You know, for once I actually like this no religion rule... lets see if any of you can debate the subject without falling back on bible quotes. The "intelligent design" crowd claims that evolution can be disproved on purely scientific and empirical grounds, and I know we have at least one supporter of that position here. So here's the challenge... SickleYield, lets see if you have the metaphorical balls (yes, I know you're a woman) to do this in public. Or anyone else, really... if you feel you're up to it, post your arguments.


Now then, the background...

SickleYield, and likely other users of this forum, claims to have university-level degrees in biology and chemistry. Despite this, she believes (casting serious doubt on those supposed degrees) that the universe is between 6-10,000 years old, evolution fails to provide an explanation of the complexity of life on earth, empiricism and science are not capable of describing the entire universe, and various other things. Against this position is essentially all of science: all of modern biology, all of astronomy, large sections of physics, large sections of chemistry (including all of organic/biochem), and significant parts of ancient history (including continuous historical records of human civilizations older than 10,000 years).

SickleYield, I challenge you, or any other supporters of this "theory" to present your case against evolution. The following options are available areas of discussion:

* The countless dating methods, based on well-known physical constants, that prove the universe (as well as the earth in general, and all life on it) is orders of magnitude older than 6-10,000 years.

* The overall Darwinian theory of mutation and natural selection, including the well-documented examples that have been observed happening in recent history.

* Any of the various claims of "irreducible complexity" that have been made. I strongly encourage these, they're a lot of fun to disprove.

* The origins of (primitive) life itself. Note that despite popular misconception, this is NOT a part of the Theory of Evolution, I simply include it here because it may be interesting.

* Any of the assorted "scientific" arguments against evolution (entropy/thermodynamics, etc).

* The "missing link" problem, if you believe one exists.

* For those of you who generally agree with me, but have questions/disagreements about the specific details (punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism, etc) , feel free to post them.

* The concepts of empiricism and the scientific method, and whether they are capable (or the best method) of finding the truth of the universe.


RELIGION, HOWEVER, IS NOT IN ANY WAY AN ACCEPTABLE ARGUMENT. YOU WILL KEEP THIS DISCUSSION ON SCIENTIFIC TERMS, AND SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH FACTS AND LOGIC. ANY MENTION OF FAITH, GODS, RELIGIONS, ETC, WILL BE IGNORED AND REPORTED TO THE MODERATORS.

I agree fully, and to support evolution I would like to put forward an example from my home country, Australia.
(No, we do not all speak in that outrageous accent)


When the British first settled Australia they brought with them, to hunt, rabbits. From this several hundred or so there has evolved, if you will, a serious problem that is resulting in the destruction of several native species. To combat this problem, a virus was released into the rabbit population, called myxomatosis, that was designed to kill off a large percentage of the rabbit population. This succeeded for a while, until a new strain of naturally selected rabbits evolved with a resistance to this virus.

This became evident because of the relatively rapid breeding cycles of rabbits, and effectively proves that evolution occurs, and has lead to the existence of almost, if not all, highly developed creatures, including human beings.

Sorry I don't disagree with you, just thought an example would be nice.

Also, do you have much expertise (knowledge) on the beginning of life? Just out of interest really, I know it involved the random permutations of proteins and other chemical substances, but would like to know your opinion on how life began.

Cris

I am a lowly bio. undergrad and I do have some problems with evolution theory.
I don't have a problem with the time frame of the universe(much older than 10,000 yrs) or Darwin's theory on evolution.
For me is the missing link is a problem, so would please give any evidence to support this link as not missing. I would like to hear your thoughts on irreducible complexity and what you find lacking and as Crisb92 inquired i would also like to hear your thoughts on life's beginnings.

I also find that both religion and science can become fanatical. I'm sure Lamarck would have called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with his theory.

Copy/paste from the "year 3000 thread":

Even ignoring the fossil record, it's easy to trace back genetic similarities and contruct an approximate evolutionary tree for pretty much any species. We know what genes we have in common, we know the approximate mutation rate, we know the structural similarities, etc. So in that sense, there isn't a missing link, we can very accurately trace our evolution back far beyond the usual "missing link" complaints. The only "doubt" comes from creationists who reject the entire concept of science and empiricism.

