Evolution

[Roxie Faye]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]I believe you're referring to Newton's theory MistressRoxie, not a theory of Gravitation per se, not the same thing really. But I digress. My whole point in this thread is if you're going to use caps and essentially shout at someone saying they are wrong, lay off the caps and actually back up the claims of there is [I]tons and tons of facts to prove it's claims.[/I] Lets not turn this into a shouting match please.[/COLOR][/QUOTE][color=#9933ff]I think you went through the semantics of the first sentence with Nerdsey, but just to clarify, I am very aware that the theory of gravitation didn't pop out of the clouds from nowhere.

I also did *NOT* say, "You're wrong to believe in creationism or intelligent design."

What I DID say was, "You're wrong to dismiss Evolution as just a silly idea because for a fact, it has a staggering amount of evidence to prove its case."

And if you're challenging me to provide that evidence, here you are:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution[/url] - Please also take a look at the footnote references and the external links. There are [b]twelve[/b] recommended further readings, [b]190[/b] footnotes to the article, and [b]seven[/b] external links.
[url]http://evolution.berkeley.edu/[/url]
[url]http://darwin-online.org.uk/[/url] - The works of Charles Darwin
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/[/url][/color]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='MistressRoxie'][color=#9933ff]I think you went through the semantics of the first sentence with Nerdsey, but just to clarify, I am very aware that the theory of gravitation didn't pop out of the clouds from nowhere.

I also did *NOT* say, "You're wrong to believe in creationism or intelligent design."[/color][/QUOTE]Did I say you did? No.[quote name='MistressRoxie;804589][color=#9933ff]What I DID say was, "You're wrong to dismiss Evolution as just a silly idea because for a fact, it has a staggering amount of evidence to prove its case."[/color][/QUOTE]You essentially shouted instead of doing this from the beginning:[QUOTE=MistressRoxie'][color=#9933ff]And if you're challenging me to provide that evidence, here you are:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution[/url] - Please also take a look at the footnote references and the external links. There are [b]twelve[/b] recommended further readings, [b]190[/b] footnotes to the article, and [b]seven[/b] external links.
[url]http://evolution.berkeley.edu/[/url]
[url]http://darwin-online.org.uk/[/url] - The works of Charles Darwin
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/[/url][/color][/QUOTE]Now that wasn't so hard was it? I'm not asking for proof for myself, in all honesty the topic bores me. What I'm asking is that instead of responses like this:[quote name='MistressRoxie']You're WRONG. Evolution has TONS AND TONS OF FACTS TO BACK UP ITS CLAIMS. (As does gravity.)

I'm tired of people dismissing evolution because it's "JUST" a theory. Go look up the way we use the word theory in the context of evolution. It's backed by enough fact for it to be an intelligent, fairly conclusive consideration.[/QUOTE]I'd rather see ones like the previous with the actual links since really, you laid into who? For what? If someone wants to dismiss evolution that's their choice really. So what if someone dismisses evolution, the world isn't going to change and getting annoyed or tired solves nothing. People have a right to their opinion whether you agree or not.

And while we're at it as far as I'm concerned, this by far is the best post in the entire thread:[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]I believe in the self-assuredness of the people who will post in this thread in the coming weeks.

That is the only real certainty in life.[/color][/QUOTE][/COLOR]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud'][color=indigo]Aceburner, you have the wiki part of the 2nd law of thermodynamics down but I think you are interpreting the information in a misleading manner. Since I am not intelligent enough to clearly describe the role of thermodynamics in reproduction and evolution (micro mind you) I’ll simply quote University biology professor Peter v. Sengbusch: [/color][/QUOTE]

Yes, yes... Yes, very good. Thank you for that. It clears up a lot.

Doesn't really go against my point, But I definitely learned something.

Like I said, though, with one basic physical law and modern observation contradicting it, it's highly unlikely evolution will ever be fully proven, nor will it ever be disproven as long as other studies suggest it occurs and science doesn't take into account supernatural forces. Therefore, I've given up caring how we got here years ago. What matters now is what we do with ourselves. I say we put this aside for now and go walk a little old lady across the street or discover a cure for cancer. Something good for the outside world, you know?

