------------------
-tr0n

Have a nice day!

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.go.to/personguy >

Personally I find it takes as much or more faith to believe in Evolution as it does to believe in a Supreme Being.

I prefer not to assume either when it comes to discussing things from a purely scientific point of view, but personally I believe we are created beings. From what I have seen and heard in life, and some of what I learned in school, it would seem that as far as we can see, the universe is becoming disordered from a previous state of higher order, and I find it hard to believe that there isn't an intelligence behind this order. It has been my experience that order doesn't spontaneously come out of nothing. And for all I know, a Creator could have made the universe billions of years ago and allowed it to evolve according to a set of rules to see what would come of it. Or (S)He could have used His/Her almighty powers and made the universe in such a way as to make it seem like it is billions of years old and that we evolved from apes. It's all within the realm of possibility.

I have a problem with people that assume that scientific theories are facts, and that what we currently believe that we know is the sum of all things in the universe, or that everything must be bound by the same laws that we seem to be bound by. After all, it was a known fact in the past that the sun revolved around a flat earth, and that the atom could not be split. It was also known that the stars were little holes in the curtain of night that let sunlight through. That was all based on what was currently observable using the technologies at the time.

What it comes down to is that we really just don't know, and probably won't for a long time yet.

It is an interesting thing that almost no theory or law in science can be proven beyond all doubt to be true, but many can be and have been proven to be false. Good theories have lasted for years or centuries without any evidence to the contrary, but all it takes is one shred of evidence that disagrees with the theory, and it must be reevaluated. The problem is that a lot of people in their effort to deny the existence of the supernatural cling to every shred of evidence that might seem to support their precious theory, and ignore anything that throws doubt on it.

Thanks for listening to my Ũ.02

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Billions and billions of years? Not quite so long a period. It's generally agreed among the scientific community that life began on a time frame of 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

At any rate, I personally believe that we're the product of evolution. Naturally there's no way for me to disprove that a higher being is responsible for it all, nor is there any way for a creationist to prove the converse. And the unfalsifiability of creationism is what causes me to reject it as unscientific (Note: the falsifiability of scientific theories is a strength, not a weakness).

I don't think creationism should be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. I think that religion has its place, but that place isn't as an explanation for the physical world. I think that the religious sphere complements science (i.e. science has nothing to say about the realm of the spiritual, the emotional, or the ethical), and should act in this capacity. The two can, and should, work together rather than against each other.

As for evidence in support of evolution (from 'the mud'), to start off with there's the famous Stanley Miller experiment, in which atmospheric conditions on primordial earth were reproduced (a mixture of non-organic compounds and elements: methane, hydrogen, ammonia, water vapour) and subjected to sparks of electricity (meant to simulate lightning). Within several days amino acids were produced - the building blocks of life. Using similar methods, scientists have managed to synthesize purines and pyrimidines (constituent molecules of DNA). All this in the space of 50 years. Admittedly, none of this is conclusive, but it's something.

Anyhow, if you're interested, here's an American Scientist article on < the origins of life >.

--------------------

Hellraiser:
About science, you're correct. No theory is ever proven per se. Science isn't like math; the best that can be accomplished is to propose a theory, see whether it stands up to scrutiny, and if it fails, throw it away and try another one. To the extent that a theory stands up to repeated tests, confidence in the validity of the theory grows. AFAIK, the theory of evolution has stood up to repeated tests quite well. I think that's why it has received the stamp of approval. I am unaware of the gaps in the theory that you speak of. Please supply more details...

Ok. Feel free to attack. I've braced myself for it.

P.S. I edited my post within the time frame that you posted your subsequent message. Hope this doesn't create confusion.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 25, 2000).]

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Here's the problem I have with creationism. If some "supreme being" got this whole show rolling reason would say that someone created him and someone created him and someone ... ACK! Infinite loop. Doh!

Where does it end? If something created us, what says that someone didn't create it and so on. Whereas I can plainly see the similarities between human of today and prehistoric one.

Could something have created us? Sure but my little brain just can't fathom that scenerio. As far as I can tell creationism (religion) is merely an explaination for something that is as of now unexplained.

I'm done ... for now

------------------
< www.slapmahfro.net >
ya know ya wanna slap it ...

But even if you dismiss the existence of God you still have to deal with a similar paradox. How did everything begin? How did the universe come into existence? I think that it's the notion of causality that causes this paradox and why it seems unresolvable. That's my intuition at least.

Btw, I'm not waffling on my orignal position. I like to mull over these problems for fun (Yes, I need to get out more). Just for the record, I'm an agnostic who leans towards atheism (i.e. I'm an agnostic on Sundays and special holidays; otherwise an atheist). And before anyone says anything, yes, I am aware that atheism is unscientific. But bitterness and cynicism have gotten the better of me. I wish I could believe; I think I'd be happier, but I'm unable to.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 25, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Hiro:

Billions and billions of years? Not quite so long a period. It's generally agreed among the scientific community that life began on a time frame of 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

---

Actually, my post reads billions * billions. A result of my dislike for the way facts are presented by those who tout evolution as fact. They claim that the earth is X billions of years old until they stumble upon a fossil that doesn't fit in with there previous evolutionary timeline. They say, 'For this species to exist in this layer with this other species means that the earth must be another few million years old!'
Which I find amusing when carbon dating is supposedly accurate. Which it is not. But anyway, it's just that every few years I hear the the earth is another billion years older than they thought it was last year..

As for the 'Who created God?' God simply doesn't exist in our plane of time. Time was created along with this universe/demension.

The thing that's been bothering me lately(not really, but..) is this: Assuming there is a God(s). We are simply here for His/Her/Their amusment! Whether you accept the Christain viewpoint that Jesus/God truly loves us, or the Hindu viewpoint that you are to be reincarnated as another creature/person. We are here for someone/something to toy with like some big simcity simulation! anyway...

[This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited June 25, 2000).]

Evolution is a word that sums up the process of survial of the fittest. It makes PERFECT cents! The best, strongest, and luckies survive over the week. The bad traits are weeded out, the good are slowly breeded in.

That isn't to say that gGod didn't start it all. I just don't belive in any standard religions where gGod interacts with us or has a moral system. I don't belive in life after death either. And I think Jessie Venture was right on the money with his contraversial statement about religion.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.go.to/personguy >

quote:

---

Originally posted by adeadlyintegral:
evolution seems to me to be one of those things where there's so many people offering so many pieces of evidence that contradict each other... i mean some people may say that the fossil record supports evolution, some people blithely say, "no, it doesn't" people say naturally created complex chemicals are too random for life to be created...

---

As far as I know, among scientists the basic mechanism of evolution isn't debated these days - I don't know of any biologists that refute Darwin's theory of natural selection.

The issues that you're bringing up refer to smaller details about the theory of evolution that are contentious. For instance, disagreement arises over whether evolution follows a steady progression with accrual of gradual changes in a species(that's the older belief), or whether it behaves in accord with a punctate equilibrium (long periods of relatively little change interspersed with short periods of rapid change during which evolution takes place). If you believe the former then the fossil record appears problematic. However, the latter does not contradict what we know about the fossil record. I tend to believe that punctate equilibrium is the correct view. I have only my intuition to go on, but it does seem that many phenomena follow this behaviour (epidemics, insect infestations, political coups, fads - things stay relatively stable for a time and when change comes it comes very suddenly).

As for the complex chemical compounds involved in creating life (i.e. making the leap from amino acids to RNA), that is a difficult problem. The link I placed in my message several posts ago advances a theory of the chemistry behind the origins of life on earth. And to be honest, at this point the theory is speculative. Getting from 'mud' to life has proved to be the weakest link in providing a scientific explanation on the origins of life.

