Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
Christ, Matt. Grow up or something.
I don't know about you, but I stopped considering the "call someone a girl's name" thing a useful argument tactic in the 5th grade.
And the rest of that... sheesh.
|
|
wydra
Social climber
Utah
|
|
anyone over 40 with knees and a back, doesn't believe in 'Intelligent Design'
|
|
wydra
Social climber
Utah
|
|
Sketch wrote"
"Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. "
The problem here is your understanding, rather misunderstanding of what evolutionary biology actually states. there is nothing "random" about natural selection, and "complex life" does not = intelligent design, especially givin the fact that no evidence exists for intelligent design.
|
|
wydra
Social climber
Utah
|
|
edit.
|
|
wydra
Social climber
Utah
|
|
Jody, your citation:
George Wald, "Origin, Life, and Evolution,"
Scientific American(1978),
Professor emeritus of Biology at Harvard and the
Nobel Prize winner in biology in 1971.
This is an incorrect citation, your attempt to do what other creationists do, "quote mine" that is lie, and mine up quotes to make it SEEM like someone is saying something they actually are not. first get the citation right, then read what Georgeg Wald actually said, vs. what you found on some fundementalist christian anti evolution website. you are better then that.
peace.
|
|
climberweenie
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind and sails
Are we not men?
We are DEVO!
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
All interesting scientific theories had at one time or another been discounted by large numbers of people who were following rules set forth to them by other men based on their ancenstors fear of having been created by a supreme being who controlled all that could not be explained. There are so many of those theories now proven, as close to fact as is possible, that the current set of followers accept them as fact. They totally discount that their ancestors maintined their beliefs as long as possible until the evidence piled up high enough to overhelm them. Recall the churches stance on the Earth rotating around the Sun. At the time, people were killed (or maybe just thrown out of town) because of their belief, based on good sound evidence, in what is now fact. ironically, it was a fact then too.
After studying molecular biology and evolution a bit, I see that eventually, if the science keeps progressing as it is now, that the evidence will overwhelm our decendants and it will be accepted as fact by them. They will not have stupid arguments where they pose a question on the internet then will not listen to any answers they do not like.
Fortunately, once it becomes that well accepted, the religious leaders of the world will fit it into a new view of God and creation and all will be back in balance. I wish could be here to see it happen. I think it is as inevitable as was the facts about our solar system and out orbit. There is nothing to suggest that it will not go the same way.
As a scientist, I do not disbelieve anything just because there is a lack of proof to my satisfaction. Lack of proof does not disprove anthing; God or evolution. An poen mind means being open to ideas you dislike as well as the ideas you like.
Dave
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
How about we break things into managable groups:
1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection).
2. Evolution.
3. Spontaneous life from nothing.
We should argue about these separately. Take number 1 above; it can be seen happening and it can be reproduced in a laboratory with species that breed quickly. There are NO scientists that I've heard of that would even suggest that Darwin had the wrong idea with this. I'm not sure about the religious take on this one.
If a scientist can place a group of insects into an environment that is hostile to the creatures and slowly, generation after generation make the environment so hostile that the original bugs could not survive, what do we call it when those decendents of the original bugs can now live fine? This has been done with numerous species numeous times. There can be no denying natural selection and survival of the fittest. It can be made to happen.
Now what about number 2? Can the types of changes mentioned above happen to the extent that the new bugs and the old bugs cannot inter-breed? This would be a new species. I'll admit that the research and evidence is a little less clear. Especially tro me, a novice. There are birds in the world that can breed with nearby birds and those can breed with some near them too but they are not all the same. keep going in one direction around the planet and eventually, we are at the original birds yet those original birds and the ones we just saw on our trip cannot reproduce. They are considered different species by every definition. This is some very clear evidence that evolution can happen to change one species into another. The changes can all be seen in living breathing creatures that we can see now. We can measure the changes. We can see why they are different. We can see how we could make this happen given some time and a very very large laboratory.
And then number 2 also has to deal with missing links. Those are downright silly to any rational scientist. There is a gradual and almost inperceptible change (froma human point of view) as a species changes by natural selection. The changes are only large enough to see that the weaker of the species does not reproduce and their genetics that cause their weakness is not passed on to their decendants. The birds I mentioned show that there is no obvious link between the birds of the different "species." Each different group is almost identical to the ones near them and yet the final set of birds on either end are quite different. Of course they are not as different as say chimps and man but that's not an issue given a bit more time.
