Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Jody:
Because drug resistance and pesticide resistance are both due to random mutations.
Questions about the fossil record?
Look it up. It's called G-O-O-G-L-E
I assume you believe in Google don't you?
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
You're assuming there actually is a purpose for life's journey. That's simply your belief.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Likewise.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jody I ask again, how does microevolution, heredity, a 4.5 billion year old earth, and the fossil record prove that a fish became a bird or that man and apes had the same ancestors? You keep saying it does, but saying it does not make it fact.
The theory of evolution explains how species came into existence, the distribution and form of the species, and provides a framework to understand ecology at many different levels, including microbial ecologies.
By developing the theory quantitatively it becomes increasingly more useful to biologists in not only understanding what is, but also how biological systems work. Without evolution biology as we know it wouldn't exist. That includes much of what we understand about medicine.
A theory is effective if it leads to understanding things that are not understood. As I wrote before, but you have ignored, is that a consequence of the theory of evolution predicted both genetic material and inheritance as well as the fact that the earth was very old. There are many other things that subsequent development of evolution has allowed us to understand. For instance, the evolution of drug resistant strains of bacteria, the pesticide resistance of various insects, etc. Much of ecology uses evolution to help develop understanding of how communities of plants and animals work.
Many of my scientist colleagues would say that this is as close to truth as you can get, that is, correctly predicting these observed phenomena with a single unifying idea.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say, evolution is more than an indispensable tool for understanding biology... it makes biology understandable.
A consequence of evolution is that animals with similar morphologies are related, as chimps are to humans, and this is borne out in the fact that their genetic information is similar, which also leads to an estimate (a prediction) of the time of speciation from a common ancestor. This estimate is consistent with the fossil record, though you might wish that be more complete... an open question for future physical anthropologists.
As for the fine-tuning of the universe, there is another explanation than the "hand of god:" that life in the universe is not so unusual, that the conditions are not so special. This is certainly consistent with observation, as far as it goes... planetary systems are much more common than we thought until recently, and our understanding of the formation of planetary systems has been turned on its head by improved observation.
It is a fallacy to infer the probability of life by assigning probabilities to things you cannot explain based on the existence of us. It has no predictive power.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Jody, random is not a word I use when I think about life and what God's plan is for each of us on this planet. Grace, peace and joy...Lynne
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 7, 2008 - 02:25am PT
|
A discussion of free will versus a deterministic universe will now commence.
Step right up folks, there's lightning bolts enough for all!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Jody, I apologize. I will take time to read the entire thread and then post a response. I appreciate all your thoughtful time and effort into this Thread. Sincerely, Lynne
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I meant what I said, biology as we know it would not exist, it has nothing to do with my particular point of view. Biology's major tenet is the theory of evolution.
As for theories helping us understand "new" things, we can talk about something classical, like celestial motion. With Copernicus and Brahe describing the heliocentric solar system, Newton was able to think through the ideas which lead to the theory of Universal Gravitation (or if you please the Law of Gravitation).
Note that before Newton, you might have thought that Copernicus' idea was "just a theory" and the motion of the planets and moons describable by other means (like epicycles). Copernicus' idea allowed the observations of the motion to be systematized in such a way that Newton could derive the behavior by a simple, profound insight that gravity as we know it on earth (the falling apple) was the very same gravity that kept the planets in their orbital paths. Very simple, and testable in a million different ways.
But Newton's theory didn't quite predict subtle observations of planetary motion (such as the perihelion shift of the planet Mercury). Also, there was a difficulty in understanding just how gravity worked, how did it project itself throughout the universe? Newton punted on this hypothesis non fingo (I make no hypothesis).
Einstein worked out a much more insightful theory of gravity, General Relativity. The consequences of GR are a greatly improved understanding of the cosmology of the universe, including the concept of the Big Bang, the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Pushing the theories to explain more and more phenomena, testing the theories against measurement, forcing them to calculate the outcome, this is providing us with new knowledge, knowledge beyond our initial conception of "the reach" of the theories.
Science isn't static, it changes and improves, providing a better and better description of the physical universe. This might not appeal to you, who might prefer immutable laws that don't change. That isn't science, science is about understanding and explaining things, often by the most economical means.
Evolution is a scientific theory of profound depth. It organizes our thoughts on biology and has lead to a tremendous understanding of life on this planet, and probably on other planets as well.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Yeah, what Ed said.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
Jody, isn't it true though that creationists are predisposed to the beginning result and go into their theories and tests with those predispositions in mind? Therefore, the "evidence" which seems to "predict" the beginning result that they are seeking is pushed to the forefront but evidence which has no plausable creationary explanation is suppressed.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
Once again, I could very easily switch around the words "creation" and "evolution" in your statement, and it would still be just as true.
The fact is, at least there is SOME evidence to support evolution. While it may not be complete or perfect, it is a start. And at least the scientists are TRYING.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
No evidence?
Fossils, genetics, embryology, etc. = no evidence?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Jody Wrote
"By the way, it has been me against a hundred of you in this discussion. I can't address everything, I'd never get away from the computer. Sorry. :)"
Think of the tickets we could be saving people from!
I have no doubts about God but also no doubts that the infinite awareness of God manifests through processes that, on the gross physical level, science can observe. I'm sure some fundamentalists, in the distant past, would have objected to the idea that the body cures diseases with it's own internal mechanisms (anti-bodies and such) and not by God's grace. They don't seem mutually exclusive to me.
The Church used to need to believe that the planets and sun revolved around the earth. What's the use of trying to cook up science from mythology and linking it to your spirituality? It just discredits both.
Even Jesus had to bust the chops of his disciples for taking his metaphors too literally (don't eat the bread of the Philistines) Creationism is a distraction and the timing of things was never meant to be precise. (ie, notice that so many things in the Bible happened for 40 days and 40 nights? Was that God's timing? Nope, that was an ancient general idiom, like "a coon's age"
Peace
Karl
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
So how do you explain fossil animals plants, bacteria, and other critters?
Many look nothing like species that are living today.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"Dirtbag, and that proves evolution how?"
It shows that life now is not the same as it was a long time ago. Life on earth has changed. It's evolved.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
So why don't we see very many contemporary species in very old fossils?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Fossils....Don't argue with them!
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
There is NO evidence to support evolution.
Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1: to be seen : conspicuous
2: as evidence
Main Entry: circumstantial evidence
Function: noun
Date: 1736
: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue
Main Entry: indirect evidence
Function: noun
Date: 1824
: evidence that establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred : circumstantial evidence
Main Entry: self–ev·i·dent
Pronunciation: \-dənt, -ˌdent\
Function: adjective
Date: 1671
: evident without proof or reasoning
Main Entry: hearsay evidence
Function: noun
Date: 1753
: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath
Main Entry: fal·la·cy
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-lə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fal·la·cies
Etymology: Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive
Date: 14th century
1 aobsolete : guile, trickery b: deceptive appearance : deception
2 a: a false or mistaken idea b: erroneous character : erroneousness
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
Jody,
You appear to believe that divine creation is self-evident. The only basis for this a book full of hearsay evidence and fallacies.
You've spent some time in court Jody. Why can't you see that in the past 150 years, based on an overwhelming amount of indirect and circumstantial evidence, evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!