Oh well. Time will tell. Or it won't. Whatever. Anyways, hope this clarifies a few things.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 26, 2000).]

Creationists, seem to have two main problems when aruging over this topic. Firstly, If humans were not created in God's image, but descended from animals, why should they behave any better than animals? And if people could evolve by the working of natural laws alone, what need is there for God?

This topic only seems to come up, when talking to the US as well, look at the article and decide for yourself

Punctuated equilibrium is a little hard for me to believe, because what we learned in biology seems to disagree with an assumption that punctuated equilibrium makes: species turning into other species in very short timespans.

I've always thought an interesting explaination of the way things are is what we see in some science fiction books and movies: that some alien intelligence seeded the world with their DNA, which had built into it the ability to adapt and diversify. Makes for a good read but I doubt it is true.

A good scientist is always skeptical, which is why he can't assume God exists in his work. By the same token, he can't assume evolution is true in his work, without at least acknowledging that it is an assumption, and as such could be proven false. What it comes down to, as I said before, is that we just don't know. We are not omniscient, and will probably never be. But I'm all for learning new things every day, and for all we know, there will be some new and even better theory proposed within a century that fits our observations even better than any existing theories do. But by then you might be dead and depending on what you believe, you might finally know the Truth about the universe or you might cease to exist completely.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that evolution is false in any way, I'm just saying that it still falls in the category of plausible theories, and hasn't migrated to scientific law yet, regardless of what some people seem to think.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

First of all I believe in micro-evolution. For example- a white moth changes to black after living in a coal mine for many years. You can see evolution on this scale because it doesn't change the genes or DNA of animals. BUT to make that jump- Apes to Humans you need more then just micro- evolution you need Macro-evolution. The genes and DNA changed over the course of history. Now Im not saying that evolution didnt occur or that I dont believe in the whole system. I dont consider myself a creationist either but still neither theory seems to be overly supported.

And of course BIOLOGIST cant find anything to "disprove" evolution. They are biologist for goodness sakes.

ok thats that

------------------
"The causes we know everything about depend on the causes we know nothing about, which depend on the causes we know absolutely nothing about."- Tom Stoppard

a being created the earth and started life.

evolution did the rest.

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…

Before the debate progresses further, I think we should define our terms. A lot of ink has been needlessly spilt in the creationism-evolution debate, simply because of misunderstandings over definitions. Here's a webpage that details and debunks the < five biggest misconceptions about the theory of evolution >. I suggest you read the entire piece if you have the time, whether you support the theory of evolution or oppose it.

For those of you who don't have the time to read it, I'll sum up.

The Misconceptions:

• Evolution has never been observed
  
• Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics
  
• There are no transitional fossils
  
• The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds by random chance
  
• Evolution is only a theory. It has never been proved.
  

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 26, 2000).]

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

With respect to your comment about religion and science not being opposing viewpoints, I am in total agreement. I think the best thing about religion is that it helps people to deal with personal existential dilemmas. Science is useless in that arena. On the other hand, I think that too many people exaggerate the importance of the metaphysical side of religion. The way I see it, being overly concerned with the metaphysics of religion is like being overly concerned with the authenticity of Jesus's parables (i.e. whether the parables are factual is not important. It's the deeper meaning that's of value).

My opinions on religion were influenced by the American philosopher William James. If you're interested check out his book, "The Varieties of Religious Experience".

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 26, 2000).]

Thanks The_Hiro for the recommended reading. I'll have to check it out. I'm into philosophy and such as well as science.

This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen here. I hope it continues for a long time yet.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

I totally believe in Natural selection etc, but not to the point where genes are altered to form a new species. I've never seen proof of that. And any gene alteration I have seen was never benificial to the creature anyway.
(example: friut flies with legs for antenna)

1. To say that evolution is a change in the gene pool over time oversimplifies the concept. Even creationists will whole-heartedly agree that there is change in the gene pool over time. There are two types of evolution to think about: micro-evolution which allows existing and/or potential traits to appear through recombining existing genetic code; and macro-evolution wich is the emergence of entirely new and more "advanced" features by building new genetic code. This latter form of evolution has never been observed to occur naturally, and it is the kind of evolution needed to result in multiple species from one source.

2. While it is true that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies specifically to closed systems, the evolutionist argument that there is enough energy from the sun to drive things is erronious, because raw power alone cannot overcome the tendency towards entrophe: in fact it is likely to increase entrophe rather than reduce it. Also, there is a difference between order and organized complexity, and we have not observed life coming by itself in nature or in experiments. There is always a need for pre-existing life for new life to form.

3. There is a lot of disagreement over what constitutes a transitional fossil, and if we have found any. The interpretation of the fossil record is also highly dependent on the assumptions or views of the person doing the interpretation. To better understand transitional fossils, read this < FAQ >.

4. The evolutionist's argument that the theory of evolution does not rely soly on chance is merely a clever redefinition of terms. In fact, the evolutionist views reflect more wishful thinking than fact. (It was also interesting to learn that Darwin did not come up with the theory of natural selection, but merely borrowed it from a creationist scientist named Edward Blyth who formulated it 24 years before Darwin's Origin of the Species.) And there is still a question about the origin of life.

5. Evolution is a theory, and hasn't been proved. The term evolution is generally used to refer to "a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world." A theory should be defined as "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in reporting matters of actual fact."

The general conclusion I reached from reading this article was that the author had thoroughly researched the subject, and knew what he was talking about better than the author of the article he was rebuting. Throughout the article, he supported his view with quotes from many different and highly respected evolutionists. This was kind of interesting, since the origional article which he was rebutting failed to use any quotes from creationists to support views. After reconsidering the two articles, I have come to the conclusion that while both articles were well written and included propaganda, the rebutal was the more scientific of the two.

For space constraints, I've had to oversimplify the 12,000 word article, and I highly recommend that you take the time to read both articles thoroughly as they are very informative. You can read the origional < here > and the rebutal < here >. Both clear up a lot of misconceptions you may have had about either point of view, and contain a wealth of information about the two views.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Oops! Just noticed a rather bad grammar error that made it hard to follow the second point. It should be fixed now.

[This message has been edited by Hellraiser (edited June 26, 2000).]

There are doubtless many other great articles on the net about this topic, but just reading a few will help in intelligently discussing the topic.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

As for beneficial mutations, the simplest case I can cite is that of bacteria strains and their increased resistance to antibiotics. This is a well documented fact. Beneficial mutations have also been observed in insects that make them more pesticide resistant.

I also want to point out that the term 'beneficial' is dependent on what environmental stresses are present. What proves deleterious in one environment can prove advantageous in another.

I'd better get back to work. All this thinking about evolution and creationism is killing my time.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 26, 2000).]

If you feel like it, post your objections to the theory of evolution - what you see as it's weaknesses, and over the next week or so I'll make an attempt to do some research and respond to the objections. I imagine I won't be able to respond every single one (I've already seen some areas that need work), but I think it'll be a valuable experience nonetheless (at least for me).

Side note: It seems that the raising of land masses and the sea floor is considered to be a major force for change and evolution. So Bozeman's point is relevant. Under the heading of 'Evidence for punctuated equilibrium', the article talks about the raising of land masses as a major force of change among a group of dinosaurs in the Montana area. The end of the article talks about the raising and falling of the sea floor as an impetus for change. Turns out that earthquakes are a good thing after all. Maybe I should build a house on the San Andreas fault.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 26, 2000).]