Now for number 3. Life from nothing...
Lets face it. I doubt that most scientists have any evidence that this happened or that it can happen. Those that study evolution do not go around saying that because number 1 and number 2 above are fact that number 3 is also fact. That would be some kind of silly belief based on a gut feeling and not on evidence and we all know how silly that would be.
Hows this for a far out theory: If there is only a 1 in googol (10 to power of 100) chance that life could start spontaneously then perhaps there are a google number of planets out there that all failed and it just happened by accdient here. Like winning the lottery against all odds. Hmmm... odds are more against it than a number with 100 zeros? How about if the universe did the big band then collapsed and started again over and over for the last googolplex (1 followed by a googol zeros) years? Maybe life only worked out this one time and we are lucky enough to be here for it (that's a joke since we would have to be here for it).
But I'll be fair and say that spontaneous life does seem farfetched. So does God. Just as unlikely that there is a larger form of existance and that we are just in a transition state.
So I'll say that at this point, I'd go 50/50 on spontaneous life vs. God but for evolution and natural selection, I think it's a given amongst most of the scientific community. The hold-outs are those that think the earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around us.
Oops. I got a little out of control there and it's late. I'll leave now and never come back. Please keep thinking instead of following.
Dave
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Nice post dave, well thought out. I'd agree with almost all of what you've said, but I'd like to clear up a couple of detail on point 2 for you if I may:
The changing of one species into a distinct new species - speciation - has never been observed and has proved impossible to replicate under lab conditions. The exact factors that cause reproductive compatibility are not known; if they were, IVF would be a breeze. Nobody has ever seen a new organ, limb or apparatus form in new generations of animals, suggesting a gap in our knowledge.
Missing links: these are important because there actually doesn't appear to be the gradual change in species you describe - it goes in a series of big jumps with large periods of little change in between. This is why we have several distinct species of human ancestors with several very similar examples of each known, and very little in between.
Is evolution correct? Well, the broad idea seems to fit our observations, but the details certainly don't for now. As with many areas of science there are simply critical gaps in our knowledge of the mechanisms involved. I'm sure the future will hold many interesting revelations, but whether they'll be what our current strict evolutionists expect remains to be seen.
|
|
arete
Trad climber
Estes Park, Colorado
|
|
Here's some "Jody Logic" for you......
Science can't 'prove' intelligent design, therefore it HAS to be evolution.
Unfortunately, only someone who understands neither science nor logic could make such an silly statement.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
They always say in the future we will
Yes. Living beings move from one bodily form to another. The forms already exist. The living entity simply transfers himself, just as a man transfers himself from one apartment to another. One apartment is first class, another is second class and another is third class. Suppose a person comes from a lower-class apartment to a first-class apartment. The person is the same, but now, according to his capacity for payment, or karma, he is able to occupy a higher-class apartment. Real evolution does not mean physical development, but development of consciousness.
Do you follow?
As you get more money you can move to a better apartment. The apartment already exists, however. It is not that the lower-class apartment becomes the higher-class apartment. That is Darwin's nonsensical theory. He would say that the apartment has become high class. Modern scientists think that life has come from matter. They say that millions and millions of years ago there was simply matter, but no life. We do not accept that. Of the two energies--life and matter--life, or spirit, is the original, superior energy, and matter is the resultant inferior energy.
Do they exist simultaneously?
Yes, but spirit is independent, and matter is dependent. For example, I can live even without my hands or legs. If they were amputated, I could survive. Therefore I am not dependent on my hands and legs; my hands and legs are dependent on me, the spirit soul within my body.
But do life and matter come simultaneously?
No. They do not "come" at all. They already exist. The "coming" idea is in our minds because we are living in this limited world, where we see that there is a beginning to everything. Therefore we think in terms of things "coming." But actually matter and spirit already exist. When I am born, I think my birth is the beginning of the world. But the world already exists. Another example is a fire. When you light a fire, do the light and heat begin later on? No. Whenever a fire is ignited, immediately there is light and heat.
But suppose I think, "Now there is a fire, but I have to wait for the light and heat to come later on. isn't that foolishness?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
And this thread doesn't want to prove anything other than a few fools who want nothing better than thrash Jody. It's become not about evolution or creation but self rightious ass-holes that are explicitly looking for something to thrash Jody personally.
