantamount to using the incline plane and lever to validate quantum physics.

Thus comes the theory of punctuated equilibrium which suggests "something" caused enormous proliferations of new life forms. The Cambrian Layer would tend to support such a contention, had it not been followed massive extinctions but no successive Cambrian type layers.

Bum's claims about laboratory experiments is little more than fluff. Even if -- I say even if -- we were to take elements and produce a life form in a laboratory, it would only show that it can be done at the hands of an intelligent being. It would not, in any way, show that such a thing could have or could not have happened due to a series of natural occurances.

I do agree with the statement that microevolution is a fact. I disagree with the idea that macroevolution is anything more than many blind leaps of faith.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I am startled to hear you say that, since you first recommended the book to me. I was delighted by his coining of the word designoid. But perhaps I missed some things in the book since you say this. I did skim a great deal of it. I do know how ideological Dawkins can be. I certainly did not care for "The Selfish Gene".

"Despise and deplore" were probably a little strong, but I was having a bad day. My problem with Dawkins is that he often takes an absolutist stance on aspects of evolution, where the evidence does not merit it. I think this weakens rather than strengthens his arguments and, importantly, provides ammunition for creationists to attack him for his faith in evolution and his dogmatic stance.
If you were skimming the book I think it would be quite easy to miss the aspects that upset me. It is usually a single sentence at the end of a logical sequence that offends. In this he will make an unwarranted generalisation from a specific, or dismiss objections, or alternatives as being of no consequence.
Perhaps I need to revisit his works (and read Selfish Gene for the first time) and see if they strike me the same way the second time.

I, also, have been wading thru the Dawkins book which I now see is being quoted (but not cited) here on a religious section more than is the Bible.

Although Ophi and I do not agree on a lot, I do agree with his characterizations of the Dawkins technique in The God Delusion.

My observation is that Dawkins sometimes takes facts and reasonable information and uses it to unreasonably support a non-related conclusion. At other times he will start with a premise that is highly controversial or hardly agreed upon by others and use that to lead to what may or may not be a valid conclusion. Whatever, it is not supported by his basic premise.

My overall observation of the Dawkins book is that it shows he has limited understanding of logic or reasoning processes when it comes to presenting argument. Or else, he does understand and is purposefully and blatantly violating those bases of argument.

Unfortunately, the book so far has been so filled with errors of fact, reasoning or logic that I am having a difficult time getting through it. It just plain pisses me off that this kind of crap passes for intellectual effort and people are actually accepting this drivel as truth.

I have also made some comments on a Dawkins quote on another thread.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I have also made some comments on a Dawkins quote on another thread.

Those comments are fantasies as you've never read his books. You are clearly a bold-faced liar and cannot be trusted.

Does the bible teach you to lie, Dayton?

It would appear any negative responses to Dawkins books are from the perspective of having ones "spiritual" toes stepped on, their "cloistered" nose bent out of shape and their "Hessian" panties twisted in a knot.

As per these last two posts, (Q) continues to prove himself to be a blithering blowhard with no argumentative skills.

I have read about half of Dawkins book which is enough to characterize his non-scholarly approach of the topic to the point of wondering if he is just uninformed or is being unethical.

There is nothing in his writings, so far, that is credible enough to step on any intelligent person's spiritual toes. It is only frustrating that this kind of foolishness is believe by reasonable people -- well maybe not reasonable people. Such foolishness is the follie of fools.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I have read about half of Dawkins book

A lie.

There is nothing in his writings, so far, that is credible enough to step on any intelligent person's spiritual toes.

Dawkins makes an excellent account early in his book which Dayton should take keen interest, and that is the fallacious arguments theists use when quoting Einstein.

One need only look at Daytons signature and laugh.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Bum's claims about laboratory experiments is little more than fluff. Even if -- I say even if -- we were to take elements and produce a life form in a laboratory, it would only show that it can be done at the hands of an intelligent being.

Where in my post did I say that humans produced a life form in laboratory experiments? I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was they did produce some of the basic proteins that life forms use.

Actually, there's a very good video on YouTube I would like to recommend for anyone interested:

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

daytonturner wrote

What bacteria and viruses do not do is "evolve" into other forms of life. No matter how many adaptations we note in viruses, they always remain viruses. For a new life form to come from viruses would be an example of macroevolution which is not fact.