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

The thing is, even if the Darwinian paradigm is a flawed one, it's still the best thing we've got. I think too many people are anxious to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unless someone can come up with a more powerful theory (one that has greater predictive ability and better internal consistency) what's gained by throwing out the current one?

I agree, however that for the most part creationist theories are a bit dubious and assume a lot, but in fairness, the same could be said of evolution.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Hiro:

Hellraiser:
About science, you're correct. No theory is ever proven per se. Science isn't like math; the best that can be accomplished is to propose a theory, see whether it stands up to scrutiny, and if it fails, throw it away and try another one. To the extent that a theory stands up to repeated tests, confidence in the validity of the theory grows. AFAIK, the theory of evolution has stood up to repeated tests quite well. I think that's why it has received the stamp of approval. I am unaware of the gaps in the theory that you speak of. Please supply more details...

Ok. Feel free to attack. I've braced myself for it.

---

I just noticed this, which is why I hadn't responded to it earlier. A couple of the holes I was thinking of at the time were addressed in the "Common Misconceptions" article you reffered to. While I don't recall the specifics of it, I saw something on PBS once about some very unique findings about some fossils that seemed to disagree with the concept of common ancestry.

My all time favorite one, which has never been addressed by evolutionists as far as I know, is how limb structure, especially the knee developed. In Biology, we were tought about two different types of joints, the ball and socket, and the pivot joint. Both of these types could possibly have evolved from something simpler, but to go from a simple pivot joint to a knee joint (they called it a "highly specialized pivot joint" in biology) is a big jump, and there are no configurations of lesser complexity between the two that could possibly work. On top of that, the knee has a lot of additional complexity in it that is perfectly matched to the type of joint to make it last long and be useful. So useful in fact, that our attempts to come up with synthetic knee joints are but crude copies of the basic structure that function much less efficiently than the natural knee. So we are left with either finding out a way that a knee joint could have evolved, or applying "specialized creation" to evolution: i.e. that everything evolved naturally down to the knee joint, then God gave nature a little help over the obstacle of the knee, and let further developement continue through evolution. But that sounds like major bullshit, and if we believe in a God that created the knee joint, could he not also have created all forms of life on the earth?

I'm sure that there are other issues that have not been addressed by evolution yet: being such a grandscale belief system/theory, it would take a while to find all the problems with it and iron them out. Creationism doesn't have this problem for the most part; throw it a problem and the answer is "God Created" (which is a buttered up way of saying, "We don't know").

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean we have to postulate some kind of mysterious unexplainable force. If our ancestors had stuck to that approach of dealing with things I'm sure we'd still be in caves today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Hiro:
I think it's premature to announce that there must be some 'vital force' that animates living creatures. Just like I think it's premature to claim, "Since we presently lack the knowledge to explain how the knee joint developed, intelligent design must be the answer. So let's ditch our scientific attempts to understand our origins."

Just because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean we have to postulate some kind of mysterious unexplainable force. If our ancestors had stuck to that approach of dealing with things I'm sure we'd still be in caves today.

---

Good point. I'm not suggesting that we ditch our theories, or that we have to assume supernatural interference, merely that we need to reevaluate our theories. If I postulated based on my observations that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects due to greater gravitational attraction, then observed that a feather and a hammer fall at the same speed in space, I don't need to assume that there is a supernatural force causing the feather to accellerate. I merely need to reevaluate my theory, due to evidence that can't be adequately explained by my existing theory. A problem with some (not all) evolutionists is that they dogmaticly hold on to their existing theory despite evidence to the contrary, which is as unscientific as holding on to religious beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

It also would be illogical to assume without evidence that there are no "supernatural forces" or forces that we haven't observed involved in any area of scientific investigation. Just because we haven't seen a force directly, or seen evidence of it's existence doesn't mean that it isn't there. It doesn't mean that it is there either, but it's a possibility that can't be ruled out. Good theories should not need to rely on such forces, but theories about things we don't understand frequently rely heavily on phenomena that have not been observed. An example of such a theory would be string theory. Actually, evolution is such a theory as well. So is creationism.

When approaching these subjects, it helps to have an open mind, and discard any prejudice towards one over the other. Unfortunately, that's nearly impossible for us humans to do. As much as we pride ourselves on our scientific prowess, we are not scientific beings.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

About your second paragraph: Yes it would be illogical to assume there are no supernatural forces (e.g. I am aware that my atheistic stance is irrational), however, for the purposes of science it's necessary to make that assumption. Permitting the usage of supernatural forces as an explanation for phenomena defeats the purpose of science.

My thoughts on creationism: If you really want to teach it in schools, stop teaching science altogether (not just evolution, but all of science). Do one or do the other, but don't do both. Teaching creationism and calling it science only confuses kids about the nature scientific inquiry (again, creationism ISN'T scientific because it doesn't make any falsifiable predictions).

I do not have any qualms with teachers pointing out the weaknesses in the theory of evolution (in fact, I think it adds to scientific curriculum and encourages critical thinking), but to claim that creationism is equally scientifically valid offends me.

I probably sound like a dogmatist now. Perhaps I am. Here's where I stand: I perceive some value in the objections creationists raise. They're helping to illuminate the areas that need work. On the other hand, I see their positive program as a huge step backward and scientifically valueless.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 28, 2000).]

Of course, my opinion is just as biased by my belief in God as yours is by your atheism. I'll admit that. I have a problem with people who have opinions on certain matters, and claim that their opinions are the truth. We don't know what the truth is, but our opinions on matters are most likely not the whole truth, while they may have some grain of truth in them. I wish we could all be honest and say, "We don't know, but this is how we think things might have happened. If you have a better idea feel free to share it, or if you see a problem with our theories, point it out so that we can address it." That's the scientific way to approach it.

Hellraiser out.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

J/k.

I hope there is evolution. I pray every day that I got the recessive genes in my family. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

Nene, who is bored at work (in case you can't tell)

------------------
"Due to budgetary restraints, the light at the end of the tunnel will be shut off until further notice."

http://www.angelfire.com/nv/neneshome/

True or false:
If you were to place the necessary chemicals for life together and left them for a few millions years complex blobs commonly refered to as cells would be formed, and also exhibit the chracteristics of life.

Believe it or not the first one is more likely to happen.
Okay. Suppose somehow through freak chemical reactions or the like, a frog was formed. a perfect frog formed from nothing but materials in the area. Right down to every DNA molecule, every cell, every blood vessel.
Would it suddenly come alive? What is there in the frog that makes it live? There has to be something beyond the necessary peices of matter to make something ALIVE.

Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Here's how I think about it. It has been observed that every once and a while humanity as a
whole has an ascension. It's also been observed that what ever ascensions humanity as a
whole has come through children go through. For example: when the baby is born it believes
if it's hungry so is everything else. Then it ascends to the understanding of self: it hurts more
when I bite myself then when I bite the table. etc. Now a few hundred years ago it was
popular for one to purely ascend and not explore the details. This was the era of the church
where scientists were scorned on. They eventually had to explore the details to ascend.
Socrates was one of the first to explore details. We have been ascending very slowly every
since (as it should be). But recently (in the past 100 odd years) it's been a lot more popular
to explore details than to ascend, so religion has been written of as something not important.
Ascending now is often left to (supposed) religious nuts. The thing is the two most recent
ascensions have been 1) realizing that everyone has a different viewpoint and 2)
existentialism: Think that since everyone has their own viewpoint there are no universal
affirmatives, when in fact there are. The later ascension is actually embodied in Goths (real
Goths not those poser ones) a lot of the time. There are more ascensions then this that
people are exploring, but as I said earlier those people are usually written of as spiritual nuts.
I don't think people as a whole are ready to take on the creation of our species until we have
a more open world view.