A personal agenda under the guise of this thread.
Prove your so called theories without using Jody as a personal attack!
You stand there blindly shooting arrows not even knowing nor seeing the target. Masterfully juggling words to try make yourselves look good. But there’s no power behind them when them grim reaper pays you the visit to take you away.
Therfore even the atheist, who rebels against following, subordination, etc. must submit to a higher Power DEATH
C'mon morons spit it out!
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
It is not that the lower-class apartment becomes the higher-class apartment. That is Darwin's nonsensical theory. He would say that the apartment has become high class.
Werner, I think you need to reread Darwin. Darwin said that the lower-class apartment's great great great great grandchild gives birth to the higher-class apartment. He doesn't say anything about one form tranforming into another. Merely that one's descendants will change ever so slightly that after many thousands of generations (most likely orders of magnitude more), that *those* descendents will be different, having shed useless traits in favor of more beneficial ones.
I like some of your metaphysical thoughts above, but I have to say that the way you state them as fact rather than your belief (since *all* religion is someone's belief) is a bit of a problem for me.
I personally have no interest in trashing Jody, nor do most folks on here, I think, tho it appears there are a few who've got something personal to prove here, and that's too bad.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Forest
I didn't state them. My teacher did. I'm not manufacturing my own theories.
Therefore you can take it or leave or think about them like I do.
But Darwin's supporters say that life started from matter and evolved from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms. They believe that higher species like animals and men did not exist at the beginning of creation.
If originally there were no higher species, why do they exist now? Also, why do the lower species still exist? For example, at the present moment we see both the intellectual person and the foolish ass. Why do both these entities exist simultaneously? Why hasn't the ass form evolved upward and disappeared? Why do we never see a monkey giving birth to a human?
You can directly transmigrate to any species of life you like, according to your efforts. Sometimes I travel to America, sometimes to Australia and sometimes to Africa. The countries already exist. I am simply traveling through them. It is not that because I have come to America, I have created or become America. And there are many countries I have not yet seen. Does that mean they do not exist?
The Darwinists' theory that human life began in such and such an era is nonsense.
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
I didn't state them. My teacher did. I'm not manufacturing my own theories.
On this website, your teacher isn't posting. You are. And you didn't preface it with "I believe", so here you stated them
Therefore you can take it or leave or think about them like I do.
Well, for now, I'm reading them and considering them interesting. Fair enough
But Darwin's supporters say that life started from matter
Actually, Darwin says nothing, so far as I know, about the origin of life. He wrote about the origin of species, and the concept of evolution. There are some logical origins you can draw from that, but I don't believe Darwin did. I'm sure you're right that somewhere, someone who believes what Darwin wrote has said that life originated from a primordial soup/lightning type thing, but to make the blanket statement that this is the belief of "Darwin's supporters" is disingenuous.
and evolved from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms.
Actually, I don't believe that darwin even said this much, but it is a fairly logical extrusion from the ideas of multicellular evolution that Darwin did write about.
They believe that higher species like animals and men did not exist at the beginning of creation.
Again, there's no unified front of "they" here, but in general, yeah, I'd say that anyone who argues that life on earth has evolved over millions of years would probably agree that animals (including men) did not exist at whatever point you want to call the beginning of creation. I know I agree with this statement.
If originally there were no higher species, why do they exist now?
The theory of evolution (and science in general) doesn't do "why." It does "how." Why is left to philosophy and religion. Personally, I think it's much better that way.
Also, why do the lower species still exist?
They don't. Show me living trilobyte or dinosaur. Certainly, there are monkeys and apes around to today which superficially resemble the species that humans are thought to have evolved from, but to call them the same species would be a huge huge misunderstanding.
For example, at the present moment we see both the intellectual person and the foolish ass. Why do both these entities exist simultaneously? Why hasn't the ass form evolved upward and disappeared? Why do we never see a monkey giving birth to a human?
Various levels of intelligence in human beings are not different species. Maybe it makes a nice analogy, but just because the analogy fails here doesn't mean the real scientific theory has failed. Merely that the analogy of species->intelligence levels is maybe not so great.
You can directly transmigrate to any species of life you like, according to your efforts.
Again, I'd be much more willing to listen to this metaphysical statement if it was prefaced with "I believe" rather than stating it as if it's an established fact that's been universally observed and verified. I'm not saying it's not or can't be true, merely that it's yet to be proven.