Am I correct to say that, in your opinion, every species was created by God a long time ago and any similarity between species is by His design, right?

Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

Has there ever been any experiments that proved Evolution to be true or is it still a theory.

Ask yourself, where did domestic dogs suddenly appear over the last 400 years?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Although Ophi and I do not agree on a lot, I do agree with his characterizations of the Dawkins technique in The God Delusion.

I haven't read The God Delusion, but I should not be surprised to find him employing the same techniques. Indeed I would be amazed if he did not.

Where we would differ in this regard is that you, Dayton, probably see this as representative of the arguments offered by evolutionists, who are at heart atheists, dedicated to overthrowing religion, in part, through the dogmatic promotion of materialistic evolution. (I've couched that in deliberately loaded words, but you get the idea.)
On the other hand I just see an atheist grasping at straws and behaving in a way that at best embarasses, and at worst disgraces, the scientific method.
I had no trouble believing in evolution when I was a Christian. I have no trouble believing in evolution as an agnostic. In both instances I base my belief on properly considered evidence, not on dogmatic proselytising, which is what I fear Dawkins indulges in, or certainly comes close to.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

Has there ever been any experiments that proved Evolution to be true or is it still a theory.

Ask yourself, where did domestic dogs suddenly appear over the last 400 years?

Actually the dog began to be domesticated around 10,000 years ago, but you would be right in the assertion that the vast diversity we now see in domestic dogs was largely produced in the last 400 years since people began to understand selective breeding a lot better and applying it to get desired results.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Actually, there's a very good video on YouTube I would like to recommend for anyone interested:

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

Very interesting! That is work that I haven't seen before. That does indeed add some understanding of some of the key mechanisms likely to play a role in early Abiogenesis. Of course the one ingredient that the video leaves out which is also an important ingredient in evolution and provides a difficult stumbling block for scientists to prove that all this works to YEC (that are used to fast food and fast religion), and that is TIME. All this occurred in vast expanses of time and that is one thing that scientists just don't have enough of. Which is probably why they don't want to waste so much of it trying to convince YEC who are immune to rational thinking.


What do I mean by fast religion? Hee hee and ouch. That could be a little self critical... But at least in terms of explaining things, nothing is faster than religion: "Goddidit".

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I just see an atheist grasping at straws and behaving in a way that at best embarasses, and at worst disgraces, the scientific method.

I had no trouble believing in evolution when I was a Christian. I have no trouble believing in evolution as an agnostic. In both instances I base my belief on properly considered evidence, not on dogmatic proselytising, which is what I fear Dawkins indulges in, or certainly comes close to.

You have no trouble 'believing,' which is evident and is the problem. You have serious trouble with rationale and reason as is plainly stated in your diatribe and clearly have no idea what the scientific method is about.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Actually the dog began to be domesticated around 10,000 years ago, but you would be right in the assertion that the vast diversity we now see in domestic dogs was largely produced in the last 400 years since people began to understand selective breeding a lot better and applying it to get desired results.

There were no dogs 10,000 years ago, as all domestic dogs have been bred from wolves over the last 400 years.

Originally Posted by (Q)

You have no trouble 'believing,' which is evident and is the problem. You have serious trouble with rationale and reason as is plainly stated in your diatribe and clearly have no idea what the scientific method is about.

/yawn/

bumfluff asked:

Where in my post did I say that humans produced a life form in laboratory experiments? I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was they did produce some of the basic proteins that life forms use.

I don't think I put those words in your mouth. Your statement was that we are doing laboratory experiments in an attempt to produce life from non-life. I'm did not suggest that you were saying we had successfully done so. I merely speculated as to what success in such experiments would show or not show. My conclusion, again, was that it will only show that with someone controlling the environment and elemental presences, life can be formed. It would not show that such an event occurred by happenstance in nature.


prasit asks:

Am I correct to say that, in your opinion, every species was created by God a long time ago and any similarity between species is by His design, right?

Nice try, prasit. You are sort of doing what bumfluff erroneously attributed to me, assigning to me a view I have never expressed and which is irrelevant to what I have said. To the best of my rememberance, I have never said anything of that kind. I do not spend much of my effort here defending or advocating for creationism or even expressing my beliefs on that issue.

