Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 241 of 493 (493076)
01-05-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 8:32 PM


another reply
seekingfirstthekingdom:
See reply #9 HERE (click on this link)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 8:32 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 242 of 493 (493081)
01-05-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:15 PM


reply again
seekingfirstthekingdom:
See reply #10 HERE (click on this link)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:15 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 243 of 493 (493084)
01-05-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


intolerance?
seekingfirstthekingdom:
See reply #11 HERE (click on this link)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 244 of 493 (493088)
01-05-2009 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Modulous
01-05-2009 11:18 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
Hi Modulous,
thank you for your indepth reply... i did read it all btw.
Modulous writes:
The psychology is interesting and familiar to me - it is incredibly rare to find a person that denies evolution that also understands it ... It is rarer still to find someone who might admit that it is a teensy bit arrogant for someone who has spent zero years at university studying the subject to believe they have a grasp of the subject
this is very true and i appreciate the point your making here. I've never undertaken any science studies so i'm obviously not speaking from experience. But its certainly not arrogance that makes me disbelieve evolution.
if anything, arrogance is seen alive and well in evolution with such sayings as ”All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ This is a form of intimidation and mental bullying, almost being forced to believe it without questioning it even though the theory has changed and there are many different schools of thought.
From what your saying above, only people involved the the study of evolution can understand it. If thats the case then surely you must understand why anyone who doesnt study might doubt its validity, because how can they understand something they have not personally studied? Is it even reasonable to expect every person to study evolutionary science?
Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those of us who dont study, to simply accept the results of those who do study?
this is quite a dilemma, yes? lol
Modulous writes:
You can see it in action. Long and thoughtful posts that try and give as complete an answer as possible given the constraints of the medium are ignored or only partially responded to. Certain sentences are picked out and "Aha! Gotcha" replies are made. This is the hallmark of someone that doesn't want to challenge their own beliefs, someone who is committed to their ideas but won't take the time to explain them and expose them to criticism and they won't go into any details about why the extensive posts of others are wrong they'll just say silly things about how the theory of evolution postulates magic events and 'poofs' and avoid substantive scientific discussions all the while criticising the science of the subject.
im sure evolutionists are as committed to their ideas about the origin of life just as much as creationists are committed to their belief in a creator.
both are a matter of faith if you get to the nitty gritty of it. Evolution has not given an answer for the origin of the first living cell or how lifeless chemicals came alive or how genes shape the form of living things ....these are all a matter of faith in that "it must have happened" even though we cant replicate it, or observe it.
for someone like me, who has not studied evolution personally and who believes in a creator, this is a HUGE hurdle. On one hand evolution says that all living things in existence came from an original single celled organism or a primordial soup (???) ...or perhaps landed here in the form of bacteria on the back of a metorite... The odds are infinitesimally small that any of this could have happened.
I dont have to be a scientist to know that life only comes from pre existing life, and yet, if i dont believe in evolution, then im an arrogant uneducated fool.
Modulous writes:
if you are prepared to accept that lions are related to my pussing tat, you would have a hard time denying the smilodon is also related to her. From there you would have difficulty denying Machairodus is related to her. Why not the leopard cat? And if the leapard cat why not the civet cat and why not the mongoose? Once you've accepted that my little Niobe is related to the mongoose you'll find yourself being drawn to accept the relationship with the hyena and the you would have to concede hyenas and dogs. Eventually the whole carnivora has opened up.
Well you see this is where i dont have a problem with 'evolution'
as i said im willing to accept that within a particular species, there is a huge variety and its quite reasonable to accept that species have diverged or branched out through 'evolution' aka 'genetics'.
The problem i see in what you are saying is that, the feline at some stage is linked to the hyena... but is that really likely? What is the evidence for such a link?
Even Darwin expressed concern over gaps in the fossil record which failed to produce any transitional links.
Actually the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again.
Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species???
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 01-05-2009 11:18 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by DrJones*, posted 01-05-2009 11:04 PM Peg has replied
 Message 246 by subbie, posted 01-05-2009 11:11 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 248 by bluescat48, posted 01-05-2009 11:24 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 249 by Coyote, posted 01-05-2009 11:36 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 01-06-2009 1:57 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 253 by Parasomnium, posted 01-06-2009 8:10 AM Peg has replied
 Message 255 by Modulous, posted 01-06-2009 9:28 AM Peg has replied
 Message 256 by Huntard, posted 01-06-2009 9:30 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 257 by deerbreh, posted 01-06-2009 1:02 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2009 8:35 PM Peg has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 245 of 493 (493089)
01-05-2009 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peg
01-05-2009 10:51 PM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
On one hand evolution says that all living things in existence came from an original single celled organism or a primordial soup (???) ...or perhaps landed here in the form of bacteria on the back of a metorite...
