Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 6, 2008 - 07:40pm PT
|
Ouch! - The site mentioned above, darwin-online, has all Darwin's publications and writings, and very great deal of other information about him. It's a Cambridge University website.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jody, you continue to be thick headed about this... but let's address your response regarding Darwin:
Darwin was no genius. His only scientific training was a couple of years of medical school in which he barely passed his courses before dropping out. An influential relative of his got him a position as an unpaid naturalist on The Beagle. He was initiated into witchcraft in South America and upon his return to England spent the rest of his life developing "theories" to destroy faith in the Creator.
I find this rather odd coming from you, who often take up sides against the "elitists," in this case I believe you are saying that Darwin was not a university trained scientist, thus, he could not have done science. Of course that is absurd, as the works of Darwin, the scientific writings, etc. are available to the entire science community, they can be examined and tested.
The scientific works of Darwin have stood up to 150 years of scientific scrutiny. I don't believe any scientist cares what Darwin's educational background was, perhaps that makes him all the more "genius" (though that is an overused word).
I can't come up with any historical reference regarding your statement regarding witchcraft. He was attended the Church of England, he seemed to believe in god early in his life, but perhaps not a believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Later in life, he described himself as an Agnostic.
He spent his life measuring things with a wooden ruler, talking to farmers, complaining about his physical ailments, and trying to explain how everything came from nothing.
I'm not sure that this is so bad. Those where the tools of naturalists in those days, and a descriptive writing style. Science can be performed with rather modest means, and field biologists today often have rather simple tools compared to particle accelerators. The point is, you use the tools that you need.
Origin of Species is so worthless that modern scientists distance themselves from it. Honest scientists know that "natural selection", changing from one species into another species cannot happen.
This is completely wrong unless you wish to say who is an "honest scientist." I am an scientist, I have published over 100 papers in the scientific literature, I participate in advising the government in science policy, and the science program. I am a leader of a division of 70 physicists who do a wide range of work, including significant work in national security. I wouldn't distance myself from Origin of the Species anymore than I would James Clerk Maxwell's A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism written in 1873. It's significance is that was the beginning of a whole field of science. Neither of these books are used in science classes anymore, they are superseded by better texts incorporating the scientific work of the intervening 100 odd years.
What Darwin put forward in Origin of the Species is the idea that all observed life is related through speciation driven by natural selection. It doesn't "prove it" it explains it.
Only "sub-species" can be formed, not entirely new opnes. There is absolutely no evidence that macro-evolution occurs presently, and no evidence in fossils or rock strata that it has occurred in the past.
Once again, you are confusing the idea of "evidence" with "observation." The fossil record, which is an incomplete sample of past life on the planet, is an observation which is consistent with evolution. You can explain the fossil record by evolution.
Origin of Species is full of statements like, "It might have been", "Probably", "It is conceivable that", and "Let's take an imaginary example". He would suggest a possibilty and later in the book refer to that suggestion as fact..."As we have already demonstrated previously.
Perhaps you have lost the thread of his argument because you are looking for something that isn't there. Darwin's Origin of the Species presents the theory of evolution and shows how it explains the variation of life on the earth. Darwin himself very much understood that his ideas could be falsified, in one later edition of Origin he outlines the very tests. However, the theory has withstood the tests and is accepted as the very foundation of biology.
I mean, seriously, look at his explanation of gaps in the fossil record, "...species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side."
Much more is known about the fossil record now. There is no inconsistency with the modern theories of evolution and that record, just as there was none in Darwin's time.
Wow! With intellectual thinking like this, who needs science?!
Certainly your ideas of science are rather simple minded.
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
"Origin of Species is so worthless that modern scientists distance themselves from it."
This is utter malarkey. I personally listened to Stephen Jay Gould lecture with great passion and approval on Darwin and the Origin of Species before he (Gould) passed away, and Modern science regards it as work whose methods and worldview were bound up in the period but whose observations and reasoning are brilliant and hugely influential. I'm sure you can find one or two evolutionary bio guys who have talked trash about it, but your statement above is just pure made up nonsense. Claiming the world is the way you want it to be does not make it that way, that only works in religion.
"Honest scientists know that "natural selection", changing from one species into another species cannot happen. Only "sub-species" can be formed, not entirely new opnes. There is absolutely no evidence that macro-evolution occurs presently, and no evidence in fossils or rock strata that it has occurred in the past."