My focus has mostly been on pointing out the problems in what macroevolution tends to accept by blind faith.

There is a big difference between creationism and evolution from the standpoint that evolution claims there is or will be tangible evidence which "proves" (or shows or validates or whatever althernate term one wishes to fend off the term proove) macroevolution, thus disproving God's existence. However, this "evidence" is not extant, but is by faith accepted to exist by those who want to believe this paradigm for life and biodiversity.

In contrast, creationism does not claim the presence of any tangible evidence. If fact, if creationism were the proper paradigm, there would be no tangible evidence.

What I actually said was that I am unaware of any observation of viruses adapting themselves into anything other than viruses. In the millions of generations of fruit flies that have been observed for more than a century, fruit flies have never produced anything other than more fruit flies.

Evolution, it seems to me, when it comes to viruses, advocates one of two things:

1. Viruses were the base form of life and they altered themselves into other life forms -- but we have no idea what the first altered life forms were; or
2. Some other life form was the base life form and it altered itself into a virus -- but we have no idea what that original life form was.

Evolution stands on its own as a scientific theory. It is valid or invalid on its own merits regardless of whether or not some alternate paradigm is proposed.

Evolution is like one humongous jigsaw puzzle with a jillion pieces. We have put together a few of the pieces up in one corner to show microevolution, but we are still lacking most of the pieces which would be required to put the puzzle together completely. And we don't even know, for sure, that those pieces exist.

To me, a discussion of creationism is a separate discussion and irrelevant to a discussion on evolution.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Actually the dog began to be domesticated around 10,000 years ago, but you would be right in the assertion that the vast diversity we now see in domestic dogs was largely produced in the last 400 years since people began to understand selective breeding a lot better and applying it to get desired results.

There were no dogs 10,000 years ago, as all domestic dogs have been bred from wolves over the last 400 years.

No... dog bones have been found in several archeological sites.

"The earliest domesticated dog found in China is at the early Neolithic (7000-5800 BC) Jiahu site in Henan Province. European Mesolithic sites like Skateholm (5250-3700 BC) in Sweden have dog burials, proving the value of the furry beasts. Danger Cave in Utah is the earliest in the Americas, at about 11,000 years ago"


http://archaeology.about.com/od/dome...ns/qt/dogs.htm

It is infact a misconception that dogs were directly bread out of wolves, the domestic dog and the wolf have a common ancestor, the canine that domestic dogs evolved out of is now extinct.

Edit: Though wolves have been bred back into dogs a few times.

Edit: The soviets were able to domesticate foxes and get some astounding results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

Ophiolite said:

Where we would differ in this regard is that you, Dayton, probably see this as representative of the arguments offered by evolutionists, who are at heart atheists, dedicated to overthrowing religion, in part, through the dogmatic promotion of materialistic evolution. (I've couched that in deliberately loaded words, but you get the idea.)
On the other hand I just see an atheist grasping at straws and behaving in a way that at best embarasses, and at worst disgraces, the scientific method.
I had no trouble believing in evolution when I was a Christian. I have no trouble believing in evolution as an agnostic. In both instances I base my belief on properly considered evidence, not on dogmatic proselytising, which is what I fear Dawkins indulges in, or certainly comes close to.

You have such a way with words there, Ophi. It is difficult to either agree or disagree with your characterization. I am trying to figure out in what way you disagree with your own characterization.

I think you are saying that I view him only as an element in the anti-religious movement while you view him only as an anathema to science. You are partially correct -- I see him as both.

What I see is the birth of or refinement of the evolutionist school you categorize and which could well be called Dawkinism. I see him being quoted here (on tsf) as though he has written several epistles of that movement, must like Christians would quote Pauline Epistles.

I think he presents a scientifically untenable (maybe unethical) approach which does not comply with normal rules of reasoning and or logic. He actually caters not to students of evolution, but to the emotional anti-religious element which will accept anything anti-religious whether it has any basis in reason or rationality or not.

And, unfortunately, we live in a civilization which seems to be abandonning all reason and rationality in many walks of life by using emotionally charged presentations to advocate that which, upon close inspection, is not necessarily reasonable or rational.