False. The study of evolution does not involve how life came about, just about what happens afterwards
the feline at some stage is linked to the hyena... but is that really likely? What is the evidence for such a link?
DNA, fossils.
Even Darwin expressed concern over gaps in the fossil record which failed to produce any transitional links
So? You do realize that Darwin was 150 odd years ago don't you? Things have advanced since then, he is not the final word on the subject of evolution.
Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species???
All fossils are transitionals.
Edited by Admin, : Added "not" to first reply paragraph.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 10:51 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Peg, posted 01-06-2009 3:18 AM DrJones* has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 246 of 493 (493091)
01-05-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peg
01-05-2009 10:51 PM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
quote:
Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs...???
I can do better than that. I can show you living examples of animals with partially formed organs that function quite well.
Wiki has a fairly good description of animals with patially formed eyes.
Please, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that these animals prove that the human eye actually evolved this way. Given that the eye is soft tissue, fossil evidence of how it actually happened may be impossible to find. However, it does show how different stages in the evolution of the eye can confer a survival advantage before the eye is complete. This of course also puts to rest a well worn bit of cdesign proponentist nonsense; the argument that the eye is irreducibly complex, or that it could not have evolved because a partial eye wouldn't be of any use.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 10:51 PM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 247 of 493 (493093)
01-05-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


final reply to SFK on this thread
seekingfirstthekingdom:
See reply #12 HERE (click on this link)
This is my final reply to you on this thread. You should follow the links to these replies for a thread you can post on without raising the probability of further suspension/s.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 248 of 493 (493094)
01-05-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peg
01-05-2009 10:51 PM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
for someone like me, who has not studied evolution
That is where your problem is. Study evolution before you make wild comments about it.
as for cats & hyenas the families Felidae (cats), Hyaenidae (hyenas) together with the canidae (dogs), mustelidae (weasels), procyonidae (raccoons), Ursidae (bears) and several other families make up order Carnivora. All are related genetically. Their DNA is closely related, more so than to the DNA of other mammals.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 10:51 PM Peg has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 249 of 493 (493095)
01-05-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peg
01-05-2009 10:51 PM


Canards
Even Darwin expressed concern over gaps in the fossil record which failed to produce any transitional links.
That is one of the oldest, and most shopworn canards in the creationists' cupboard. And one of the most ludicrous.
Bringing up that argument is akin to condemning scientists of the same era for not knowing much about computers.
When Darwin published in 1859 there had been one major find in human evolution, and that was the Neanderthal skeleton from Germany--discovered in 1856! But as you would expect, it wasn't well understood at the time.
Of course Darwin couched his book in very cautions terms! What else could a scientist do?
But creationists see that passage on the internet and think its a smoking gun in their battle to destroy the theory of evolution. Not knowing much about the actual science of human evolution, they take that quote and run with it.
But paleontologists, geologists, and a host of other -ologists haven't been exactly sitting on their thumbs for the past 150 years, even though creationists probably wish they had. There are now a lot of fossils in the museum drawers and in the technical literature. They include a lot of transitionals. Scientists have even discovered some living species called ring species that show speciation with all of the intervening transitionals still alive and easily examined!
If you wanted you could actually find this information on the internet for yourself.
Actually the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again.
Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species???
Why would we look for partially formed organs or bones? That's not what the theory of evolution predicts! Each generation differs only slightly from the previous, as you differ slightly from your parents. But those little differences add up, and they add up much quicker when there is significant selection pressure.
By the way, the best way to look at selection pressure is not "survival of the fittest." That term was coined well after Darwin published in 1859. A better way to look at this would be "elimination of the least fit."
Skin color too light, and not well adapted to bright sunlight? UV rays will cause an increased level of skin cancers. In the far north, is the skin color too dark for the reduced levels of sunlight? Vitamin D deficiencies will cause a lot of problems. Both will lead to changes in the genome of the population over time as the least fit are eliminated and the more fit are the ones that reproduce.