Oh, I see, the scientists that agree with you are the honest ones. I've already disproved this junk you're spewing, but as usual you simply ignore whatever contradicts your argument.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 6, 2008 - 08:56pm PT
|
It's amusing that the classic picture of Darwin, which someone posted upthread, looks exactly like christians portray their god to be. Old, big bushy beard, piercing glance, Victorian, probably able to cast thunderbolts (literal or metaphorical)...
I'm just saying...
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
A few posts back Jaybro asked for a few examples of this elusive “proof” of Creationism. Of course, Jody didn’t respond. So I took some time to do a little bit of research on my own. It’s quite amusing.
Basically, they say things like “NO proof exists of one kind of animal transitioning to another kind. Absolutely none.”
Yet they ignore the fact that the same thing can be said about the Bible. NO proof exists that God created anything or that the Bible is true. Absolutely none.
You can try to use scientific scrutiny to try to disprove Evolution. But don’t you DARE try to point that same finger at Creationism!
When I type this message, the word creationism gets the little red line under it. At first I thought I was spelling it wrong, but it turns out it’s not a real word! Thats funny!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jody, It doesn't "prove it" it "explains it"? So does creation...
that's correct, and I believe that Werner has an explanation also, from another school of ancient wisdom...
but creation is not a scientific theory, it cannot be tested. The construction of the traditional creation theories is to invoke a supernatural agent as part of the creation. We can't test for that.
In most creation theories we are left to "believe" in the existence of that supernatural agent. We must have faith that that agent exists, and that what we know about that agent is true, we have no way of verifying that truth.
The scientific theories provide understanding and predictions. As I stated in a previous post above, Darwin's theory of evolution predicted two major attributes of the world, not known at the time of the publication of Origin of the Species. It was Darwin's reasoning, and his explanation of the variety of life on earth, that lead him to these correct predictions.
If no mechanism for inheritance had been found, then it would be very difficult to accept evolution by natural selection as correct. Yet in writing those words (and hopefully in your reading them) it is so far from our current understanding as to almost sound like a straw man do be knocked down trivially. It was not so 150 years ago.
Similarly for the age of the earth, were it significantly shorter than it is now known to be, there would be real difficulty in fitting in the evolution of life. This was not known 150 years ago...
Science is about learning something that we do not know. Good science reveals things about the universe, leads us to them through the process of the scientific method. We create new knowledge, throw out stuff that is wrong, all this with imperfect understanding, lack of facts, finite precision experiments, and faulty reasoning. It is a very messy process. But it has had spectacular successes.
For evolution, it has lead to a science of biology at the brink of explaining life on the planet in detail, from the genetic material to organism structure and behavior.
This is the legacy of Darwin and the theory of evolution.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
I know for certain that random, genetic mutations do, in fact, occur; climb with Locker.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
I, also, had never heard that Stalin, apeman story. That's some messed up stuff, right there. Atheist and ignorant at the same time.Something for everyone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HmaAPaP-h0
I think Im sophisticated
cos Im living my life like a good homosapien
But all around me everybodys multiplying
Till theyre walking round like flies man
So Im no better than the animals sitting in their cages
In the zoo man
cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees
I am an ape man
I think Im so educated and Im so civilized
cos Im a strict vegetarian
But with the over-population and inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape man
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man
Im an ape man Im a king kong man Im ape ape man
Im an ape man
cos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
Compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an ape man
In mans evolution he has created the cities and
The motor traffic rumble, but give me half a chance
And Id be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle
cos the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury to be like an ape man
Im an ape, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man
I look out my window, but I cant see the sky
cos the air pollution is fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape man
Come and love me, be my ape man girl
And we will be so happy in my ape man world
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man
Ill be your tarzan, youll be my jane
Ill keep you warm and youll keep me sane
And well sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an ape man
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man.
I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an ape man.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Challenge to our fundie friends. Proof of evolution? Then please explain:
1.) development of drug resistance in organisms such as bacteria
2.) development of pesticide resistance in insects
Both of these are examples of evolution that has been observed thousands upon thousands of times.