[ZeitGeist]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]People who lend their trust to the "religion of science" are making sound assumptions about the nature of science and the community's consensus. They assume that scientists have examined the phenomena in question with great rigor and strenuousness, and because of this their words carry more weight. They assume that these scientists are far more qualified to speak on the topic, and that they probably know more than a person who reads in a book "God made it" and believes it.[/quote]

Good point, but what about us religious folk who have turned the microscope on our faith, to test it as vigorously as scientists would their theories?

I did not just beleive "God made it, end of story," as many people beleive we do. I have read articles in Christian apologetics that do put forth a compelling case for a creator.

[quote]
The fact of the matter is scientific investigation is far more rigorous than that of untested belief, and as a result believing in the "religion of science" is far more relevant than believing "the bible said it".[/quote]

Agreed. I tend to think that religion has been backed up by science, more or less. We have this book that says God spoke into creation and things appeared. Science tells us a big bang may have started everyting, made the universe appear. An instantanteous "big bang" is consistent with creationism, not contradictory. ^_^'

Then I look at other things science has discovered, like the DNA strand and it's complexity. It's a super-code unique to us that makes us who we are. By the nature of it's complexities, it lends to the idea of intelligent creation. We are all unique, according to the bible, and the fact that DNA is unique to everyone lends itself to that idea.


[quote]The fact is evolution has been studied, and there is a ridiculous volume of research and data on the subject documenting it.[/font][/QUOTE]

You'll find vast amounts of data on creation theory too. The most compelling case for intelligent creation remains the complexity of the design, and we are reminded of this fact by the millions of dollars researchers and scientists have expeded to understand it.

I agree that the Bible is not sceintific, it's the essentials of salvation. I believe God gave us the ability to think scientifically, so we could discover on our own how his creation works. We sometimes get a bad rap because the religious tend to shut down any notion of science, but I see that as a great shame.

Boom, the universe appears. Seems biblical to me.

[SaiyanPrincessX]

[quote name='ZeitGeist']Good point, but what about us religious folk who have turned the microscope on our faith, to test it as vigorously as scientists would their theories?

I did not just beleive "God made it, end of story," as many people beleive we do. I have read articles in Christian apologetics that do put forth a compelling case for a creator.



Agreed. I tend to think that religion has been backed up by science, more or less. We have this book that says God spoke into creation and things appeared. Science tells us a big bang may have started everyting, made the universe appear. An instantanteous "big bang" is consistent with creationism, not contradictory. ^_^'

Then I look at other things science has discovered, like the DNA strand and it's complexity. It's a super-code unique to us that makes us who we are. By the nature of it's complexities, it lends to the idea of intelligent creation. We are all unique, according to the bible, and the fact that DNA is unique to everyone lends itself to that idea.




You'll find vast amounts of data on creation theory too. The most compelling case for intelligent creation remains the complexity of the design, and we are reminded of this fact by the millions of dollars researchers and scientists have expeded to understand it.

I agree that the Bible is not sceintific, it's the essentials of salvation. I believe God gave us the ability to think scientifically, so we could discover on our own how his creation works. We sometimes get a bad rap because the religious tend to shut down any notion of science, but I see that as a great shame.

Boom, the universe appears. Seems biblical to me.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"]And I agree. I'm not going to get wrapped up in this lovely conversation, I'm just going to give you my opinion. :animesigh[/SIZE]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]People who lend their trust to the "religion of science" are making sound assumptions about the nature of science and the community's consensus. They assume that scientists have examined the phenomena in question with great rigor and strenuousness, and because of this their words carry more weight. They assume that these scientists are far more qualified to speak on the topic, and that they probably know more than a person who reads in a book "God made it" and believes it.