But the whole "missing link" thing is just a giant appeal to ignorance fallacy. Think about it for a moment... lets take two species, modern humans and the common ape/human ancestor. There's a gap, your so-called missing link. Now lets say a record of an intermediate species is found, call it Species A. The gap-ist's response would be "now there are TWO gaps!" (instead of human-ancestor, now we have ancestor-A, A-human), considering the overall theory twice as weak, not better supported. Now lets say another species, Species B is found, filling the gap between A-human. Now we have three "missing links" (ancestor-A, A-B, B-human) to deal with. I think you can see the pattern... unless we have a record of every individual organism between the ancestor and modern humans, there's always going to be a "missing link" you can point to.

And this is exactly what we should expect. Fossils only form under very specific and rare conditions, the majority of organisms simply die and are lost forever. Now consider the incredibly tiny percentage of the planet's surface we've searched for fossils. How many "missing links" are somewhere in a vast wilderness waiting to be found? How many "missing links" have been paved over to build another parking lot? How many "missing links" have been imperfectly fossilized and exist only as fragments or mis-identified random bones?


In simple terms:

1) Every single example of irreducible complexity is just plain wrong. To say more, you'd have to tell me which example you have in mind. But so far, every one of them actually can be explained by evolution.

2) Even if an example could be found, it doesn't make creationism/intelligent design/whatever correct. All it would mean is that there is a feature that nobody knows the explanation for yet. Since the theory works so well in every other case, we would simply set it aside as "to be explained later" and wait for new evidence to appear.


As for the origins of life itself, I'm probably not the best person to ask. I know in general terms (but you've already said you know that), but I don't know the details. I don't think anyone does, really, there's a lot of speculation involved and I'm not qualified to say "this is the correct answer" beyond the basics.

Personally, I think this whole issue has more to do with certain religious ideologies which say that man is created from God, has an immortal soul, and is above all creatures. Evolution challenges this because the line between man and animal is blurred. It isn't that people don't get the facts, it's just that the facts conflict with what they believe. They don't want to accept the possibility that anything other than himan has a soul, or that humanity may have developed from an apelike ancestor who was not shaped in God's image, but was shaped in response to a changing environment and basis for survival.

Even if aliens were to come out of the sky and show their collection of research footage of the process dating back millions of years ago, people still wouldn't accept it. For whatever people seem to need a feeling like there is some great purpose to existance. Intelligent Design is really just trying to fill that role, rather than the laws of physics being responsible (physics describe chemical processes, chemical processes describe biological processes), instead it falls into the hands of God for going through the trouble of figuring out what everything is supposed to end up like. When really, if there is a God, it would be far easier to just define the laws of physics, and let everything adjust on its own, than to define everything. The laws of physics needed to be defined anyway, why go and make the effort to factor in billions of variables to make sure that somewhere in the universe something called human is made?

This isn't a religious argument, God in this case merely means the unexplainable force that makes the universe possible. Since the opponents of Evolution usually cite such unexplainable things, it only makes sense to refer it this force in those terms. It is not to say that those forces cannot be explained, only that the explaination is not currently available in definite terms.

Well you requested my input, so here it is.

Let's get one thing straight, I don't care that much about the evolution vs. intelligent design debate, compared to the main idea of my faith, it's not a big deal. I believe what I believe and hold it to be true, and no one can take that away from me.

The problem is, I can't talk about God in my explanation of what I believe, so this'll be kind of hard.

No, I don't think that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, but I can't talk about God, so I can't explain why.

You're asking me to try and disprove evolution, but I don't really disagree with it all that much to begin with. I think that evolution and creation are related some how, I don't exactly know how, and honestly, I don't care. Both sides I think take it to far saying that either there is absolutely no God or that evolution is entirely wrong.