Now someone's going to make me into an object (that crazy kid).

------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)

"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Stop looking at me funny!

------------------
~Anztac - The guy who had the really long sig (formerly Kriegman)

"I am easily driven into a flying rage by blithering idiots"
-cr0bar [The god of this domain]

[This message has been edited by Anztac (edited June 28, 2000).]

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

But I actually understood what Anztac said, and agree with him. I actually came up with the same theory a few months ago... athought mine made more sentz and shtuffs...

I can explain it if you want!

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.go.to/personguy >

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Hiro:
My thoughts on creationism: If you really want to teach it in schools, stop teaching science altogether (not just evolution, but all of science). Do one or do the other, but don't do both.

---

I went to a Catholic high school, so of course my Biology teacher was obligated to present both creationism and evolution. The way it was explained to us, which is actually a fairly good way of marrying the two concepts, is that God caused evolution to happen. The creation story of the bible says that God created the world in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. That's not to say, however, that God's day is the same length as an earth day. If you make out one of God's days as roughly a billion Earth years, that could work out to 6 days. And each day, as He created the plants, and animals, and then humans, He needed something to work with, so He took what He already had (the more primitive life forms) and played around with them (caused them to evolve) until the desired results (humans, a being created in His image) were achieved.

When trying to blend the two concepts, this explains the evolution we have scientific proof of, while addressing the issue many people have with evolution that life seems to be a bit too complex to be that random. Any thoughts?

[This message has been edited by nautilus (edited June 29, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nautilus:
...desired results (humans, a being created in His image)...

---

That's a common idea which can be interpreted by some as the highest form of arrogance. It's a natural thing for a person to want to worship something that looks like him/herself. A scene from "Planet of the Apes" comes to mind...

long live the debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Observer:
It's a natural thing for a person to want to worship something that looks like him/herself. A scene from "Planet of the Apes" comes to mind...

---

Hehe, very true. Also fits in well with much of science fiction, as shape-shifting creatures usually present themselves in the same form as the creature they're dealing with (or at the very least, one that will be pleasing to that creature).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bozeman:
If a god was actively creating mutations, that implies that all mutations are the next logical step for a species, which is not true. A mutation that causes a genetic disorder, or an unnecesary growth would have been caused by god, but why? Why would god deliberately make a creature less able to live than it had been before?

---

Although we were presented with text from Darwin, the idea of God being the cause of genetic disorders was never really discussed. I can think of 2 possible explanations our teacher may have come up with. The first possiblitiy would have seen our teacher telling us the often-heard addages that God will never give us more than we can handle, and that the things in life which do not kill us will make us stronger, implying that we are faced with these situations not to hurt the afflicted, but to teach something to others in that person's life.
The other would be that God doesn't cause things like that, that once he created humans (achieving the goal of a being in his image, according to the creation story), he left our life in our own hands. This would fit in religiously with the Catholic church not believing in predestination, and would scientifically allow for natural selection and survival of the fittest.
However, this leads into a question for me. What of species that have gone extinct? Would they be considered cases of species that were simply no longer necessary in the chain of life? Or would they be mistakes by God that were allowed to run themselves out? (That would religiously be a problem since God is generally perceived as the only perfect being.) Guess this all just goes to show that all theories have holes in them somewhere.

[This message has been edited by nautilus (edited June 29, 2000).]

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

And this thread reminds me of a quote by William Herbert Carruth
"Some call it evolution. And others call it God"

=P

------------------
"The causes we know everything about depend on the causes we know nothing about, which depend on the causes we know absolutely nothing about."- Tom Stoppard

[This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited June 29, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Happyfish:
Okay, on a related topic: Forget about life, evolution, etc.
What I have wondered about is where did the universe come from. Why is there space?Nothing isn't nothing becuase there is a space there where you can put something! And where did neutrons protons and electrons and the rules that govern them come from? Gravity and raditation? Something MUST have created this dimension/universe, at least that's my thinking on the topic. There are strict rules governing everything...hehe and then there is quantum physics.

---

You assume that the existence of the universe is governed by the same laws of causality that we are goverened by. This may or may not be true. And matter has been observed coming out of nothing. Read up on particle physics .

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

I CREATED EVERYTHING

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Plenty more would be good to quote from that film especially the scene that's from.

Normally ecosystems are stable. Individual species have become specialized for their particular niche. Because of this fact, any given species/individual has very little mobility in the ecosystem (each has its domain of expertise and is ill-equipped to compete in another's area of expertise).

Punctuated equilibrium works on the idea that if available niches exist in an ecosystem, it's much more likely that macroevolution will occur. Consider the case of the Galapagos islands. Before the finches showed up there were many unfilled niches. After they arrived there was vicious interspecies conflict in their own niche. Because adjacent niches weren't occupied, those finches with suitable adaptions were able to move into the unoccupied niches which had less competition, giving them better chances at survival and reproduction. Today there are 13 different species of finch on the island.

Had the original finches shown up on the island and found the other niches occupied, it's argued that intraspecies conflict would have hindered macroevolution (competition would be too fierce in all niches - so no benefit accrues to those with adaptations to crack large seeds, etc).

How does this relate to the 'gaps' in the fossil record that punctuated equilibrium claims to account for? From what I've been able to glean, it's argued that the long periods where little change is observed in the fossil record can be explained as being the normal state of things - where all the species have found their niches, where mobility is minimal. What accounts for the sudden emergence of new species? Eldredge and Gould claim that serious disturbances to the climate (regional or global) cause mass extinctions, and these create openings in niches, facilitating macroevolution.

So, the fossil record need not be in conflict with the theory of evolution.

And speaking of examples of evolution and natural selection. Take a look at some of the bacterial strains that are resistant to our antibiotics. And every year there is a new, different flu virus. Why?

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
ah, but you forget what happens in a culture dish. only pre-existing bacteria multipy. no new species develope.

---

Not true. Mutations have been observed in laboratory studies with bacteria, that allow them to resist predation and parasites. It is known that beneficial mutations take place (not a case of existing genetic variation) because all bacterium in the flask come from the culture of a single bacteria. Here's an < article > that verifies what I'm saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Hiro:
Not true. Mutations have been observed in laboratory studies with bacteria, that allow them to resist predation and parasites. It is known that beneficial mutations take place (not a case of existing genetic variation) because all bacterium in the flask come from the culture of a single bacteria. Here's an < article > that verifies what I'm saying.

---

/me was wrong. Happens from time to time.

I know that not all mutations are harmful, and never said I didn't believe in micro-evolution, or evolution for that matter. But the experiments talked about were ones in which bacterium were allowed to multiply under extreme conditions: far from just a Petri Dish experiment

Good point though.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

since i've studied geology, I've learned a few things and researched a few things regarding evolution and the formation of life.

the first recorded life occurred about 3.8 billion years ago - just shortly after the formation of the first continental crust. life then was very basic - various single-celled organisms. about 540 million years ago, there began a rapid "evolution" in lifeforms. With the development of the first creatures with eyesight came the development of the first creatures with hard shells. if you want to see some of these lifeforms, look up some pictures on Burgess Shale Fauna (the Burgess Shale is in BC but there's similar well-preserved fauna in China too). anyway, we theoretically evolved from a creature called pikaya which was one of the earliest creatures to have a developed spinal column.

anyway, this is just a very basic synopsis of some of the key evolutionary events in the Earth's fauna development. anyway, i agree the entire evolutionary theory does not correspond with the second law of thermodynamics. That's why i'm very interested in the theories of chaos and anti-chaos. it's worth checking out!!