I do have a problem with some aspects of evolution which I have expressed on this form many times, but I believe there is room for disagreement and presentation of the differing views of the topic. This is called tolerance which many people today think means total agreement

There are evolution advocates who have what I consider a reasonable approach -- yes there are many unanswered questions and while they may bother some people, they do not bother me. I am at the other end of the spectrum -- there are many unanswered questions and while they don't bother some people, they do bother me.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

There are evolution advocates who have what I consider a reasonable approach -- yes there are many unanswered questions and while they may bother some people, they do not bother me. I am at the other end of the spectrum -- there are many unanswered questions and while they don't bother some people, they do bother me.

You are correct. We are at opposite ends of the spectrum - - but it is the same spectrum.

Daytonturner wrote:

To me, a discussion of creationism is a separate discussion and irrelevant to a discussion on evolution.

So, don't you have any alternative theory that is more plausible than macro-evolution?
What do you mean by different life form? Is the Peking dog not a different life form from the wolf? With this level of transformation in a very short period of geological time should it not be reasonable to project a much larger divergence of life form over a very very long period of time? Also the DNA analysis of various life form does confirm this process of divergence. I suppose that there are other numerous evidence to support the macro-evolution theory. I don't see how a large number of scientists can believe this theory based on blind faith.

Actually, I don't have an alternate explanation because I do not have enough information to develop or expound upon other potential explanations. But I do recognize the flaws in the current explanation.

If I see a person dead in the street, I do not need to be a doctor to know that something is wrong. Nor do I have the necessary information to form an opinion as to the cause of death unless, perhaps, the dude is missing his head.

Whether the Peking dog is a different life form from the wolf is a question of what you consider a different life form. Are they different life forms or variations of the same life form. And if we rename the Peking dog to be the Beijing dog, does that make it yet a different life form? I could agree that the Peking dog is a different life form from the Siamese cat.

The transformations you reference are within the species of dogs. But, so far, no matter how many variations or breeds of dogs we have brought about, they remain canines, just as viruses replicating themselves remain viruses.

You "suppose" there is evidence to support macroevolution. Well, I also suppose there is something that causes some to believe it. Why do you believe it? I also suppose that evidence is not sufficient enough to convince all. I have used a of lot of In-Sanity's bandwidth here on various threads explaining why I don't beleive it. I have not seen a study which breaks down the beliefs of scientists to this level, so I suppose your suppositions are no more or less valid than my suppositions and that is all either of us would have -- just suppositions which are not authoritative.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Actually, I don't have an alternate explanation because I do not have enough information to develop or expound upon other potential explanations. But I do recognize the flaws in the current explanation.

How can you have an alternate explanation when you don't even understand the current explanation?

Daytonturner wrote:

The transformations you reference are within the species of dogs. But, so far, no matter how many variations or breeds of dogs we have brought about, they remain canines, just as viruses replicating themselves remain viruses.

What about cat and tiger? Are they the same life-form?

Two part response to prasit:

1. My recommemberance from third grade comparative anatomy is that a tiger IS a cat.

2. Now then, if you actually meant tlo say common house cat, I would say, see No. 1.

Actually, and more seriously, they have had a hard time deciding how cats should be categorized. (Pun unintended.) Generally speaking, however, they are all felines, numbering about 36 species.

This would substantiate speciation, which is not something with which I disagree. So, the house cat and the Tiger are from different species, but they are still of felines species.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Actually, and more seriously, they have had a hard time deciding how cats should be categorized. (Pun unintended.) Generally speaking, however, they are all felines, numbering about 36 species.

This would substantiate speciation, which is not something with which I disagree. So, the house cat and the Tiger are from different species, but they are still of felines species.

Have you ever heard of the frase: internally inconsistent?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Actually, and more seriously, they have had a hard time deciding how cats should be categorized. (Pun unintended.) Generally speaking, however, they are all felines, numbering about 36 species.

This would substantiate speciation, which is not something with which I disagree. So, the house cat and the Tiger are from different species, but they are still of felines species.

And felines were created by YOUR god, right Dayton?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Actually, and more seriously, they have had a hard time deciding how cats should be categorized. (Pun unintended.) Generally speaking, however, they are all felines, numbering about 36 species.