Now extend these small changes over time -- over a large span of time. That is evolution, not the creationists' imaginary crocodiles giving birth to a chicken so some such.
You really should seek out some scientific literature. You are posting the oldest and most oft-refuted creationist nonsense, and those of us who have engaged in these debates for a while have seen the same discredited arguments dozens of times.
It is a credit to this website that folks have been as polite as they have.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 10:51 PM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 250 of 493 (493098)
01-05-2009 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Peg
01-05-2009 5:31 AM


hey peg,
but i asked if the foundation of the theory of evolution could be called a fact. I dont believe it can be, and yet according to the evolution theory, it magically happened...somehow.
The foundation of the theory of life is the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - and the process of speciation - the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations - in the living world around us.
It is founded in the process of life today.
The theory of evolution is that these two processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
This is then applied to the fossil record and the genetic record to test the theory and see if they validate or falsify it.
One of the predictions of the theory of evolution is that all life is related by common ancestry to some original pool of life, a population of organisms that may have been one "species" or several simple forms that may not even qualify as "life" beyond the ability to reproduce chemicals.
What the original form/s actually was is speculation, because the fossil record does not extend that far, and the evidence is most likely not something that could fossilize.
So no one has observed any mutations that have created a new species, ...
No, speciation has been observed many times, it is just that the daughter species are not remarkably different from the parent species, not what one would really say qualifies as a "new" life-form. That is really a change that accrues over time by the same processes of evolution and speciation.
So again, the theory is relying on an unproven, unobservable, unrepeatable phenomenon that apparently magically happens...i thought science was about evidence in the sense that it can be 'proven, observed & repeatable?
No theory is ever proven. All science looks for is validation -- that the theory holds up to testing and attempts to invalidate/falsify it.
The theory of evolution relies on the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, which is an observed fact.
The theory of evolution relies on the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations, which is an observed fact.
The theory of evolution is tested, in labs, in field studies, in the fossil record, in the genetic record, by every new fossil, by every new species genome derivation.
Not one piece of evidence has yet invalidated the theory.
But since that time no one, after 50 years of trying, have produced anything any more substantial then that.
Actually quite a number of people have created self-replicating molecules, something rather remarkable, and definitely much more substantial than making amino acids.
yet it magically happened and apparently the (unprovable) primordial soup was responsible for it.
Or meteors from space - a number of amino acids have been recovered from meteors.
But it is irrelevant to evolution HOW life originated.
What we have is a fossil of life some 3.5 billion years old, a simple cyanobacteria, and since then all we need is evolution and speciation to explain the diversity of life.
Evolution does not need a single common ancestor - that is what the fossil record implies.
can anyone see why many people do not believe in evolution? However, if you are interpreting 'evolution' to mean gradual changes in a species to provide a great variety within that species, then i can agree with it, because genes do create great variety
That is what evolution says.
Couple that with speciation - the division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations - and you then have two species that go on to develop "a great variety within that species" ... each one differently from the other
... and when those species also undergo speciation, then you have four species that go on to develop "a great variety within that species" ... each one differently from the other
then 8, 16, 32, 64 ... etc. it does not take long to generate quite a number of different species all with "a great variety within that species" ... in fact, there is nothing to stop it from covering the earth with multitudes of life forms, all with "a great variety within that species" and all quite different from each other.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 5:31 AM Peg has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 251 of 493 (493101)
01-06-2009 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peg
01-05-2009 10:51 PM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
quote:
this is very true and i appreciate the point your making here. I've never undertaken any science studies so i'm obviously not speaking from experience. But its certainly not arrogance that makes me disbelieve evolution.
It looks like arrogance from here. If you don't know what you are taking about and can't be bothered to find out what could lead you to so confidently reject evolution ?
quote:
if anything, arrogance is seen alive and well in evolution with such sayings as ”All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ This is a form of intimidation and mental bullying, almost being forced to believe it without questioning it even though the theory has changed and there are many different schools of thought.
Setting aside your exaggeration, why is telling the truth an example of arrogance ? The vast majority of people who are actually familiar with the evidence do accept it.
Surely it is arrogance for those who do NOT know what they are talking about to put forward their uninformed opinions as facts, not for those who DO know the facts to put those forward.
quote:
From what your saying above, only people involved the the study of evolution can understand it. If thats the case then surely you must understand why anyone who doesnt study might doubt its validity, because how can they understand something they have not personally studied? Is it even reasonable to expect every person to study evolutionary science?
Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those of us who dont study, to simply accept the results of those who do study?
this is quite a dilemma, yes? lol
There's no dilemma for anyone who cares about the truth. The only rational course is to accept that the experts have it mostly right or educate yourself to the point where you have an adequate expertise.
quote:
im sure evolutionists are as committed to their ideas about the origin of life just as much as creationists are committed to their belief in a creator.
You're wrong. Some may favour a pet theory or hypothesis but a good many of us are not committed to any one.
quote:
both are a matter of faith if you get to the nitty gritty of it. Evolution has not given an answer for the origin of the first living cell or how lifeless chemicals came alive or how genes shape the form of living things ....these are all a matter of faith in that "it must have happened" even though we cant replicate it, or observe it.
The origin of the first life isn't even part of evolutionary theory - and the fact that we haven't worked it out yet isn't any sort of problem for evolution as such. ANd we do have some pretty good ideas about how "genes shape the forms of living things" - not a complete understanding but a good deal of knowledge which is growing through active research (see developmental biology).
quote:
The problem i see in what you are saying is that, the feline at some stage is linked to the hyena... but is that really likely? What is the evidence for such a link?
Yes, it is. The basic evidence is there from taxonomy and the fossil record.
quote:
Even Darwin expressed concern over gaps in the fossil record which failed to produce any transitional links.
That's not true. Transitional fossils wee found in Darwin's time and more have been found and continue to be found.
quote:
Actually the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again.
Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species???
Transitions to new species are rare (and there are reasons for that) - but then you've already said that you accept those and see no problem with it. The rest is asking for evidence AGAINST evolutionary theory. Want to explain why anybody who knows what they are talking about would do that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 10:51 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 252 of 493 (493106)
01-06-2009 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by DrJones*
01-05-2009 11:04 PM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
saying that all fossils are transitional doesnt cut it
saying that evidence that a feline and a hyena can be linked via 'DNA & Fossils' doesnt cut it either
evidence, proof...links...pictures...research notes etc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by DrJones*, posted 01-05-2009 11:04 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 01-06-2009 8:43 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 259 by Modulous, posted 01-06-2009 2:10 PM Peg has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 253 of 493 (493118)
01-06-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peg
01-05-2009 10:51 PM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
Peg writes:
If thats the case [that only people involved in the study of evolution can understand it] then surely you must understand why anyone who doesnt study might doubt its validity, because how can they understand something they have not personally studied?
I suppose you haven't studied medicine, Peg, so I ask you: do you doubt what your doctor prescribes for you when you are ill? Or, another example, do you doubt that computers can actually work because you don't understand, much less haven't studied, quantum physics? Assuming your answer to both questions is 'no', why would you make an exception for evolution? Is it perhaps because, in your perception, evolution conflicts with your religion, and medicine and quantum physics do not?
Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those of us who dont study, to simply accept the results of those who do study?
For goodness' sake, why not? Isn't that the whole point of studying, to increase your knowledge about a subject? It couldn't be simpler: someone who has studied something knows more about it than someone who hasn't. So, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to expect those of us who don't study, to simply accept the results of those who do study.
On one hand evolution says that all living things in existence came from an original single celled organism or a primordial soup (???) ...or perhaps landed here in the form of bacteria on the back of a metorite... The odds are infinitesimally small that any of this could have happened.
Even if this simplified version of evolution were accurate, then how do you know what the odds are? Could you elaborate on the precise calculations of the odds involved?
I dont have to be a scientist to know that life only comes from pre existing life [...]
It depends on how you define life, of course. If you define life as something that can replicate, then some complex molecules qualify. If the replication is not perfect, and if resources are limited, then evolution is inevitable, even at this molecular level.
Now, what happens to such molecules is just chemistry and physics. A cell is very much more complex than those single molecules, but ultimately, what's going on in a cell is still only chemistry and physics. And if that's the case, then, given that evolution can take place even at the molecular level, it's possible for life to come from non-life, wherever you draw the line between them.
[...] the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again.
That's only to be expected. Because the fossil record is necessarily incomplete, we are bound to find 'sudden' appearances of species. It's as if you have pictures of someone as a child and as an adult, but not as an early teen or an adolescent. Has the child 'suddenly' turned into an adult? The picture record seems to say so. But then you realise that you are missing a lot of intermediate stages.