------------------
PEBKAC: Problem exists between keyboard and chair.

Hope this helps!

------------------
PEBKAC: Problem exists between keyboard and chair.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rig_hater:

the first recorded life occurred about 3.8 billion years ago - just shortly after the formation of the first continental crust.

---

Apparently there are two types of entropy: < thermodynamic and logical >. Thermodynamic entropy is what scientists mean when they talk about the second law (i.e. the amount of energy not available to do work). Logical entropy is a concept derived by a useful analogy to the second law (i.e. the amount of disorder in a system).

Note: An increase in logical entropy is not implied by the second law! Case in point: there are many chemical compounds which have a lower total bond energy than their constituent elements, and which will form spontaneously in accordance with the second law. Alkanes (composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms) are an example. Here's a webpage that goes into more detail about the < spontaneous organization of molecules > and how such happenings do not violate the second law.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited July 10, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Happyfish:
What medium was used back then to record current events?

---

I meant that they're the earliest-dated specimens found. As for the method of dating, Argon/Argon dating is quite effective and is a bit more accurate than another common method - Potassium/Argon dating.

------------------
PEBKAC: Problem exists between keyboard and chair.

------------------
UT 0wnz j00 all!

Look, even if we weren't present when things happened, we can still make deductions about how things happened based upon evidence left behind (a la Sherlock Holmes). More importantly, the theory of evolution allows us to make falsifiable predictions; something that creationism does not and can not do.

Here's one useful prediction that the theory of evolution makes: organisms that share a recent ancestor have more in common with each other than organisms that are distantly related. But you don't have to take my word on it. Read up on < vestigial organs and behaviours > (there's the particularly interesting case of the asexual lizard that goes through the motions of copulation with other lizards. Gee. What an efficient design. Looks like somebody failed their engineering course).

Food for thought
Q. Why do scientists test new pharmaceuticals on mice instead of pigeons?
a) Because we share a relatively recent ancestor with mice, so our underlying physiologies share greater similarities, and therefore drug effects on mice have greater relevance to us as opposed to the effects on pigeons (or cows for that matter).
b) Because God said, "'Let there be mice for man to test his drugeths on.' And lo and behold, there were mice for the testing of drugs. And this was good."

I wish that the fundamentalists would stop spewing their rhetoric already. Even the Pope has acknowledged that evolution is "more than just a hypothesis". Creationists truly intent on damaging the science curriculum would be better served by starting up their own separate communities. That way everybody wins - Creationists can make their kids as backward as they want; the rest of the populace doesn't have to suffer through inane comparisons between Genesis and the theory of evolution; tourist revenues would receive a big boost. After all, everybody loves the Amish.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited July 12, 2000).]

I don't know about you, but creating asexual lizards that go through the motions of screwing each other seems pretty darn dumb. Or maybe God's a lizard man, and he gets off on watching lesbian lizards doing their thing (not that there's anything wrong with lesbian lizards...)

Nature's replete with examples of bad design. Why do bats and whales share < similar skeletal structures >? Makes no sense to me... Why did God give us useless appendixes? So they could get infected and cause us excruciating pain??? Does God derive some kind of sadistic pleasure from inflaming the appendixes of us mere mortals? That must be it. After all, he seemed to get a lot of pleasure out of giving the Philistines < hemorrhoids >. So maybe it isn't so implausible that he'd design our anatomy with useless appendixes ("Hmm... Seems that little Johnny has violated Commandment number four again. Time to blow up his appendix. That'll get him back in line.").

Maybe you think the theory of evolution has flaws (I for one do not). But take a minute to evaluate what creationists are saying and you'll quickly realize that evolution is the only real game in town.

----------

Yes. The lesbian lizards produce unfertilized eggs which hatch and mature into clones of the mother. But before they release their eggs they prime themselves by 'copulating' with another female lizard. Incidentally, It might interest you to note that they have close relatives that reproduce sexually. And maybe this is why they make 'whopee'? Perhaps they're envious of their heterosexual brethren?

Ah yes, here's the biblical passage I was looking for, "And God said, 'The cnenidophorus shall not have sex.' And the cnenidophorus did not like this. So the cnenidophorus engaged in ilicit same-sex affairs. God saw this, and was angry. So he decried, 'All cnenidophorus will suffer a terrible case of the hemorrhoids and ever shall they roast in hell.'" Well. That verifies it. At least I'll have something to eat when I'm burning in hell. Yummy... cnenidophorus.

B)If he didn't use evolution, why program it to happen after the creation period?

What's to stop an all powerful being from using evolution as his personal tool? Just because the bible dictates that creation took place in 7 days, doesn't essentially mean 7 of our 24 hour days. We measure days due to rotation of the earth. The measure of 1 day was used chronologically before the earth was created. He used one of those days for creating light and dark.(ie: the sun) I reckon 1 day is representative of his/her time. Remember, the bible is full of references to time in a wierd way. eg: 40 days and 40 nights is a term translated incorrectly. The phrase in hebrew 'slang' means 'I'm not sure how long but it was a long time'(Noah in a sealed box; Christ in the wilderness). By this, you can't treat ANY reference to time in the bible as accurate. Dates and amounts are consistently contradictory in the old testament regarding some of the same events, but mentioned in different "Book of"s. Who's to say that the '1 day' given to Moses (author of genesis) wasn't a dumbed down version of 1 billion earth years? Explain the number to a guy who refers to things as 'many' if they exceed the number of fingers and toes. Rmember, our numeric system is fairly modern. I can't recall when, but we owe the use of the number zero to the Arabic culture - I think it's after the Old testament's date. Try writing 1 billion as a multiple of 'score'.

------------------
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, but most times I justs sits." - Me.

Part of the appeal that fundamentalism has is that it simplifies the universe into black and white. Either you're right or wrong. You're gonna go to heaven or hell. There's no subtletly, and many people like this fact. It frees them from the responsibility of thinking for themselves. The 'good' book is very explicit about what's allowed and what isn't, and it says that we must stomp out queers, beat our children if they're disobedient (Proverbs 23:13), and keep women submissive and in their proper place (Corinthians 14:34-35).

I don't know how big religion is in the UK, but here in North America fundamentalism is huge (esp. in the States). I get approached on campus about 3 times a week. I'm thinking of making a T-shirt with ATHEIST in big block letters so that they'll leave me alone. I getting really tired of rabid proselytizers wasting my time.

Evolution 192837
Creation 2

I think the best quote was
"Religion is poison."
-psychopharmacologist
and The_Hiro knows his shit.

As mentioned in some other posts, I spent some time in Utah. There I got to meet a lot of Mormons. Most mainstream Christians denounce them as a cult and say that the bible says you can't have any more scriptures like they do.
Somewhere in Revelations, but if you say you take the bible literally, you have to throw away the New testament and most of the Old as it says the same thing near the end of the pentateuch. (the first five books credited to Moses) Taken literally this would cause chaos among christians, but we're all adult enough to know that the author meant it to refer to the laws he had just penned. But fundamentalists are arrogant enough to assume one meaning for the first and a different meaning for the second instance. The word 'Hypocrisy' comes to mind.