The fact of the matter is scientific investigation is far more rigorous than that of untested belief, and as a result believing in the "religion of science" is far more relevant than believing "the bible said it".[/QUOTE]I understand that they have some basis, but you have to understand that these "qualified scientists" are just a modern version of church figures. Their word holds more weight just like "enlightened people" did in the past. Hwang Woo-suk managed to fake his whole data, be accepted by everyone and the "great rigor and strenuousness" of the scientific community gave him the green. Hell, if he didn't come forth BY HIMSELF, we'd still be singing praises of him.

If we didn't question anything in the name of science, we'd still have the fiasco that was Alchemy. Sure, it's not "the bible said it," but is EXACTLY like "the Pope said it."[QUOTE]I mean, you've never researched in-depth (I assume) your brain's physical properties and processes; you've never read the studies and original findings and decided for yourself. So instead you assume that what neuroscientists say is probably closest to what is "right". Humans just operate that way, and to call it ignorant doesn't make much sense.[/QUOTE]Actually, I have. Maybe not MINE per say, but the brain's physical properties and processes, and yes, I not only read how they found this stuff out, but I'm REQUIRED to know. I guess "the magic" of neuroscience goes away when you do know, because honestly, it's not all that impressive - or conclusive for that matter. I won't go into the fiasco that was Phrenology either.

And I actually disagree with many neuroscientists. In fact, for Alzheimer's, I sided with the Tau protein bandwagon, which was the second-most accepted cause of the disease at the time. While there has been no winner yet, recent solutions (or just things that delay the onset) have targeted the formation of tau bridges, and have had great results. Yes, there have been drugs and solutions targeting beta-amyloid, but they have not been as impressive as of late.

I know not every person needs to know or has time to know, but if they accept something as unquestioning fact when it is indeed "just a thought," you have to wonder if there's even a point of being an "independent thinker" if you are just going to modernize blind faith. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with blind faith, but if you're going to have blind faith, don't pretend it's something else just to be hip and different.

I have no problem with faith, but I do have a problem with people in denial of their faith, religious or otherwise. I have religious faith, and like ZeitGeist, I question it just as I do science. Yet both of my beliefs in science and religion have faith.[QUOTE]About "they could probably both be wrong" ... I don't see how this is relevant. I mean certainly, all our conceptions of physics and science could be totally wrong, [i]but it's the best we have[/i]. The fact is evolution has been studied, and there is a ridiculous volume of research and data on the subject documenting it. Intelligent design and/or creationism, on the other hand, is untested theory and holds about as much credence as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you want to believe and chalk it up to "a matter of faith," I've got absolutely no problem with it. But to attempt to level science and belief on the basis of "science could be wrong" seems shortsighted to me.[/font][/QUOTE]I'm guessing this isn't about anything I said, but I just wanted to talk about Intelligent Design. It's a funny thing, because there's a conundrum in evolution: how does evolution know what is a good adaptation and a bad one? Obviously, bad ones die off and aren't passed on, but since their genes aren't passed on, what warns the survivors that it's a "bad adaptation?" So, some think observed failure also affects evolution. Otherwise, evolution's rate of progress would be much much slower.

Statistically, we'd mess up more as we evolved better, but that hasn't been the case. Evolution appears pretty streamlined. I think ID was created to fill in that conundrum. It's not a satisfying explanation, but it is an interesting one. It's different from creationism, though.


@MistressRoxie
This is just a side note, and your points are valid and I have no argument with them. But just so you know, a theory is a "testable" explanation of an observed phenomenon. Theory of Gravitation is actually a misnomer then, because no one can explain gravitation yet. Law of Gravitation would be more accurate, because a law is just an observed phenomenon. "All objects attract" is an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain how or why all objects attract.

Currently, we've got crazy, multi-dimensional, ethereal things like Bohr molecules in quantum physics as an "explanation," and until CERN or Fermi prove its existence, it's just really awesome science fiction mumbo jumbo.

Just throwing that out there. =P

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='Aceburner']Yes, yes... Yes, very good. Thank you for that. It clears up a lot.