This would substantiate speciation, which is not something with which I disagree. So, the house cat and the Tiger are from different species, but they are still of felines species.

Have you ever heard of the frase: internally inconsistent?

Assuming you are saying what I said is internally inconsistent requires some explanation on your part. How is what I said internally inconsistent and/or how does it conflict with the position that microevolution is valid and macroevolution is highly questionable?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Assuming you are saying what I said is internally inconsistent requires some explanation on your part. How is what I said internally inconsistent and/or how does it conflict with the position that microevolution is valid and macroevolution is highly questionable?

You accept speciation, in fact a lot of it, but you refuse to accept macroevolution. You're actually contradicting yourself because what you say makes no sense according to emperical data, predictions and experiments. Per definition (distinction between macro- and microevolution) you're beginning to be quite vague.

Daytonturner's definition of different life form seems to be one or two level above species classification. Genus? Family? I don't know what is the latest classification method.

I wrote most of the following prior to prasit's post, but he has very simply stated at least part of what may be the difference. I would agree with him that my perception of "different lifeforms" is definitely at the family level, although some may be found even at the genus level.

Even in Darwin's day, they discussed and argued whether some animals were different species or a variation of another species. Differences of opinion are far fewer at the genus level although sometimes animals may seem to resemble two different genera. However, there is hardly ever any disagreement at the family level and above. So to me, for the most part, different life forms could certainly be differentiated at the family.

This was my answer prepared in response to Obviously.

The simplistic does not necessarily prove the complex.

Just because I can build a wagon does not prove I can build an automobile. Even if you watch me build the wagon or even help me build it, there is still no proof that I have also built an existing automobile. Nor does it prove I didn't. Building the wagon just does not provide any evidence of my ability to build an automobile.

Just because we can see speciation occurring in nature does not prove that nature is able to produce whole new families and genera in either the plant or animal kingdoms.

With the example presented earlier, cats is the anglecized name given to a family of animals which can be broken down into 35 or 36 genera further broken down into many species. The only thing in that family are cats and cats do not exist in any other family.

While (although perhaps not in cats) we have been able to document the emergence of new species, to the best of my knowledge we have never witnessed the emergence of a new genus within a family and certainly no new families within an order.

Finding the relationships and/or predecessors of the known genera, even in a small family such as cats, is nowhere near an exact science nor even settled science. We are unable to develop with any certainty the exact relationships of all members in families. Neither nature nor God, whichever the case may be, so it would seem, has provided us with a geneology charts or a family Bibles.

To bring it somewhat together, I would not consider a Maltese cat and a Siamese cat different life forms, nor would I consider either of those cats substantially different from lions or tigers, who are members of a different genus.

However, I would consider a Maltese cat a different lifeform from a Maltese falcon.

If we look at ourselves, we find that we are of the family hominidae -- human. There is another hominidae of the same genus which is extinct and another hominidae of our species which is also extinct, leaving us -- Homo sapien as the only remaining member of this family. Whether these other hominidae were different life forms is a difficult question.

You do not find humans in any other family, nor do you find any other life forms in the humanidae family. We do not separate people of different races as different life forms. So from that, I would conclude that life forms of the same genus and same species cannot be considered different life forms. While there may be substantial difference among life forms in a family, I think they remain substantially the same life form.

There may be room for different lines of demarcation as to what is a different life form. I'm not sure there is any agreement on where the line is drawn.

Perhaps it is coincidence, but my line seems to be drawn at the highest point on the taxonomy chart where we may have at least an arguable semblance of physical evidence of changes made over long periods of time.

The only evidence I have ever seen which might link two families, such as cats and dogs, is that I had two cousins who use to fight like cats and dogs and they were related.

I would agree with him that my perception of "different lifeforms" is definitely at the family level, although some may be found even at the genus level.

This just illustrates the ambiguity prevalent in the layman (which includes me) ranks about exactly what constitutes “different” organisms. I would personally rather think that the taxonomic tree as a continuous flow, with fossil evidenced organisms being so, fossil evidenced, as a result of them mostly being the successful end result of an accelerated evolutionary period due to open niches and so are statistically much more likely to be fossilized and found by us. AFAIK, this is the way evolutionary scientists think about it as well and would be the only way to look at it with the current evidence and theories in mind. These days the classification process can be, and is, significantly aided by genetic evaluation.