They say thing were laid out crystal clear for us in the bible, that they shouldn't/can't be changed. Then how come Christ changed things from what was originally there when he came on the scene?
He taught a higher law. This didn't replace the previous stuff, it superceded it, because the people were ready for it.
I'm sure that most stuff about creation and the methods used would be revised toaday if God decided to do an interview and retell the story he told Moses, using some terms and science that we're more able to comprehend because of our advanced state.
Then again, if he did that he'd probably add about 300 to the commandments as we're such social screw-ups compared to those times.

------------------
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, but most times I justs sits." - Me.

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rhydant:
its carbon 14 dating
...
i think

---

FYI, Carbon-14 dating is a very effective and accurate dating method - but it's usually used for shorter term dates since it's half life is only approx. 5730 years. In the case of rocks that are billions of years old, fossils can be dated by dating the sediments in which they were trapped. As for dating the rocks themselves, they're not usually derived from living (or once-living) things, so the chances of finding much carbon in them are pretty slim.

------------------
PEBKAC: Problem exists between keyboard and chair.

About the atom thing. I believe atoms exists, because it makes perfect sense, although their existance hasn't been proven beyond all doubt. (In some ppl's minds anyway)

As for the fact that there are examples of bad design, take another look at Genisis. According to the story, everything was created perfect. And everything would remain perfect if the man and woman would obey God. God wanted them to obey out of choice, so he gave them free will and consequences. They chose wrong. The consequence was that they introduced imperfection into a perfect creation. Hence all the problems in the world today, including your inflammed tonsils. Not a bad story at all. I'm not saying I take it literally: for all we know it could be halucinations on paper, or it could be (if we allow for the existance of God) almost anything. Including the possibility that it was a God trying to tell a simple man a story in terms he could understand, so that the deeper meaning behind it all could be understood. Before anyone trys to understand the Bible, they need to understand the timeframe and culture in which it originated. After that, things like "literal interpretations" are shown up to be erronious and prejudiced towards the views of the person doing the interpretation.

I personally believe in God. However, when it comes to the origin of life on the earth, I don't agree with "creationist" viewpoints based on erronious "literal" misinterpretations of a book that was written by fallible men. I believe there is a great deal of spiritual wealth to be found in some parts of the Bible, but it is not infallible. It was written by men, and one needs only look at the varying accounts of history that can be read about this century's events to realize how inaccurate it could be.

The Bible is not the begin all, end all of Science. You cannot find all the answers there. Evolutionary theory is not the begin all, end all of Science. You cannot find all the answers there. Now that that is out of the way, we can continue the debate.

Let's look at a little analogy here. There is a crime commited in the middle of the night in center city. No witnesses, and rather scanty evidence. Two detectives start separate investigations into the crime. The police have one suspect. One detective is convinced that the suspect is guilty. The other detective is convinced that the subject is innocent. Do you honestly think those two detectives will draw the same conclusion from the scanty evidence as to what events transpired that night? And how likely is it to be the truth? Most people approach this debate prejudiced because of their beliefs. It can clearly be seen in almost everything they say, including their attacks on any views different from their own. Because of this, can we honestly take for granted the interpretations of evidence that evolutionists or creationists throw at us? The best we can do is try to find grains of truth in it, and discard the rest. As of now this leaves us with little to go on.

I see very few problems with evolutionary theory except one thing: it relies on too many assumptions that are a little shaky at best. I see many problems with creationst viewpoints, but few problems with the idea of creation as an origin except for one thing: it relies on the assumption that there is a God, something which can probably never be proved via science, at least not for a while.

I guess the best we can do is to keep looking at the evidence, and searching for more evidence, and do the best job of interpreting it that we can, while privately realizing that the end of the debate is probably not going to appear in our lifetimes. And it is a good idea to allow other people their views, even if they differ from ours, because our individual views are just as likely to be wrong as theirs.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Although evolution seems rational and unarguable, it is based on all the delusions man inflicts on himself. So its all relative.
But nonetheless. Evolution theory is not an oposite of christianity and god and whatnot.
If they were equal oposites then i could say that as much as christianity is a delusion in 1 direction, evolution is a delusion in the other. But i somehow can't bring myself to argue against evolution.

------------------
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, but most times I justs sits." - Me.

By getting creationism into schools (or similarly, by denying educators the right to teach theories that conflict with scripture), the religious right furthers its agenda to eliminate the division between church and state (you'll forgive me, I hope, for feeling threatened by the prospect of being demoted to the status of a second class citizen). Make no bones about it. It's no coincidence that creationism's most visible supporters are members of the religious right. So when people start nodding their heads and thinking that creationism deserves to be taught alongside evolution as science, you better believe I'm going to say my piece. Be aware that there's more at stake here than the K-12 educational curriculum.

So now you know where I stand; maybe my views make me a crackpot. So be it. Anyhow, on to addressing some of your points:
1) Original Sin: What sins have animals committed? And here's the age-old question that you knew was coming: How does a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god produce flawed creatures like us humans??? The theory that God started the ball rolling is compatible with evolution, and that's a conception I find irrefutable. It's the creationist attempts to deny macroevolution, to secure literal interpretations of the bible, that I find patently ridiculous. It's quite simple. Either drop your literal interpretation of the bible or accept that I'm going to call your position silly. I haven't seen any creationists hesitate in their dismissals of evolution; is there some reason I should be denied that right?

2) Detective Story: For the analogy to be correct the story should be as follows: A murder is committed. Dick #1 investigates the scene of the crime. He works together with forensic scientists, ballistics experts, profilers, etc. He collects a lot of evidence, all pointing to the same suspect. It's a classic textbook case. Not airtight (nothing ever is), but pretty darned close. Then along comes Dick #2 who's looking for a promotion - discrediting Dick #1 will help him to attain this goal. Dick #2 doesn't bother to visit the scene, doesn't collect evidence of his own; he just takes potshots at Dick #1's evidence and accuses all the other experts of lying. Additionally, he says to Dick #1, "Bah. You weren't there when the crime was committed, so you're full of shit." Dick #2 throws together some half-assed theory based on an Agatha Christie novel he's read, and foolishly believes that discrediting Dick #1's case automatically validates his theory.

3) Problems: Please clarify the 'shaky assumptions' that you're speaking of. Are you arguing from irreducible complexity, the fossil record, thermodynamics? Something I haven't dealt with already?

With respect to your closing comments, yes, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But when they express views that help to advance a political agenda (whether they mean it or not) that I disagree with, and the political agenda has potential negative ramifications, I won't sit quietly. When somebody trots out creationist arguments filled with logical fallacies, I'm going to refute them. When somebody misrepresents how the scientific enterprise functions, I'm going to correct them. I will not silence myself and I do not expect the people who disagree with me to do so either. That's what this is about: dialogue.

That said, I acknowledge that I made some unnecessarily caustic remarks. I apologize for those comments. I do not, however, apologize for my opinions. I still hold them and if pressed again I shall state them (less offensively).

Anyhow, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited July 14, 2000).]

I never said that Creationism should be taught as science, I would never say that. It is in fact a bit of a muddling of science. Evolution should not be taught as fact though. That's my only bone to pick with the public school systems. Evolution should be taught as currently accepted theory. When it is taught as fact, people get the wrong impression that it is not open to debate, and there could not be any other possible explaination for things. Granted creationism as expressed by most creationists is a horrible alternative, and much less likely, but evolution plain and simple is not all in all. IT IS A FUCKING THEORY, LIKE MOST EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS. It can never be proven, just as the existence (or lack thereof) of God can never be proven, and people who believe in evolution are taking as much a step of faith as those who believe in creation. Relativity is a theory, and was taught as such. Quantum Theory is a theory, and is taught as such. String theory is a theory and is taught as such. Evolutionary theory is a theory, and is taught as fact. Big problem. 'nuf said.