Doesn't really go against my point, But I definitely learned something.
[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Uhm, well it actually contradicts your point entirely. See this is what you wrote?[/color]

[quote] Pretty fancy language-talkin', huh? Well, here's a paraphrase: Things break down over time. Rock erodes, plants wilt, and organisms die. evolution speaks of things advancing over time, which is contradictory.[/quote]

[color=indigo]You see, I have read similar arguments presenting cases for thermodynamics disproving evolution, mostly on creationwiki, which like all wikepedia articles presents obvious research flaws. However, plenty of scientists and mathematicians like Doc Sengbusch have used delta S equations to disprove those disproving remarks.

Again, I am not saying that evolution is the answer just that people shouldn?t attempt to shoot down a theory with faulty or incomplete data, just like people should be skeptical of any theory that includes faulty or incomplete data.[/color]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I have nothing to say really, because like indifference, I find the topic boring. Not that it isn't fascinating, but rather because I can't seem to manage to find someone to talk with on it who doesn't take offense when I don't agree with how they see it. And in the end, the actual topic isn't interesting enough to me to put the energy into debating it in a calm manner. The last time I tried, I got told by one of my more religious relatives that my [I]'lack of faith'[/I] was going to result in my going to hell for even considering evolution. :rolleyes:[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]My bible says man was created by Him. That's good enough for me.[/color][/QUOTE]

Not to prance all over your beliefs, but this in and of itself is a problem. Blindly following anything is just pointless. At least weigh the facts and looks at the options.

[ZeitGeist]

[quote name='Morpheus']Not to prance all over your beliefs, but this in and of itself is a problem. Blindly following anything is just pointless. At least weigh the facts and looks at the options.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure Nerdsy was being tounge-in-cheek. ;)

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud'][color=indigo]Uhm, well it actually contradicts your point entirely. See this is what you wrote…[/color]



[color=indigo]You see, I have read similar arguments presenting cases for thermodynamics disproving evolution, mostly on creationwiki, which like all wikepedia articles presents obvious research flaws. However, plenty of scientists and mathematicians like Doc Sengbusch have used delta S equations to disprove those disproving remarks.

Again, I am not saying that evolution is the answer just that people shouldn’t attempt to shoot down a theory with faulty or incomplete data, just like people should be skeptical of any theory that includes faulty or incomplete data.[/color][/QUOTE]

Okay, on a reread, I just noticed that middle paragraph. I'm a bit tired and already bored of this discussion, so I'm going to just take your word there's more to it and try not to pop up in this thread anymore. Like I said, The topic stopped interesting me around the time I decided it's distracting society waaay too much for something that may or may not have happened before we even developed a language.

(Not to sound rude, I respect all opinions as well as proof to back it up.)

One more thing. Morpheus: That's what Faith is. I don't really want to get into theology or philosophy here, but blind following takes a lot of guts. It may sound stupid, but then again, so did Forrest Gump. Not that it matters, Nerdsy was probably just having a bit of fun.

[spy46]

OK so here is what I'm thinking.

i do think that Evolution did happen, no i don't think its as clean as it appears to be.
*sub monkey looks at a nub growing just above its wrist*

like science, i know it took about 1000,000,000,000,000 years. *not exact*

now to try and give you an example, look at how we make a baby.

you have the sperm that in its self could be called a living organism, depending on where you stand on that, same with the womans egg.

it enters a new environment, the 2 mix and it changes into some thing else, it adapted and .... well evolved.

look at Africans, why do they have black skin?

because of the kind of environment that there great, great, great ..... great ancestors lived in.

there genetics adapted to the sun, providing them with a darker skin than some one over in the northern hemisphere, more or less.

does it give them more protection from the sun? i don't know, i don't have any ancestry in that area.

given another 40,000 years, they might start to grow an extremely tougher skin re-guarding UV rays or what not.

its the same with people that live WAY up north that almost look as white as snow, because they weren't exposed to as much sun as some one from lower on the map.

thats a few quick reasons why i think that evolution is real.