That each and every species in the fossil record is 'fully formed and complete' is no surprise either, because every species is very well adapted to its own niche in space and time, or it wouldn't have evolved like that in the first place.
Compare evolution with the development of automobiles in the course of time: at every stage in automobile history each new model was state of the art. In the nineteen twenties, nobody said of a car that it was half formed or incomplete. Only with the conceit of hindsight could you now say that those cars, without AC, airbags or ABS, were half formed and incomplete in comparison with modern cars. Who is to say that our cars aren't hopelessly inadequate compared to future cars?
Likewise, you cannot say of any species, extinct or extant, that it is half formed and incomplete. Nor can you say that humans are more modern - more 'fully formed and complete' - than chimpanzees, because both species have enjoyed an equal amount of evolutionary time since their common ancestor lived. It's just that chimps have evolved to survive in the African rain forest, and humans on the African savanna (and later, by way of culture, everywhere).
Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species???
You might take a look at the evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles. In brief, it appears from the fossil record that three bones that fulfilled a function in the jaws of early reptiles have evolved into the three small bones in the middle ear of their mammalian descendants, where they now have a function quite different from the original.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 10:51 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Peg, posted 01-07-2009 6:05 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 254 of 493 (493121)
01-06-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Peg
01-06-2009 3:18 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
Peg writes:
saying that all fossils are transitional doesnt cut it
Actually, given that you think "transitional" means partially formed, it's probably the most important point for you to grasp.
Because almost all reproduction is imperfect, offspring are different from their parents (or parent in the case of asexual reproduction). For example, your parents are the transitional forms between their parents (your grandparents) and you. Every organism on the planet is transitional. You're transitional between your great great great grandfather and your great great great granddaughter in the future.
You mentioned expecting to see partially formed limbs in an earlier message, but that's not how evolution works. Your implicit point is that creatures with partially formed limbs are extremely unlikely to survive, and that evolution must be wrong if it predicts such a thing.
But evolution predicts no such thing. In fact, it predicts the exact opposite. Any mutation that somehow leaves a creature with partially formed limbs will likely be very quickly removed from the gene pool because the creature won't survive to reproduce. Evolution says no to partially formed limbs. All species are always both transitional *and* fully formed.
Did you get that, because it's an important point about transitionals and being fully formed. All species are transitional. All species lie between the predecessor species that they descended from and the successor species that they're evolving into. For the sake of this discussion we can consider reproductive boundaries as the separator between species, and once a species has evolved to the point where it has a low reproductive success rate with the original species then it would be considered a new species.
And all species are always fully formed. There can not ever be any such such thing as a partially formed species. Whatever a species characteristics are (internally and externally), those are its fully formed characteristics. You won't find a partially formed species alive today, and you won't find one in the fossil record. There's no such thing.
Once you're able to accept that all species are both transitional and fully formed it will be easier to grasp the significance that it is gradual change over time that is the driving force behind evolution. All reproduction is imperfect, so change is inevitable, and an individual's genes are an indelible record of the current state of the process of genetic change that has passed through all his ancestors. Since the number of mutations is generally very small, the differences between parent and offspring are also very small.
But they accumulate - these changes, these mutations, never go away. There's no limit to how many can accumulate through the generations. Any mutations you inherited from your parents will be passed to your children, and any mutations associated with the process of sperm and egg prodcution as well as the combination of sperm and egg to create your children will be part of your descendant's genes for ever and ever. Or until another mutation alters or deletes them.
Because these changes happen in very tiny increments, no creature ever gives birth to another creature with partially formed limbs (ignoring birth defects and major genetic accidents). A creature might have offspring with very slightly longer limbs, or very slightly shorter limbs, or very slightly stockier limbs, or very slightly more slender limbs, but it will never give birth to offspring significantly different from itself.
Natural selection operates on these tiny changes. For example, slightly longer limbs might provide a survival advantage by allowing the creature to reach higher into trees and bushes for nuts and berries, and so creatures with slightly longer limbs would be more likely to survive to produce offspring that share this characteristic for lightly longer limbs, and gradually the trait would spread throughout the population.
Or natural selection could work in the opposite direction. Slightly longer limbs might make it more difficult for the slightly larger creature to hide from predators, and so it would be less likely to survive to produce offspring, and the gene for slightly longer limbs would tend not to propagate throughout the population.
saying that evidence that a feline and a hyena can be linked via 'DNA & Fossils' doesnt cut it either
evidence, proof...links...pictures...research notes etc
This is puzzling for you to say. We know about genetic relationships through evidence, research, notes, etc. Do you mean you wish to see the raw research data yourself?