Sometimes I travel to America, sometimes to Australia and sometimes to Africa. The countries already exist. I am simply traveling through them. It is not that because I have come to America, I have created or become America. And there are many countries I have not yet seen. Does that mean they do not exist?
Again, you're using the failure of an analogy to indicate that the original idea is flawed, when really the analogy just doesn't apply.
The Darwinists' theory that human life began in such and such an era is nonsense.
It could be wrong, I'll grant you that, but at least they provide evidence to back up their theory, and it's the most convincing explanation I've seen so far (I'm not much for faith when it comes to explaining the physical workings of the world. Metaphysics and sprituality are definitely another question for me.) So I'll believe it for the time being.
Your flat statement that it's nonsense doesn't really convey much in the way of humility or allowing that other people might believe differently. Which is surprising, really, because in most other types of discussions here (i.e. bolting arguments, other climbing stuff) you seem to allow that other people have their own opinions, and that just because they're different from yours, that doesn't necessarily mean they're flat out wrong.
Anyway, just my $.02. No offense intended, certainly.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Werner, evolution should not be viewed as some sort of process whereby "higher" (more complex) replace "lower" (less complex). Obviously, bacteria and mammals are able to coexist. It’s more of a process of niche filling. As the Earth changes, new niches become available, or old ones disappear. By chance, some species evolve and fill the new niches. Other species are able to exploit old niches without changing much, although as Forest points out, they do change. Still others are eventually able to exploit old niches that were previously unexploitable.
Keep in mind that more complex species do not necessarily do the same job better than simpler ones. “Higher” organisms exist because they are able to fill niches that other ones could not fill. Humans were able to wander large distances hunting and gathering. This is something that single cell bacteria, but then again, we can’t do what bacteria do.
|
|
climberweenie
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
re: observing speciation...
this one is a little tougher, because speciation requires a significant amount of genetic change, which can best be achieved in a relatively short number of generations through sexual reproduction (the combining of chromosomes from different individuals). this activity leads to much more varied genetic material that may be selected upon in a given environment (much more so than genetic drift in creatures with asexual reproduction). now the problem is most creatures that have short generation cycles amenable to experimentaion (i.e. to see a large number of generations to detect speciation), such as bacteria and yeast, do not have sexual reproduction. best bets for experimenting on creatures with sexual reproduction and relatively short generation cycles (not to mention we have exaustively catalogued their genome) are drosophil- fruit flies. then there are plants too....
Here's a link to observed speciation examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Climberweenie, thanks for your examples.
They nicely illustrate the general method used to promote speciation as having been observed: broadening the success criteria of an experiment until they have already been met.
Look carefully at the examples given, and note what is really being said about the observed differences between generations. For example:
"Morphology": this means that the children of the species look different to their parents. Is this in any way surprising to you?
"Altered chromosome count": this is what causes Down Syndrome and Turner Syndrome in humans. Do these serious conditions constitute "evolution"?
"Lack of reproductive compatibility": Nobody knows what causes reproductive compatibility. Even if we did, in what way would the inability to breed represent a constructive development for a species?
I'm not saying this disproves evolution. I am saying that this is very, very bad science. The simple fact is, as I said before, that nobody has ever observed a new organ or apparatus in subsequent generations of any animal, even with mutations speeded up by 10,000 times.
You don't need to know even the rudiments of genetics and biochemistry to know that children differ from their parents in numerous respects, indicating that changes occur in the transfer of DNA. But to twist this simple phenomenon to try to have it fit a gap in an already shaky theory is sloppy science and frankly just silly.
|
|
nature
climber
Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
blight, nice post. well thought out. arete, i see your point on the missing link but i'm not sure that's what blight meant. It is important, very important. But the problem is it gets overplayed as a problem to us scientists. Every time you find a missing link you create two more missing links. That's suppose to be a problem for us and thus is held over our heads as such by the creationists. I think that's why blight blows it off as not significant(?).
And yes, Jody is fully illogical and doesn't understand science.
anachronism warned ya'll in the second post.. now this one has hit 202. If that isn't full-on proof for lack of intelligent design...
Oh, and Forest, nicely done on addressing Werner's post. No offense Werner, but Forest did a pretty good job of addressing your questions - at least from my point of view.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!