Just because I can build a wagon does not prove I can build an automobile. Even if you watch me build the wagon or even help me build it, there is still no proof that I have also built an existing automobile. Nor does it prove I didn't. Building the wagon just does not provide any evidence of my ability to build an automobile.
Just because we can see speciation occurring in nature does not prove that nature is able to produce whole new families and genera in either the plant or animal kingdoms.

I am always intrigued by your analogies, Dayton, as they so often miss the mark. If these analogies are the way you try and make sense of things, I can understand where you are getting some your erroneous ideas from. If you really compare your analogy to the situation at hand, you see some major differences that invalidates it. For one, look at the mechanisms involved. Your ability to build a wagon or an automobile is dependant on your knowledge of the subject, while the idea behind microevolution translating into macroevolution is the addition of time. I fail to see how you equate these two mechanisms with each other. We simply can’t test macroevolution directly with the observation of current life, as the time required would span many lifetimes. Our understanding of microevolution, the influence of the availability of new niches on morphology, behavior, diet, etc. though, does provide for a mechanism whereby macroevolution can occur given enough time. It is not direct proof, but it is a straight forward and natural enough extrapolation that it is as close to proof as is possible given our current understanding. We are still ironing out the exact details of the mechanisms responsible, but the mechanisms themselves are plainly evident.

The only evidence I have ever seen which might link two families, such as cats and dogs, is that I had two cousins who use to fight like cats and dogs and they were related.

To me it is a much more fruitful exercise to look at the similarities between organisms when we assess their interconnectivity, as they far outnumber the differences in most cases. This can be done from a genetic perspective (which to me is close to being irrefutable evidence) and physiological, behavioral, etc. perspectives.

I am curious: What exactly is your stance on creationism? Do you see the hand of God in the split of new Families, genus, etc? If you have already explained it thoroughly, I’ll take a look at it if you alert me to it.

I realize that analogies or parables or anything done as a somewhat symbolic representation cannot quite fully represent the object of explanation, but only views a specific aspect of the object.

My point was, and remains, that microevolution is not evidence of macroevolution. But just making that simple statement does not explain why I think the leap from micro to macro is too large a leap.

Kalster points out:

We simply can’t test macroevolution directly with the observation of current life, as the time required would span many lifetimes. Our understanding of microevolution, the influence of the availability of new niches on morphology, behavior, diet, etc. though, does provide for a mechanism whereby macroevolution can occur given enough time.

This is the crux of the objection to Darwinism -- there has not been enough time.

If we can guess that it takes X generations to successfully complete a minor adaptation and we can determine that a generation has a span of Y years then estimate how many alterations (Z) would have been necessary to get from point A to point B, we could calculate the time required to get from point A to point B.

The problem is that such calculations invariably show that the estimated time that life has existed on this planet does not allow for the lengthy process of Darwinism to have accomplished the billions or trillions of alterations that would have been necessary to change from one celled microbes into the present complex life forms.

Surely, Kalster, you did not take that final paragraph as being serious!!!

Kalster asks:

What exactly is your stance on creationism? Do you see the hand of God in the split of new Families, genus, etc? If you have already explained it thoroughly, I’ll take a look at it if you alert me to it.

I do not know that I have a clearly defined stance on creationism. I don't think my postings have ever strongly advocated or defended creationism. My focus is more on attempting to reveal the discrepancies in current teaching or thought on evolution.

Personally, my beliefs are probably just as sketchy as I claim evolution to be. The Bible, in Genesis, mostly uses the Hebrew word "miyn" which has little more significance than the translation of the word as "kind" (or sort). We just don't know what significance Moses or the Hebrews of his time may have attached to the word. Genesis, as well as in other places where this subject is mentioned, seems to use applications that could point to families and/or to individual species or inbetween.

Only once, in Gen. 8:19, is the Hebrew word "mishpachah" used. This word has a slightly expanded meaning as "family or kind." Still not a lot of help.

So, if you can tell me exactly what these words might mean if placed on a taxonomy chart, I think I could come closer to telling you at what level I think God may have been involved in life creation.