Like you, I hold my opinions, and probably will never give them up. I don't believe in creationist theory as presented by most creationists. I'll let them have their place. Personally, I believe that God created the universe, how and why I leave to his infinite discretion, as I don't believe we as men can possibly understand more than the tiniest bit about something as vast and grand as the universe is. For the purposes of scientific discussion, I like to keep as well abrest of current theory and view as I can so I can discuss intelligently, but I prefer not to assume that any theory is fact. It's too sloppy. I love to debate, and will usually take whatever side has the fewest proponents, hence my decidedly "creationist" stance in this debate. Note however, that I do not believe everything that I have quoted or said in previous posts. I merely presented ideas, and discussed them to the best of my ability. That's the best I can do.

The_Hiro has made clear his stance as an agnostic who agrees with evolution as currently accepted, I have tried to make my stance clear in this post. I will not be quoted as saying that evolutionary theory is false, nor will I be quoted as saying it is true. I believe that the current theories do not properly explain all the evidence that has been seen, and I think that they need to be revised. How, I would not presume to know.

Considering that the basic evolutionary view has not changed much from when Darwin first penned Origin of the Species, I'd say that it has had remarkable success, most likely due to the fact that it was the first origin theory that did not require supernatural intervention. Unfortunately, there are some things about nature that we can't explain with our current level of knowledge. Some people chose to dismiss it as irrelevant, others classify it as "supernatural." I prefer to think of it as part of the natural world that we don't understand yet. Many people would tend to share this view. I would put the origin of life, and the origin of the universe into this category.

Feel free to disagree with me, I will always be able to take it, and will probably never change my stance. :P

/me out.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
...Evolution should not be taught as fact though ... IT IS A FUCKING THEORY, LIKE MOST EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS. It can never be proven ... and people who believe in evolution are taking as much a step of faith as those who believe in creation. Relativity is a theory, and was taught as such. Quantum Theory is a theory, and is taught as such. String theory is a theory and is taught as such. Evolutionary theory is a theory, and is taught as fact.

---

Okay. I think it's time to examine our definitions, because I think there's some confusion as to what the word theory implies in the context of the scientific enterprise:

(from New Webster's Dictionary)
theory, n., an organized body of ideas as to the truth of something, usually derived from the study of a number of facts relating to it, but sometimes entirely a result of exercising the speculative imagination | | ... | | a conjecture.

When a scientist speaks of a theory she means a theory in the first sense. You appear to be employing the word theory in the second sense (viz. something that is tentative and uncertain). I think it's a mistake to use 'theory' as an epithet - it's a mistake in the semantic sense, and it also misleads individuals who don't know the difference.

I have read some philosophy of science, I've read some Descartes, so I am well aware that nothing can be proven per se (beyond cogito ergo sum that is. And even that 'self-evident' truth has problems). However, I reject solipsism as an epistemology because it's highly impractical (So did Descartes). And you seem to be a normal, functioning individual so I'm guessing that you're not a solipsist either. I'm guessing that reason and experience dictate what you're willing to accept as fact - that you hold certain things to be true and factual, even though you concede the ultimate unprovability of reality.

So for pragmatic reasons we accept certain things as facts even when we can't prove them beyond all doubt. For pragmatic reasons and by convention, we accept a theory as fact when it is: a) verified repeatedly, b) it makes successful predictions again and again, c) when it produces useful applications.

Out of the scientific theories that you mentioned, only string theory is currently tentative and not yet accepted as fact (we currently lack colliders of sufficient power to test its claims). Hence, if you tell a physicist that quantum theory is just a 'theory', don't be surprised if you're laughed out of his office. Telling a cosmologist that special or general relativity is just a 'theory' will probably illicit guffaws. Does this reflect arrogance on their parts? Perhaps. But consider this: thanks to quantum physics, you and I are able to have our little argument on this BBS (every diode, every resistor, every transistor in your computer is the offspring of quantum physics); effects predicted by special relativity have been observed in experimental situations (e.g. particle accelerators, airplanes with atomic clocks); and equations from general relativity correctly calculate and compensate for time dilation effects that satellites in orbit experience relative to our frame of reference.

Quantum physics, special relativity, and general relativity are all taught as fact in physics classrooms, not theory. Evolution is taught in the same manner and for the same reasons - it has a lot of strong factual evidence in support of it. So I think it's wrong for you to deride biologists for teaching evolution as fact - if you feel that they have erred in this regard, then for the sake of correctness you should be attacking the entire establishment.

One other thing, the claim that "people who believe in evolution are taking as much a step of faith as those who believe in creation" is balderdash. Sorry, but it is. There's empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution; no such evidence exists for creation (and some theologians seem to argue that any such evidence would violate the whole value of religious faith). Point me towards empirical evidence in support of creation (not fallacious arguments that bash evolution, but rather arguments that support your position) and I will gladly eat my words.

Finally, I realize that some people argue that reasoning and logic are limited, and that a relationship with God (or the attainment of a higher level of spirituality) transcends these human faculties. I've heard it said that knowledge of God is experiential (see William James). If it's this experiential knowledge that is the basis for your beliefs, than obviously no amount of discussion will succeed in swaying either of our positions. In which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited July 15, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Hiro:
So for pragmatic reasons we accept certain things as [b]facts even when we can't prove them beyond all doubt. For pragmatic reasons and by convention, we accept a theory as fact when it is: a) verified repeatedly, b) it makes successful predictions again and again, c) when it produces useful applications.

[/B]

---

You do know of course that neither quantum theory nor special relativity are factual. In fact they are not completely supported by what we have observed in physics. The two are mutually exclusive as well (you can't have both relativity and quantum theory be true in the same universe). We use them in our studies of the universe for two reasons only: each one makes relatively accurate predictions about certain areas of physics, and we have no grand unified theory as of yet. I have no problem with either of these stances since it is understood in physics that they are theories, and do not completely agree with everything that has been observed.

If people would take this view with evolution, I'd say more power to them. I'm not bashing biologists like you seem to think. I'm bashing institutions in which theory is taught as fact. We know for a fact that the earth orbits around the sun. This has been well enough established by observation to be called fact. We know for a fact that the earth is far older than we are. This has been well enough established by observation to be called fact. We do not know the origin of life on the earth. Current theory has not been established enough to be called fact.

I understand the meaning of the word theory, and I understand the meaning of the word fact. A fact is something that can be demonstrated or observed. The origin of life cannot be demonstrated and has not been observed. We can't go back in time and watch it happen, so we don't know how it happened. In a few thousand or million years, if we have directly observed evolution on a macro scale happen, we can bump evolution up to fact, or if we can find a means of direct observation we can call it fact. Such means is not currently here.

I'll agree to disagree with you as to whether or not there is a God. I'll not just agree to disagree with you on evolution being still in the realm of theory. That is not open to question. It has not been well enough established to be considered fact yet. Like I said, the main reason that it has been so widely accepted as fact is that it is so far the first and only theory that does not require supernatural intervention for the origin of life. This alone does not make it fact, and coupled with empirical evidence that supports it this does not overcome the little bits of empirical evidence that do not support it. I'll give you one piece of evidence that does not completely support evolutionary theory that is currently taught as fact in public schools and colleges around the world: the geological column. There are numerous instances where evolutionists have had to try to fudge the column a bit to get it to fit the theory. There are places in the world where "older" rock layers appear to be newer than the "newer" rock layers. There are observed fossils of trees that stand upright in columns of rock that are supposed to span millions of years: no trees live that long, even if some trees could live that long the observed fossils don't have enough rings, and dead wood rots unless it is deprived of all access to air and water.