[ZeitGeist]

[quote name='spy46'][size=1]OK so here is what I'm thinking.

i do think that Evolution did happen, no i don't think its as clean as it appears to be.
*sub monkey looks at a nub growing just above its wrist*

like science, i know it took about 1000,000,000,000,000 years. *not exact*

now to try and give you an example, look at how we make a baby.

you have the sperm that in its self could be called a living organism, depending on where you stand on that, same with the womans egg.

it enters a new environment, the 2 mix and it changes into some thing else, it adapted and .... well evolved.

look at Africans, why do they have black skin?

because of the kind of environment that there great, great, great ..... great ancestors lived in.

there genetics adapted to the sun, providing them with a darker skin than some one over in the northern hemisphere, more or less.

does it give them more protection from the sun? i don't know, i don't have any ancestry in that area.

given another 40,000 years, they might start to grow an extremely tougher skin re-guarding UV rays or what not.

its the same with people that live WAY up north that almost look as white as snow, because they weren't exposed to as much sun as some one from lower on the map.

thats a few quick reasons why i think that evolution is real.[/size][/QUOTE]

Those points you brought up can also be used to prop up creationism, dependent on the spin you give them. To me, those points look like the work of an engaged creator, giving his creation necessary variations so they can survive in certain environments.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='ZeitGeist']Those points you brought up can also be used to prop up creationism, dependent on the spin you give them. To me, those points look like the work of an engaged creator, giving his creation necessary variations so they can survive in certain environments.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]To add to this: check out Ken Ham ? specifically, his theory on genetic degradation.[/FONT]

[The13thMan]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh wow... i couldn't read all of the posts (the last page), some were so painful. So many of you have misconceptions about science, intelligent design, creationism, evolution... it's ridiculous. I've looked into the subject a good amount and have heard many extremely intelligent people argue on both sides.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='Sakurasuka']There is about as much scientific evidence for each side. The only difference is that one side chooses to believe that we were designed, and one side chooses to believe that we happened. Niether side has an ironclad argument, and niether side is without holes in their theories.[/quote]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]This is way way off. I mean, it just proves that you have either very little idea of the truth behind these two subjects or you were brainwashed by ID and creationist propaganda. Evolution has tons and tons of scientific data supporting it. As a matter of fact, all possible experiments that have ever been carried out to prove or disprove evolution have all come out the same. Every single one supports evolution, 100%. If even one disproved it that would be enough to shake the entire foundation of evolution and call into question the theory, that my friend would make big news. Intelligent design on the other hand has absolutely no scientific evidence supporting it. This is because ID is not science. Ask any scientist out there and they'll tell you. ID is not science. It has no testable hypothesis. You can't have science if you can't test a theory. How do you test the existence of God? You don't, you can't.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='AzureWolf']And just so you know, the so-called "independent thinkers" merely follow the religion of science: whatever is said in the name of science is believed without question to them. Because "studies show" or "some study of which I understand and know no details of" were done. As a person who is forced to actually read and digest this BS, I am astonished at how ignorant this generation is. It's worse than those who blindly follow religion, seriously.[/quote]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh man, that is insane! Blindly following religion is worse than following science? Do you even know what science is? Science is all about carrying out experiments on your own to prove or disprove another's own theory. The entire process is called peer review and every scientist takes part in it constantly. Science is sort of like a process to get to the truth of things. Religion on the other hand is about faith. You can't test the existence of God. You can't even compare the two, they're in such different leagues. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='AceBurner']Besides, science can disprove evolution just as well as it can prove it.[/quote][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]This is a misunderstanding. Science is capable of disproving evolution through the experiments scientists carry out, but they don't. Every test ever carried out by scientists for or against evolution have all come out the same way, as i've said before.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='AceBurner']Pretty fancy language-talkin', huh? Well, here's a paraphrase: Things break down over time. Rock erodes, plants wilt, and organisms die. evolution speaks of things advancing over time, which is contradictory.[/quote]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh wow... you obviously don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Let me break it down for you. It's all about entropy and the principle that states that in an isolated system not at equilibrium entropy will increase. Entropy is kind of like saying how complex a system is. If an isolated system (like the universe) is not at equilibrium then the "complexity" of the system will continue to increase (or possibly remain the same, but never ever decrease). The classical example is this: consider a box full of some sort of gas, think of each individual atom bouncing off the walls and off each other in a seemingly random order. Now a small hole in the box opens up into another box of equal volume. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics states that the gas will move from one side of the box and into the other (not all of it, about half) until equilibrium is reached. Because of entropy we know that there will never be a case where all the random movements of the gas will cause the elements to bounce around and back into the first box. [quote name='Hugh D. Young and Roger A. Freedman']The increase of entropy in every natural, irreversible process measures the increase of disorder or randomness in the universe associated with that process.[/quote]