By the way, about proof, I think we're probably as tired of saying this as you are of hearing it: there's no such thing as proof in science. Theories become accepted, not proven, as a growing and persuasive body of evidence forms. Theories are tentative and can always change in light of new evidence or improved insight. You couldn't change a theory that's been proven, now, could you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Peg, posted 01-06-2009 3:18 AM Peg has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 255 of 493 (493128)
01-06-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peg
01-05-2009 10:51 PM


arrogance and ignorance
But its certainly not arrogance that makes me disbelieve evolution.
Apologies, I was not suggesting that arrogance makes one disbelieve. The arrogance is often a bedfellow of the disbelief (not universal of course), which arises when the disbeliever encounters expert opinion and believes that the model of evolution they have come to disbelieve is a more accurate understanding of the science than that which the expert is trying to explain. For example:
Disbeliever: Evolution says that the eye formed by accident through pure randomness. What are the chances of that happening in reality?
Expert: That is not what the science says at all. The science says...
Disbeliever: OK, but the chances of the eye randomly forming is really low.
if anything, arrogance is seen alive and well in evolution with such sayings as ”All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ This is a form of intimidation and mental bullying, almost being forced to believe it without questioning it even though the theory has changed and there are many different schools of thought.
I've not seen such sayings. I have seen facts such as "over 99% of all living biologists accept both the fact and the theory of evolution.'. And Dawkins' famous "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." He later said about that statement:
quote:
Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.
By far the largest of the four categories is 'ignorant', and ignorance is no crime (nor is it bliss ? I forget who it was said, "If ignorance is bliss, how come there's so much misery about?"). Anybody who thinks Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer has to be ignorant, stupid or insane (probably ignorant), and you wouldn't think me arrogant for saying so. Nor is it intolerant to remark that flat-earthers are ignorant, stupid or (probably) insane. It's just true. The difference is that not many people think Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer, or that the earth is flat, so it isn't worth calling attention to them. But, if polls are to be believed, 100 million US citizens believe that humans and dinosaurs were created within the same week as each other, less than ten thousand years ago. This is more serious. People like this have the vote, and we have George W Bush (with a little help from his friends in the Supreme Court) to prove it. They dominate school boards in some States. Their views flatly contradict the great corpus of the sciences, not just biology but physics, geology, astronomy and many others. It is, of course, entirely legitimate to question conventional wisdom in fields which you have bothered to mug up first. That is what Einstein did, and Galileo, and Darwin. But our hundred million are another matter. They are contradicting ? influentially and powerfully ? vast fields of learning in which their own knowledge and reading is indistinguishable from zero. My 'arrogant and intolerant' statement turns out to be nothing but simple truth.
Not only is ignorance no crime. It is also, fortunately, remediable.
The full article can be read here
From what your saying above, only people involved the the study of evolution can understand it.
Understand it fully. The more I learn about evolutionary biology, the more I realize I have yet to learn about biology before I am in a position to judge the validity of any given science paper.
If thats the case then surely you must understand why anyone who doesnt study might doubt its validity, because how can they understand something they have not personally studied? Is it even reasonable to expect every person to study evolutionary science?
It is not reasonable to expect every person to study evolutionary science, nor is it reasonable to expect every person to study Urology. However, if you are going to decide that you are going to proclaim that prostate cancer doesn't exist - you'd better have studied the subject of urology or oncology or you are going to be charged with not being educated or being ignorant.
If you proclaim the earth is flat and you have no experience in geology you are going to get a similar response. If you proclaim that AIDS doesn't exist or that HIV does not cause it and you have not studied aetiology, virology, or similar you had better expect people to regard you as not educated enough or simply too ignorant of the facts to make such statements with any authority.
If, on the other hand, you do have the requisite qualifications, and you still deny the phenomenon then you might be a maverick scientist. You might be a deluded or simply mistaken one. Or, if you are making money off the denial (selling books to those who are uneducated, being an expert witness, doing public speeches/debates, having a column, appearing on television shows etc etc.) - one might consider you as being wicked. That is - you are making money off the fact that some people are ignorant of the subject (and we all are ignorant of many subjects) and also have some psychological desire for the phenomenon not to exist.
Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those of us who dont study, to simply accept the results of those who do study?
