TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Just to reply specifically to your comment: A black widow is a spider, yes? A tarantula is a spider, yes? If they are both spiders, are they different species?Sure two different species of mosquitoes are still mosquitoes. The point is that speciation has occurred. A mosquito population isn't going to speciate into a population of bears or alligators. A mosquito population of one species will eventually become another species of mosquitoes given time and isolation and that's what was shown. You asking whether or not it is still a mosquito is either disingenuous on your part because you are unwilling to consider the evidence or lack of understanding because you are ignorant of what a species is.If you disagree with the evidence provided, discuss the merits of the evidence. Asking a question like that does nothing for the debate.Hint: You could ask questions like -
1) How do we know it isn't a previously unidentified species of mosquitoes that moved into the London Underground?
2) In what ways is it a new species and not a variation of the original species?Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Of course that's what this thread is about. The problem is your definition of species is far different than what is the generally accepted definition of species. You define species as a larger group.One way of backing evolution is by showing an example of speciation. But it's impossible to show you any speciation. It doesn't matter if a subset of mosquitoes are unable to mate with another subset of mosquitoes. In your mind both are the same species. The only evidence you would accept is a mosquito population changing into flies. If I showed you a bacteria culture that came from another culture but changed into bacteria with different traits from the parent, you would probably argue that they were both bacteria and so are the same species.The only way I could even attempt to show you the effects of evolution would be if you and I lived through millions of years of natural history and watched a population change.What this tells me is that you are unwilling to listen to consider the arguments for evolution. You've already decided that evolution is wrong and so have set the bar impossibly high. No amount of evidence short of you physically seeing a process which takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to witness will convince you.

I agree with Coyote that this fight against evolution seems indicative of a larger struggle between reason and logic against stringent belief and ignorance. Allowing the creationists to win would just be the first step in setting up more theocratic society predicated on beliefs in the supernatural. Science will suffer as a result, as it suffered when the Catholic Church was in charge of Europe for all those centuries.But don't worry.As an expat living in China, I don't hear any debate here about evolution. People accept it as true because it is good science. There are no creationists arguing for a 10000 year old Earth, or people arguing that a worldwide flood occurred. Religion is essentially nonexistent here. There is no doubt.As creationists gain ground, scientists will flock to where their ideas are accepted, where they don't have to debate science against religion. And China will be more than happy to accept them, especially if it means achieving an edge in the applied sciences.Some day in the future, we will all be bowing to our Chinese overlords. They will come forth with mighty weapons, like PPCs, defensive abilties like force shields, and advanced energy technology like cold fusion.And no amount of praying to God by people like Peg will save them.

Dr. Chittick is a Physical Chemist. He deals with chemicals. He is not a biologist. There is a difference. One scientist is not just as good as another scientist.To put it another way, if you had a Porsche, would you go to a mechanic who works on Toyotas or would you go to a mechanic who works on Porches? In this day and age, you often need a mechanic trained to fix a specific make of car. You can't just go to some random mechanic. One mechanic is not just as good as another mechanic. The same principle applies to scientists.Understand?

Then you don't get it. It doesn't really matter what his PhD is in. The PhD just indicates what he spent the majority of his earlier life studying. What matters is how he spent his time after. From your bio of him, he spent his time focusing on Chemistry. What you need to show is that he spent a good amount of time studying Biology.A mechanic who learned how to fix Toyotas but dedicated himself to fixing Porches for years after is probably just as good as a mechanic who went to school learning how to fix Porches and made a career of it.In the same way, someone who gets a degree in one field can still be an expert in another field if it can be shown that that person spent years dedicated to learning everything there is to know.You must prove that your Doctor in Chemistry spent years dedicating himself to the study of biology and evolutionary biology in particular. Otherwise all your bio does is suggest that one scientist is just as good as another when debating evolution.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

And that's great for you. Pope John Paul II said that evolution is not contrary to the Bible. This was a guy, I suppose, who probably knew the Bible very well.When a scientist waxes about a field that is not within their expertise, then you are certainly within your rights to discount their words. But when a scientist talks about things within their field of expertise, then you should give their words credence.Otherwise, you are what you say other people are.

Then why are you here? Your ideas are set in stone. You will not consider any evidence, even if it were set in front of your eyes because it contradicts the Bible. If the Bible said Paris does not exist, you would believe Paris doesn't exist even if I took you there.You don't doubt the Theory of Evolution. You flat out don't believe it and you are unwilling to consider anything else.You know, many Jews during the time of Jesus' life didn't believe in Jesus or his teachings either. They mocked him and said his teachings went against the holy book. Were they wrong?If they can be wrong, couldn't you be wrong?

And what is this "true science" you're talking about? The Bible says the Earth is on 4 pillars. Is the Earth really on 4 pillars, and by extension, flat? The Bible says the Earth is immovable. Does that mean the Earth does not orbit the Sun? The Bible says the Earth is 5000-10000 years old. Does that mean the evidence of an older Earth that we find around us is false?Your basis for not considering evolution is based on a book whose veracity is still unknown and is often contradictory. I don't know what kind of evidence could have been placed before you to even consider the Bible as the source of scientific knowledge.

Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a science. Science is the ever continuing search for knowledge of the natural world. Science does not set anything in stone - nothing is just because someone said so. If a better idea comes along, scientists are more than willing to consider it as long as the observations fit the new idea and the new idea came explain the natural world in ways that are testable.Evolution explains the natural world around us. It explains why there are many variations of "kinds," the term creationists seem fond of tossing around. It explains how life went from basic organic chemicals to the complex organisms you have on this planet today. It explains the variations we see in the fossil record of extinct species and how they fit in the grand symphony of life. It shows the order behind the chaos. In other words, it enables us, lowly mortals that we are, to glimpse at a portion of the total wonder of the Universe and creation. But the best thing about evolution is that you can test it. You can look at the evidence and see if the evidence supports evolution as long as you look at the evidence objectively. And if you have an idea that objectively explains the evidence better than evolution does and is testable, then scientists will consider that new idea too.That's why evolution is a science.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

All science is about interpreting the evidence and seeing which interpretation best fits the world around us. It involves forming hypotheses, making observations and experimenting, and continually trying to falsify theories and hypotheses.That's why evolution is a science. It isn't a belief simply because scientists are willing to consider new data and how the Theory of Evolution interprets the new data. That's why there's a lot discourse within the scientific community about evolution - each scientist works with the data in order to determine how well the Theory of Evolution explains the data. If it turns out the Theory is ill-equipped to explain the data, then either an update of the Theory is required or a completely new theory better than evolution needs to be formed.For instance, if tomorrow a fossil of a human skeleton with wings was found and determined to be genuine, scientists would not dismiss it out of hand. Biologists would work to determine how to interpret that new data and may even conclude that the Theory of Evolution, as it currently is, is inadequate to explain such a find, or even that evolution would need to be scrapped.But creationists don't do that. It doesn't matter what the observational evidence shows, if the evidence violates Scripture, the evidence must be wrong. There is no discussion - Scripture is the final word. And disallowing discussion or not considering new ideas because it violates Scripture is not scientific at all. I would except this is a thread about evolution, not about what is or isn't on the moon.

It is in part due to Chinese Communism, but I think a large part is the more practical view people in China hold about life. While the Chinese do hold and celebrate spiritual beliefs, they are able to separate those beliefs from reality.Also, Chinese history up until recently has been tied up with imperialism. Remembering that foreigners used to control large swathes of Chinese territory, the Chinese government has dedicated itself to becoming a world power. This means forgoing ridiculous notions that do little to protect China from outside influence. That also means shielding the Chinese from outside influences, like Christianity. In fact, Christmas is not a recognized holiday (although the commercial side is celebrated), and because the government dislikes the inclusion of Christmas into the fabric of the lives of the citizen, the government has recently taken steps to ensure more traditional holidays are celebrated while Western holidays are shunned.The government here recognizes that technology has been the key to dominance. Just like the Europeans ruled the world with their guns, the Chinese seek to advance their technology to a level that is at least on par with the Western states. But I am positive that the Chinese government wouldn't mind achieving dominance in technology. That means funding for the applied sciences that provide technological advancement and funding for the sciences that drive the applied sciences forward.That's why many analysts say that China's recent announcement to develop their ET is indicative of their current change of policy. Through manufacturing, they have grown their economy to become the second largest exporter and third or second largest economy. But the Chinese government recognizes that future economic growth will be through ET, and so the government is shifting their focus into developing those technologies. It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not, they do it because it makes economic sense and because it makes them more energy independent. Very practical, don't you agree?

Haha, quite possibly. I've always liked PPCs even though it gives off a lot of heat; however, I can see many arguments for why the Gauss Rifle might be better. It's just PPCs don't need ammo.

As far as I know about evolution, nothing "enables" natural selection. It's a process, not a lightbulb. The genes mutate or not, and the environment determines whether those mutations benefit the organism, are survival neutral, or deleterious to the survival of the organism. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. Get it? Once again, it is a process. There are no goals or targets - Natural Selection will not dream of starring on Broadway no matter how much you anthropomorphize it.If members of a population have a gene that is deleterious to its survival in its current environment, then under the process of natural selection, those members would reproduce less and generations later the gene would be expressed in less individuals of the total population. If member of a population have a gene that is beneficial to its survival in its current environment, then under the process of natural selection, those member would reproduce more and generations later the gene would be expressed in more individuals of the total population.There is no deterioration of the gene. The gene just changes, that is all. And seemingly deleterious mutations can actually improve survivability in certain environments. And a changing environment can make previously beneficial mutations, deleterious ones. The process is nowhere near what you have described it as. So all your probability calculations cannot apply here. You have attached characteristics that are not accepted by biologists as part of the definition of natural selection.In short, you are wrong.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

In addition, evolution is not a one shot deal. An organism doesn't evolve wings overnight. That would probably be a case for creationism.Evolution is gradual, happening over time. It is the accumulation of mutation after mutation within a population much like a stalactite accumulates mineral deposits from dripping water. The aggregate sum of all those mutations are what eventually differentiates the daughter species from the mother species. But this happens during a relatively long time, and you wouldn't notice it while it was happening. What you could see are the endpoints, that is, you could see differences between the mother species and daughter species, but not the transitionals between would be less clear.

I don't why you are using Kimura to support your contention that Evolution should be doubted. Kimura said of his theory that

quote:

---

"The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution" (Kimura, 1986)

---

Interestingly enough, apparently Kimura believes in evolution. He just proposed a new mechanism for it. He also said that his theory doesn't deny natural selection, it's just that there is a larger role for genetic drift.So why are you using a mechanism for evolution to bring doubt to evolution?Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.