You say "things advancing over time" is contradictory to entropy when in fact it isn't in any way. "Things advancing" does not mean they are in any way effecting entropy, if anything they become more complex which supports entropy.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='Aceburner']Also, evolution is based on mutations. However, most mutated animals studied today cannot reproduce.[/quote]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]...This too is wrong. When evolution talks about mutations that change the evolutionary line of a species it's talking about small mutations that makes an animal better fit for its environment. It's not talking about physical deformations and retardations.

Ever heard of Darwin's natural selection?

To what MistressRoxie says in her first post, i have to mostly agree. The word theory used by most people is different in connotation in the manner that scientists use it. When most normal people use the word theory they usually mean something that could or could not be, with maybe a 50/50 shot. When scientists use the word they simply are stating that there's not 100% certainty. It's more like a 99.99/100 shot when scientists say it.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='Gavin']My whole take on the evolution vs intelligent creation ? Doesn't really matter, neither of them can be proven conclusively.[/quote][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]ID cannot be proven or disproven and evolution can very easily be disproven but has not. I don't really know how much evidence people need to ever see that evolution is real... i think most people are just ignorant of how much evidence there is supporting evolution. There's also too much ID/Creationist propaganda out there.


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Boo]

[quote name='Morpheus']Not to prance all over your beliefs, but this in and of itself is a problem. Blindly following anything is just pointless. At least weigh the facts and looks at the options.[/QUOTE][size=1]Unless you prefer to live in the present and for the future instead of over thinking what might have happened way in the past. If it's good enough for him, why should you care?

I for one don't care enough to spend valuable hours of my life debating these topics, knowing that there'll be no end result anyhow. You can't figure it out, it's fun to think about sometimes but no matter what arguments you throw against each other, you're just battling between beliefs. Until someone comes with the real deal smashing arguments, keep researching, if you care so much.

Anyhow, as for myself, I don't seclude any of the ideas when it comes to believing things. I only bother myself with the subjects that I can actually find/know something about, to be honest.

Besides, the evolution thing isn't completely a creation vs. science thing anyhow. After God supposedly created everything in the universe, things obviously needed to evolve.[/size]

[The Spectacular Professor]

Alright, here's my official last post in this topic. I'm just addressing stuff now.

13th: Stop capitalizing the "b." I'll eat you.:animesigh

Oh, and spy46: Let's take a look at these examples of yours:
[quote name='spy46']now to try and give you an example, look at how we make a baby.

you have the sperm that in its self could be called a living organism, depending on where you stand on that, same with the womans egg.

it enters a new environment, the 2 mix and it changes into some thing else, it adapted and .... well evolved.[/QUOTE]

No, no, no, NO! This is a terrible example. This is a different type of science altogether. the cells are preprogrammed to do that. there is no adaptation involved. Besides, evolution is supposed to take place over millions of years, not a handful of months. A better example of adaptation would be the human ability to observe and learn.