Yes - it is simply necessary. You can retain some scepticism of course but you trust your electrician to wire your house even if you haven't studied the subject - it is a pragmatic necessity. Likewise you trust the mechanic that fixes your car's brakes and the person that tests their work.
However, if you are going to criticise the electrician's work - you can understand him calling you ignorant,uneducated or deluded when he discovers that you have only read one book on electrical engineering and that was written by some person who believes that grounding is a tool of evil djinn.
If you are sceptical of the person's work, your only recourse is to get a second opinion from another qualified electrician. You can do this as often as you like until you are satisfied. When hundreds of thousands of electrician's have confirmed the work is safe and sound, what would you think of the person with zero training that still denies that the work is good based off the ravings of one guy who is making money by selling books that doubt the veracity of fundamental principles of the safe electrical wiring of a domestic property?
im sure evolutionists are as committed to their ideas about the origin of life just as much as creationists are committed to their belief in a creator.
How can someone be as committed to something they admit they know little about compared with a person who has Faith? For the sake of discussion about evolution I am perfectly happy to assume that YHWH, aliens, humans from the future with time travel technology, ghosts, djinn, domovoi, Marduk created early life.
I rarely see such acceptance of opposing assumptions from creationists. I am merely committed to following the evidence wherever it leads. The most likely origin of life, given the current track record of supernatural explanations, is a natural one. There are some astonishing and promising ideas on how this might have happened being worked on and I do have confidence that some of these ideas will bare fruit and some will be dead ends and maybe new ones will be born. The people coming up with and testing these ideas and their peers are in a much better position than I to deduce their chances of them discovering ways that life can originate without intervention from a divine/alien/futuristic hand in the same way a certified electrical engineer is much more qualified to know if my house is wired safely than a non-electrician.
both are a matter of faith if you get to the nitty gritty of it.
Not at all. One is based on years of study of how biochemistry works. The other is based on the conflicting and evolving ideas of several bronze aged tribes that merged into one (whilst simultaneously and arbitrarily denying the ideas of other contemporary civilizations and tribes).
Would you trust the religious ideas of the ancient Egyptians or the Babylonians to deduce if your house has been wired safely over the opinion of a qualified electrician? Would you say that they are both equally a matter of faith?
Granted - we could get absurdly philosophical about the issue, and lose sight of reality in the process. But in pragmatic reality? Not a chance.
Evolution has not given an answer for the origin of the first living cell or how lifeless chemicals came alive or how genes shape the form of living things ....these are all a matter of faith in that "it must have happened" even though we cant replicate it, or observe it.
Evolution, as explained exhaustively, is the observed process that populations of living things phenotypically and genetically change over time. It is an observation - it doesn't give answers. That is like saying gravity has not given an answer for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Facts don't give answers, they just are.
As I stated earlier, historical events cannot be replicated. And yet we believe that the battle of Hastings happened a little under one thousand years ago. Why? Because the evidence strongly implies that it did. You might not know what the evidence is - but you know that qualified experts (historians of the Britons for example), proclaim that it did and that they wouldn't do so unless there was evidence for that proclamation.
Likewise, you might not know what the evidence is, but biochemists and biologists and historians of nature (paleontologists, natural historians etc), are all confident that life has changed over time growing more simple as time goes backwards. They have uncovered no evidence of miraculous events springing life fully formed into existence (as in humans and oxen simply appearing with no predecessors) and that our experience exploring this world has demonstrated that if no evidence of supernatural intervention is discovered (disease, storms, floods, harvest etc etc) it is usually because the process behind it is just a complex, difficult to understand natural one that simply requires study, experimentation and the like to really get to grips with.
Unless life has existed for an infinite amount of time, it must have had an origin. Some people are trying to figure that out, and they do so by testing, experimenting, hypothesising, learning, studying and so on. Others do it by looking for evidence left over from the time (much like a police officer or archaeologist or fire investigator might), and trying to extract what information they can there so they can pass it on to the people back at the labs who try to use that information to deduce possible ways things might have happened.
Faith, is a different ball game entirely. It does not demand evidence, testing, experimentation, hypothesising etc etc. It simply demands you believe.
for someone like me, who has not studied evolution personally and who believes in a creator, this is a HUGE hurdle. On one hand evolution says that all living things in existence came from an original single celled organism or a primordial soup (???) ...or perhaps landed here in the form of bacteria on the back of a metorite... The odds are infinitesimally small that any of this could have happened.