There are other examples, but even just that little example is enough to say that currently accepted evolutionary theory is not fact, and in order to be considered fact needs to be revised to fit the evidence at hand.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

The physics examples: I will concede that you were right, I was wrong. Note that how relativity is taught and how quantum mechanics is taught is irrelevant to how evolution is taught. Evolution must be evaluated on its own merits. And I consider the weight of the evidence in support of evolution, and the complete absence of counterevidence against evolution, as reason enough for teaching it as fact.

Your fact/theory objection: Dealt with < here >. The article reiterates what I said earlier. We accept something as fact when the amount of evidence in support of it suggests it is foolish to do otherwise. In the case of evolution I believe the evidence is sufficient that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so I accept it as fact. Apparently, your criterion for accepting it is the actual observation of macroevolution. No arguments I can provide will satisfy you. So I will cease and desist in my efforts to convince you that evolution is fact.

Your proofs against evolution are easily dispatched with. Strata that occur out of sequence are accounted for by tectonic plate shifts (e.g. the phenomenon of overthrusting and overturning). Whenever strata are out of sequence there are always signs of plate shifts. Creationists' favorite example, the Lewis overthrust, where out of sequence strata can supposedly be observed without overthrusting, is dispatched with < here > and < here >. Turns out that creationists have been persistently and intentionally misquoting geologists. Go figure.

Your 'tree' polystrate argument against the fossil record: Dealt with < here >. The problem is an old one, and was dispatched with long ago by geologists in the 19th century (ironically, many of these geologists were themselves religious, and so had no motivation to 'fudge' the column. Quite the opposite). Seems comical to me that creationists are dredging up 'problems' that have been solved for over a century now.

So you are correct in a certain sense. Teachers should be addressing these geological 'problems' in the classroom. If they did, people wouldn't be getting suckered by bad creationist arguments. At any rate, let's see some of those other proofs against evolution that you've got in reserve. Perhaps I'll learn a thing or two.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited July 16, 2000).]

Sorry, the polystrate trees was a bad example, I remember after I wrote it that I had read something explaining it, but I was at work and couldn't change it.

Anyways, it still seems foolish to accept evolution as fact because there has not been an observed occurence of evolution on a scale needed to result in separate species. Evolution still has plenty of time to come up with such direct evidence, at which point I'd be willing to accept the theory as fact. Don't get me wrong, I have said repeatedly that I don't think evolution is necessarily false (read all my previous posts) just that it still hasn't got enough evidence to be considered fact. I still think that within the next 100 years or so there will be some more amazing discoveries or theories that will change the face of science as radically as evolution and Newton's universal gravitation. I want to see this happen, and it seems wherever a body of thought establishes a theory as fact in history, the progress of science is hampered. The most notible examples are when the Catholic Church meddled in science, so I definitely don't want to see the religious world attempt to mix with the scientific world, they don't go together. I still think however that we don't know enough about the origin of life on the earth to call evolution fact, much like we don't know enough about the origin of the universe to call the big bang fact. They're both great theories that make great predictions which so far have not disagreed noticably with observation, but that doesn't mean we should take them as fact. We can take as fact that the earth orbits around the sun, because that can be observed. We can also take as fact that gravity causes things to fall, that can be demonstrated. We have not observed or demonstrated evolution, so it cannot be taken as fact. We can assume it's true for the purposes of scientific theories or investigations, but should it one day be proven problematic, we need to revise everything we have base on it. To science, seeing is believing. To religion, you don't have to see to believe. By accepting evolution as fact without directly observing it, is much the same as a religious man accepting God to exist without observing it. This is where the problem is. In fact, if I had not experienced something which convinced me that there was a God (I won't go into details here) then I would not believe he existed. Scientists who believe in evolution without having a direct experience that convinces them that it is true are taking more of a leap of faith than I took when I accepted the existence of God.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Throughout the article, the author keeps on saying that you need to destinguish between the fact of evolution and the theory of how it is accomplished, attempting to comare it to the fact of gravitation and the theory of how gravity works. Unfortunately this distinction isn't there. Changes in plants and animals over periods of time have been observed. Genetic mutations have been observed. As such, by definition, evolution has been observed. However, new species have not been observed forming from existing species via natural events and conditions. Granted the species line is a little shady at best, but until we can definitely see new species forming via natural evolution this distinction cannot be made. And at that point it would probably be a moot point because we would have observed it so long we would know exactly how it happens. To say this is the same as making a distinction between the fact of gravity (watching something fall to the ground) and the theory of how gravity works is obviously stupid. After reading that article my opinion of the validity of what is said on < www.talkorigins.org > has gone down a notch.

Again, I'll reiterate that it's not that evolution is false, because I haven't seen any evidence that disproves it, it just has not got enough evidence yet to be called fact. It has not been demonstrated, it has not been observed, it relies wholly on interpretation of evidence. To go back to my crimescene analogy, rather than being a case of where there were witnesses to a crime, in addition to evidence, there is not much more than a gun, a dead victim and suspect. Forensics has not even had a chance to thoroughly examine the scene of the crime, so it's a little hasty to say it's a fact that the suspect killed the victim. That's not to say that when all is said and done, the suspect won't be on death row for murder, it's just that it's still a while before the case has been established and brought to trial. Yet already we have all the media rats asking the homeviewers, "Do you think he's guilty?"

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

It's been fun.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

quote:

---

...even just that little example is enough to say that currently accepted evolutionary theory is not fact, and in order to be considered fact needs to be revised to fit the evidence at hand.

---

Somebody said that. I'm not sure who. Slips my mind at the moment.

And I guess you learn something new every day. I never knew that Sherlock Holmes solved his cases with 'Faith'.

Ah well. Doesn't look like this debate is going anywhere, so I'm just going to drop it. As a last note, and just for the record, its: a) the utter consistency of the fossil record the world over, b) the observation of microevolution, c) the existence of transitional fossils, d) the existence of vestigial organs in related organisms that have undergone divergent evolution, e) the genetic relatedness of all life on earth, f) the occurence of beneficial mutations, g) knowledge of < speciation events >, h) a host of other things I don't care to mention, that convinces me that evolution is fact. I guess you could say that I've got a loads of 'Faith'.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Anyway, what happens in a lot of these debates is a lot of arguments are posted, and nobody changes their mind. Rather, they become more adamant in their own position. Have at it!

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

As far as religion goes, it doesn't rely on fact. Personally I think that comparing ideas from religion and science is GRADE A stupid. The Creationist viewpoint is perfectly fine if you take it as something that shouldnt play ANY bearing in scientific discusion. People can believe in anything they want but that doesnt mean that it should interfere with scientific pursuit.

The whole idea of science is that its the pursuit of knowledge. We learn about things and try and work out something that makes sense. If its later found that it doesnt make sense then its studied. There should be NO argument AT ALL on whether evolution should be taught in school. Its science like anything else, and its critically important to know.

Judeo-Christian Creation stories (I'll use the word "stories", but thats just me...) arent SCIENCE at all. They are religion, they are taught at church, take it or leave it. Regardless of your ideas on whats right, evolution should be taught in school because its the best way to describe how we think the world works as we see it. I don't see why religious folks don't see the theological merit in knowing the way God made it SEEM like the world works.

I'm sorry if Im repeating what other people say but this is the way I see it and that's why I posted it.

------------------
"You've soiled my dickey!"

--Kintara