[quote name='spy46']look at Africans, why do they have black skin?

because of the kind of environment that there great, great, great ..... great ancestors lived in.

there genetics adapted to the sun, providing them with a darker skin than some one over in the northern hemisphere, more or less.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring possible racist connotations here, this is called "getting a tan." Not sure how it works itself into your genetic code, but it does.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I have nothing to say really, because like indifference, I find the topic boring. Not that it isn't fascinating, but rather because I can't seem to manage to find someone to talk with on it who doesn't take offense when I don't agree with how they see it. And in the end, the actual topic isn't interesting enough to me to put the energy into debating it in a calm manner. The last time I tried, I got told by one of my more religious relatives that my [I]'lack of faith'[/I] was going to result in my going to hell for even considering evolution. :rolleyes:[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Same here really, all the pointless debates and uproar over having evolution even taught in school has turned me of to the topic altogether. And in the end I really don't care, it is fascinating, but like you said it's too easy to run into people who are too narrow minded to accept that you don't agree. Sadly, even my own parents fall prey to this since they are firmly rooted in religious beliefs as far as how man came to be. It's one of those hot topics that my family has simply decided to not discuss to keep us sane. lol

[ZeitGeist]

[quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh wow... i couldn't read all of the posts (the last page), some were so painful. So many of you have misconceptions about science, intelligent design, creationism, evolution... it's ridiculous. I've looked into the subject a good amount and have heard many extremely intelligent people argue on both sides.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]...This is because ID is not science. Ask any scientist out there and they'll tell you. ID is not science. [B]It has no testable hypothesis[/B]. You can't have science if you can't test a theory. How do you test the existence of God? You don't, you can't.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

By this measure, evolution is not science. You can have all the supposed evidence in the world, but how can you test the hypothesis of a process that takes millions of years? You don't, you can't.

Think about that carefully before you completely dismiss me for being a zealot. Evolution by it's nature is [I]untestable[/I]. You can collect data and interpret it, but there's no way to physically test the hypothesis of evolution, to see the pieces fit.

[Red]

[quote name='ZeitGeist']By this measure, evolution is not science. You can have all the supposed evidence in the world, but how can you test the hypothesis of a process that takes millions of years? You don't, you can't.

Think about that carefully before you completely dismiss me for being a zealot. Evolution by it's nature is [I]untestable[/I]. You can collect data and interpret it, but there's no way to physically test the hypothesis of evolution, to see the pieces fit.[/QUOTE]

What about Staphylococcus aureus & MRSA?

[Vicky]

[quote name='Aceburner']



Ignoring possible racist connotations here, this is called "getting a tan." Not sure how it works itself into your genetic code, but it does.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]It's not 'getting a tan', it is to do with genes and adapting to one's environment. If someone had two parents from Africa, but was born in... let's say Russia, then they're not going to be white. On an evolution related topic, supposing it's real, ape-like ancestors with hair would have had a white skin pigment under their hair, until they encountered baldness in which the skin would need to adapt to prevent low folate levels (assuming they lived in a place like Africa).

And... you don't know how it works in the genetic code, as you said. It's basically determined by four to six genes that operate under 'incomplete dominance', which is why I'm pretty sure it's not 'getting a tan'.[/SIZE]

[Retribution]

[quote name='AzureWolf']I understand that they have some basis, but you have to understand that these "qualified scientists" are just a modern version of church figures. Their word holds more weight just like "enlightened people" did in the past. Hwang Woo-suk managed to fake his whole data, be accepted by everyone and the "great rigor and strenuousness" of the scientific community gave him the green. Hell, if he didn't come forth BY HIMSELF, we'd still be singing praises of him.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]People think they hold more weight because they have the scientific method to back their claims. Like I said, their claims and findings are generally more rigorous and intensive and comprehensive than untested conjecture and arbitrary philosophy.

[QUOTE]If we didn't question anything in the name of science, we'd still have the fiasco that was Alchemy. Sure, it's not "the bible said it," but is EXACTLY like "the Pope said it."[/QUOTE]
Science by its nature is critical and so to accept its findings without further review, for the majority of the population, is the only viable option. Honestly no one has time to read over all the experimental data and draw their own conclusions.