Not being a biochemist, or an astrophysicist, or a xenobiologist I am at a loss as to how you calculated the relative probabilities of a divine creator versus the as yet unknown biochemical processes required for life to form.
I know you haven't done the calculation. Doesn't this bother you at all that you believe your gut feelings about such an insanely difficult topic might be accurate? If your gut feeling is that that odds are that your house will burn down because of the work of the electrician that has been verified by ten thousand other electricians...would you not consider the possibility that your gut calculations of probability might be a load of crap? I certainly would, it would be arrogant to do otherwise wouldn't you agree?
I dont have to be a scientist to know that life only comes from pre existing life, and yet, if i dont believe in evolution, then im an arrogant uneducated fool.
So how do you know that then? You know that life does come from life but what process did you use to conclude that life cannot come from non life? Allow me to stress this again. It is vitally important for you to discuss the subject with any understanding. The origin of life is not evolution. Evolution is about how life evolves, not originates.
Evolution is akin to how the still images on film can produce moving pictures and the origin of life is the manufacturing process of the physical film itself. They are related topics, but they are critically different.
You can believe that the origin of life was divine and still accept that evolution happened, and also accept that the theory of evolution explains at least partially, how it happened. Indeed this is so important it needs repeating. In bold. You can believe that the origin of life was divine and still accept that evolution happened, and also accept that the theory of evolution explains at least partially, how it happened.
If you deny evolution has happened then yes, you are probably ignorant. It is likely you are not only ignorant but that there is arrogance here because you are admitting your ignorance (I may not know the science but...kind of language you are using) and suggesting that you know better than those that do know the science. You are suggesting that your personal calculations of the way things work must trump the centuries of calculations and work by countless dedicated and qualified experts. You are little different than the electrician-denying ignoramus in the example I have been using - in this regard anyway.
You don't have to accept evolution. You don't have to accept the naturalistic origin of life. But when you suggest that your conclusions are superior to those of the relevant experts in the field whilst also admitting your lack of knowledge and expertise...that is arrogant. Be it biology, electrical engineering, history, auto mechanics, urology, computer science, brain surgery, nuclear physics, rocket engineering or whatever.
The problem i see in what you are saying is that, the feline at some stage is linked to the hyena... but is that really likely? What is the evidence for such a link?
Genetics and bone structure, and paleontological. You skipped a great deal though, so let's take it one step at a time.
You have accepted that members of what biolgists call a 'family' can be literally related. Lions and domestic cats, lynxes, cheetahs etc. Not explicitly but you seem to be accepting it so I'll assume you have.
Great. First of all: Rather than just relying on gut instinct - what is the scientific evidence that these are related - why do we call them the felidae? Why is a lion a member of this family but a hyena is not?
Please answer this question - its vital to proceeding with the discussion.
Once you have done that go back to my Message 234 and consider the Smilodon and the Machairodus. After that would you please answer this one:
Is the Genet related to the Cat?
And most importantly, why, or why not?
Even Darwin expressed concern over gaps in the fossil record which failed to produce any transitional links.
Darwin was born 200 years ago, before evolution was an accepted fact. Before it was a profession to go looking for these things the way people do now. Your 'even' is massively misplaced. You'd have been better served mentioning Gould or someone of that nature.
Actually the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again.
Yes - that is because a non-fully formed species cannot exist since an organism that is not fully formed is almost universally dead. Transitional fossils, which do exist, in abudance, are fully formed species in their own rights.
Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species???
No - unless you want fossil evidence of embryos which have partly formed bones - in which case I probably can. However, I can show you a transition of bone structures from one state of affairs to another.
here
here
here
And well, there are others. However - don't be fooled into thinking that fossils represent the best or even the only evidence of evolution. The fossils are useful as factual observations - but there is much better evidence (that can be lined up with the fossils and found to be almost exactly confirmed by them - multiple lines of evidence converging on one conclusion is exceptionally powerful, yes?)

Incidentally, my thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I hope we can have a constructive and interesting dialogue. I am not trying to belittle you or anyone with my comments of arrogance and ignorance. I am ignorant of many things and I almost certainly arrogantly believe I know more about certain things than I really do - to the point of criticising experts in the field. It is natural but a still a bad habit - thankfully it is an easy one to break as long as one can realize it is happening and is willing to swallow pride from time to time.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 10:51 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Peg, posted 01-16-2009 8:12 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024