I think the big difference here is that we cannot tell from the Bible when or how this activity may have taken place, and we realize and admit that. But, neither is evolution able to clearly define when or how its activities occurred, but its (underinformed) advocates have a difficult time realizing and admitting that.

Surely, Kalster, you did not take that final paragraph as being serious!!!

No . I just used it to make the point about looking at similarities.

My point was, and remains, that microevolution is not evidence of macroevolution.

It is evidence of it, it is simply not absolutely conclusive proof of it. But it does make about as strong a case as possible for it IMO.

The problem is that such calculations invariably show that the estimated time that life has existed on this planet does not allow for the lengthy process of Darwinism to have accomplished the billions or trillions of alterations that would have been necessary to change from one celled microbes into the present complex life forms.

Does it? Can you cite this? The pace of adaptation/speciation is variable and we cannot with certainty know the exact conditions surrounding each case. Domesticated dogs are a good example of what can be possible over a very limited time-scale, where the newly available niches provide the direction humans did with dogs.

Thanks for the elaboration of your stance on creationism. Even if you did subscribe to creationism it should not affect the validity of you arguments. They should stand on their own.

Edit: And a little TITBIT provided by marnixR in the Earth Science section. Pretty cool!

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I think the big difference here is that we cannot tell from the Bible when or how this activity may have taken place, and we realize and admit that. But, neither is evolution able to clearly define when or how its activities occurred, but its (underinformed) advocates have a difficult time realizing and admitting that.

Sorry Dayton, but this has nothing to do with anything other than your complete ignorance to the subject matter. Case closed.

Kalster correctly stated:

It is evidence of it, it is simply not absolutely conclusive proof of it. But it does make about as strong a case as possible for it IMO.

Absolutely true. We are all using exactly the same evidence. And, it would seem, it is probative enough to convince some while not probative enough to convince others. We currently have a hung jury.

Kalster wrote:

Quote:
The problem is that such calculations invariably show that the estimated time that life has existed on this planet does not allow for the lengthy process of Darwinism to have accomplished the billions or trillions of alterations that would have been necessary to change from one celled microbes into the present complex life forms.
Does it? Can you cite this? The pace of adaptation/speciation is variable and we cannot with certainty know the exact conditions surrounding each case. Domesticated dogs are a good example of what can be possible over a very limited time-scale, where the newly available niches provide the direction humans did with dogs.

I may be somewhat had here. This does not seem to be much of a discussion topic anymore. I know I have heard and read claims and counter claims relating to the time factor of Darwinism, but there is certainly not much discussion of this topic to be found today. (I am not referring to such discussion that was contemporaneous to Darwin's time when the age of the earth was estimated to be much younger than current estimates.)

I have long been under the impression, however, that punctuated equilibrium was, to some extent, in response to the time-element argument against Darwinism as was the variable speed theory. These, in turn, were because the time-element argument had gained considerable following.

I don't think I can agree that human directed dog breeding is directly comparable to and representative of breeding in nature. It does seem self defeating to attempt to counter a claim to God's intellectual participation by citing the results of man's intellectual participation.

To the best of my knowledge, whatever we have been able to breed is in accordance to the genetic pool available among dogs. It is not as though we are adding or subtracting from the gene pool, but only rearranging what is already there.

We have been able to do similar things with birds, but what we often do is crossbreed different birds who would not do so in the wild. To take this kind of intervention and suggest that it represents nature's progress, again, seems self defeating.

But as long as we are asking questions of each other's speculations, how do you think evolution may have proceeded. Obviously, evolution would suggest that in early days of life all of life was one made up of one celled organisms.

So perhaps among the one celled animals were amoebas and paramecium. Jumping ahead to now, would you suspect that some current species are related to amoebas, but not paramecium while others would be related to paramecium but not amoebas? And, if so, would we be able to tell which? Would the evolution path from amoebas be the same as the path from the paramecium? That is, would they evolved into fish, then to reptiles (or amphibians) and/or insects and then into birds and/or mammals? Or might they have taken different paths? In this last possibility one oerhaps might speculate that amoebas became fish, then amphians, and then mammals while paramecium became fish, then reptiles and then birds.

I have long been under the impression, however, that punctuated equilibrium was, to some extent, in response to the time-element argument against Darwinism as was the variable speed theory. These, in turn, were because the time-element argument had gained considerable following.