Geez, get with it. It's the 21st Century, already!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Go Jody....! Grace, Peace and Joy, Lynne
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Because you wrote: NO proof exists of one kind of animal transitioning to another kind. Absolutely none.
The development of drug and pesticide resistance are proof of animals evolving into new forms due to a changing habitat. That's proof of evolution (the mechanism of speciation).
Additionally, your willful ignorance of the fossil record and genetic taxonomy can't save your argument (if you really had one to begin with--which you didn't).
I suggest you stop trolling and start reading--science books would be a good start. Take heart--ignorance is curable.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
drgonzo -- "ignorance is curable."
Yeah, drgonzo, you're pretty ignorant.
When will you be cured?
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Floyd, regarding Isaiah 40:21-22
Here's what I found
[url="http://christiananswers.net/bible/isa40.html"]
21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:[/url]
From here:
While the Bible nowhere states categorically that the earth is flat, numerous Old Testament verses clearly show that the ancient Hebrews were flat-earthers. The Genesis creation story says the earth is covered by a vault (firmament) and that the celestial bodies move inside the vault. This makes no sense unless one assumes that the earth is essentially flat. Isaiah wrote that “God sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth, whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers.” In the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven.” That the earth was considered essentially flat is clear from Daniel, who said, “I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth; the tree grew and became strong, reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.” This statement makes no sense for spherical earth.
The New Testament also implies a flat earth. For instance, Matthew wrote that “The devil took him [Jesus] to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.” From a sufficiently high mountain, one could see all the kingdoms of the world -- if the earth were flat. Finally, Revelation refers to “the four corners of the earth,” and corners are not generally associated with spheres.
From the foregoing, it’s not surprising that flat-earthism has been associated with Christianity since the beginning. Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular. As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book Christian Topography. But Cosmas was fighting a losing battle, and the Ptolemaic system, based on a spherical earth, rapidly took over. By the 12th century (despite Edward Blick’s implication to the contrary), the flat-earth concept was essentially a dead letter in the West.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Werner, you disappoint me. But I feel the love of God from you, brother! Really, I do!
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
"Landgolier...NO proof exists of one kind of animal transitioning to another kind. Absolutely none."
Except the equine fossil record. That's just one off the top of my head, there are plenty more. But you're not willing to accept any evidence that contradicts this belief, so what's the point? Either present a claim which, if falsified, would cause you to abandon your belief, or accept that your belief is not based in fact and logic and we can go home. I'd again like to point out that when you claimed that 4-5 billion years isn't long enough, you didn't seem to have an answer for how long it would take for random mutations to result in speciation.
Let's go at it a different way. If species go extinct (which anyone has to admit they do, we have all kinds of bones and bug splats in the fossil record that aren't present today), why does the fossil record show greater rather than lesser biodiversity over time? Unless God is plopping down new species all the time, if new species can't evolve we're stuck with an ever-narrowing range of life forms. Species are dying off all the time both in isolated and mass extinctions, yet the range of critters running around expands rather than contracts. According to your belief your almighty in effect built a self-destucting macroecology -- eventually everything will die off and nothing new can evolve, though I'm sure you have an escape hatch for this argument via the rapture or the second coming or some other such fluff.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
Jody,
I think you realize that you can't disprove the theory.
I think you are being intentionally obtuse.
I think you may have visited some pro-cretinism™ sites to get ideas on how to sow confusion among the non-scientific; it seems to work on some.
I think you are really not interested in understanding what others are saying, nor are you interested in participating in an honest debate.
Ed and others have very patiently explained the theories again and again and you just keep playing your stupid "micro doesn't prove macro" troll, and acting as if evolution theory posits that new species just "poof" into existence.
You, the other fundies, your bible, and one hare krishna are the only ones claiming that fish or birds just "poofed" into existence.
There is plenty of direct evidence of micro-evolution and heredity, there is plenty of evidence that the Earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old; all of this combined with the fossil record provides overwhelming evidence of macro-evolution.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 7, 2008 - 01:11am PT
|
Besides, if they don't all start behaving, I may have to smite them with lightning or something. That'd learn 'em to believe in evolution!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
ok, so we are all here on this planet. Why argue about how we got here? Curious as to why we don't spend more energy on how to help one another on their life journey? A simplistic question from a simple person. Peace and Joy mixed with Grace. Lynne
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!