[QUOTE]Actually, I have. Maybe not MINE per say, but the brain's physical properties and processes, and yes, I not only read how they found this stuff out, but I'm REQUIRED to know. I guess "the magic" of neuroscience goes away when you do know, because honestly, it's not all that impressive - or conclusive for that matter. I won't go into the fiasco that was Phrenology either.[/QUOTE]
This is missing the point. My point is that you aren't scientifically omniscient and thus there are gaps in your intensive knowledge. This means that you [i]must[/i] on some level trust science. Perhaps you don't know astrophysics. Perhaps you don't know chemistry.

[quote]I know not every person needs to know or has time to know, but if they accept something as unquestioning fact when it is indeed "just a thought," you have to wonder if there's even a point of being an "independent thinker" if you are just going to modernize blind faith. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with blind faith, but if you're going to have blind faith, don't pretend it's something else just to be hip and different.[/quote]
I mean certainly, I'm speaking of acceptance that both acknowledges science's fallibility but also its strengths in explaining the universe. I'm not trying to argue that science is never wrong, only that its view of the universe is relatively intensive.[/font]

[spy46]

Aceburner, how could my comment be close to raciest?
*as far as i know were all human*:animesmil

i in no way said any thing to disrespect Africans or African Americans or where ever some one with a darker skin tone may live.

as for the baby example, yes i do know it was a bad one, i just thought it might be a simple way to look at it and consider the idea of how change can happen with cells and so on.

and to comment on the black baby idea, unless the woman had some kind of EXTREMELY! thin skin or some thing and was out in the sun, that would not give the baby the same color.

its the same as blonds, red heads and any hair or eye color out there.

its in the genetic code of the parents and the entire family that makes you look like you, i think we all know this much.

so if 80% of your family had blond hair, dark skin, blue eyes ..... or pointed ears, then the chances are, that you will to because for some reason your family's DNA evolved that way because of exposure to some kind of conditions.

be it because of the constaint sun beating down on you like in africa or other tropical places or what ever.

[The13thMan]

[quote name='ZeitGeist']By this measure, evolution is not science. You can have all the supposed evidence in the world, but how can you test the hypothesis of a process that takes millions of years? You don't, you can't.

Think about that carefully before you completely dismiss me for being a zealot. Evolution by it's nature is [I]untestable[/I]. You can collect data and interpret it, but there's no way to physically test the hypothesis of evolution, to see the pieces fit.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]
I'm actually quite glad you asked me this. It's good for me to have to go out and cite proof to back up my own statements, and that's exactly what you've caused me to do. So then, here it is.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Dr. Kenneth Miller]Q: One of the lines of evidence that you pointed out at the Dover trial is the organization of our own chromosomes. How is that evidence for common ancestry?

Miller: We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?

Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data.

"The closer we look at our own DNA, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species."

Here's the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It's easier than you might think.

Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possess a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn't belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?

We do. It's human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.

Is there any way that intelligent design or special creation could explain why we have a chromosome like this? The only way that I can think of is if you're willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]That's only one example of course, out of many. I'm sure next time you'll do some research before you make such a claim as "evolution is not a testable hypothesis."

Here's a link to the page i got the argument from. It's from an entire interview from the guy, i recommend reading it if you're interested in learning more. He goes over many things, including why ID is not science.

[URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html[/URL]

And i would never dismiss someone as a zealot or dismiss them at all if they sincerely misunderstood something and was specifically addressing it towards me.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

[ZeitGeist]

[quote name='Red']What about Staphylococcus aureus & MRSA?[/QUOTE]

What about them? Can you track them for millions of years?

I get what you're saying, that they adapt, but their adaptation is not indicative of evolution as a whole, just intelligent organisms.

[quote]That's only one example of course, out of many. I'm sure next time you'll do some research before you make such a claim as "evolution is not a testable hypothesis." [/quote]

Heh, you're missing the point. Evoultion is not a testable hypothesis because you cannot observe it, specifically macro-evolution.

My point is that you can interpret all the figures you want, and you can put an evolutionary slant on them, but you can't really test it. All this is, is data gathering.

The way you interpret what the data means is how you come up with this conclusion, but to test it, you would have to simulate the environment and note it's progression.