Punctuated equilibrium, as I have it, is but one mode of accelerated evolution, while the specific actuators of these accelerations also vary. A quote from the Wiki page on punctuated equilibrium highlighting one of these emergent theories: “ Recent work in developmental biology has identified dynamical and physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis that may underlie abrupt morphological transitions during evolution. Consequently, consideration of mechanisms of phylogenetic change that are actually (not just apparently) non-gradual is increasingly common in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, particularly in studies of the origin of morphological novelty. A description of such mechanisms can be found in the multi-authored volume Origination of Organismal Form (MIT Press; 2003).”.

I don't think I can agree that human directed dog breeding is directly comparable to and representative of breeding in nature. It does seem self defeating to attempt to counter a claim to God's intellectual participation by citing the results of man's intellectual participation.

I get your point, but I did not try to refute a godly influence with it. I just wanted to use it as a rough example of just how quick morphological changes can occur, with the availability of new niches fulfilling the role of human influence in nature to a fashion.

To the best of my knowledge, whatever we have been able to breed is in accordance to the genetic pool available among dogs. It is not as though we are adding or subtracting from the gene pool, but only rearranging what is already there.

This seems to be fairly recurring argument. You can’t argue with the vast differences between various breeds. This does translate do a difference on a genetic level, albeit a very small one. This mostly happened in the last +-400 years when humans stepped up the active breeding of new breeds for various purposes. In nature a group of a species would fill a new niche and, as a result of certain factors, become genetically isolated from the original group. That is, little or no swapping of genetic material occurs. The new niche provides new challenges with fairly different traits being more conducive to survival. An animal that is more suited to these new challenges would be more fit (survival of the fittest) and would be healthier in general and so would be more privy to preferential breeding. Learned behaviour (including sexual selection) is much more susceptible to amendment and can significantly aid in the selection of conducive traits. These factors (among others) continually steer the genetic development of the isolated population (microevolution) until the differences between the original and isolated populations become more and more apparent, until they are significant enough for biologists to assign them to a distinct species. Given enough time this mechanism (among others) can produce more fundamental distinctions. As I see it, the regularity and , to my mind, the low variety and similarity of families and suborders in scientific classification of multi-cellular animals is direct evidence of the utilization of new niches by survivors of mass extinctions (local or global) and a strong case for evolution. A common fallacy committed by anti-evolutionists is that they say that a mouse can’t change into a cat or something to that tune. This demonstrates a woeful and sometimes wilful misunderstanding of the dynamics of evolution, since no evolutionist has ever suggested such. I suspect that you already know most or all of this, but I just wanted to put it out there for any guest readers of this forum to digest.

But as long as we are asking questions of each other's speculations, how do you think evolution may have proceeded. Obviously, evolution would suggest that in early days of life all of life was one made up of one celled organisms. So perhaps among the one celled animals were amoebas and paramecium. Jumping ahead to now, would you suspect that some current species are related to amoebas, but not paramecium while others would be related to paramecium but not amoebas? And, if so, would we be able to tell which? Would the evolution path from amoebas be the same as the path from the paramecium? That is, would they evolved into fish, then to reptiles (or amphibians) and/or insects and then into birds and/or mammals? Or might they have taken different paths? In this last possibility one perhaps might speculate that amoebas became fish, then amphians, and then mammals while paramecium became fish, then reptiles and then birds.

It is a good question and one I would like an answer to also. I would think though that while this type of initial convergent evolution could be possible, that is pretty unlikely as there are such a large number of similarities that sort of intuitively flow into each other. I think that genetic evaluation would have been able to identify such a situation. Also, I think that competition between these two trees would have been fierce and any probable inferiority would have ended one of them. But who knows

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I have long been under the impression, however, that punctuated equilibrium was, to some extent, in response to the time-element argument against Darwinism as was the variable speed theory. .

I think, rather, it was in response to field observations.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Absolutely true. We are all using exactly the same evidence. And, it would seem, it is probative enough to convince some while not probative enough to convince others. We currently have a hung jury.

There's no hung jury, Dayton. The difference is those who do understand it and those who don't. You are part of the latter group.

But, do keep pretending you actually know what you're talking about.