So, there it is, that's a rough idea of what I believe, it could be a lot more in-depth, but I can't talk about God...

Thank you for your insight Peregrine.

On irreducible complexity the general argument against is that it actually remove evolution from the equation seeing how life would reach this point only thru design. My question was only about the general idea of IC and ID, and whether or not you had any unique outlook on the matter.

Creationism and evolution on a philosophical level both look to find the why in which humans came about, be it the 1 in 10^9 change in nucleotide pairs over time or the slow crafting of an intellegence. As Vagrant0 said "people seem to need a feeling like there is some great purpose to existance", i think this is true for most.
Because out of all creatures on earth we are the weirdos, the only creatures that spend hours looking into space hoping we find our reflections or in search of a greater force that wanted us to be like this. Most would probably find it rather sad that humans are just one of nature's "accidents".

On the side of poopgoblin i too have no problem with having both God and evolution as i take both from the viewpoint of deism.

If we were, what would it really change for the worse? If the accident happened once, it's likely that it'll happen again elsewhere. Given that humanity seems bent on destroying itself, I feel more comfortable knowing that even if we should be destroyed, at some point another race will come along and gain something, if only something to laugh at, from our efforts here. If humanity was this one unique thing, once we're gone that would be it, and any accomplishments we may have made anywhere would be meaningless. To me that stands out as being more important than anything else. If it was intelligent design, you would assume the designer wouldn't have made us quite so greedy and suicidal.

True, humans being fukes of nature wouldn't change anything, we would still be as we are and have always been. Although if an alien race similar to our species or just similar in thought, i would hope not for laughter on their part but a curiousity to understand us.
I don't see humianity as "bent on destroying itself", which falls more into understanding the nature of man and probably should have its own topic. And further discussion of design and designer would take us out too far into the swamp of no return on this board.

Addendum: If it could happen elsewhere would it not also be in the realm of possibility that another species on our blue and green marble be able to advance to a similar point as we are now, with our without our destruction?

I havn't had a really good anthropology course in a while (not at all really) but I believe Neanderthals (sp) could have possibly been such a thing. They were a species which was developing parallel with humans, except with more development toward living in an iceage climate, more importance on brute force than developing tools. They were the ultimate iceage hunter, built for strength and surviving the cold, but not as well mentally developed. Humans could build better tools and organize better, so as the environment changed, we had the advanatge. I think it was possible that humans either intentionally (through conflicts over hunting areas) or unintentionally (killing off game, causing Neanderthals to have a harder time getting enough food and starving), caused the extinction of the species. Likewise, since then virtually every species has been hunted by humans, or their ancestors, if there was much potential for another race to develop on this planet, we likely interrupted it. If another is capable of developing in the next million years or so, it would likely depend on what the environment is like, and if that environment allows a fairly intelligent species a niche to develop. Since our destruction would likely cause mass extinction, such a niche may even be created in the aftermath. The question is if such a species would also survive that event.

Naturally, there would have to be some things in place for anything to be able to move beyond merely being able to survive and propigate well. Humans evolved first because there were already a number of things present in our ancestors to allow those steps. First would be the spot on the foodchain, being at the top would mean few things giving advantage to smarter, or more organized members of the species since capability is assured, meanwhile being a prey animal would require spending most of their energy merely staying alive. While in both cases intelligence does allow slightly longer survivability, it wouldn't make it certain. Somewhere near the middle is where the sweet spot would be since it would require adjusting between being prey and being predator. The food chain is important since larger brains require eating meat, and larger brains mean more to work with. This would lead to greater problem solving ability, and in turn basic language to help multiple members of the species to coordinate. Coordination between members of the species allows social groups to form, and older members the ability to share knowledge with younger ones. There are several species of mamals, birds, and even insects which show evidence of such abilities. However it is the ability to use tools that sets primates apart from most of those species. Since tool usage allows for bypassing various biological limitations, as well as requires a greater complexity of language to not only create them, but also impart their usage onto other members, it would be one of the final requirements of any species developing like we have. Tool ussage unfortunately requires an ability to manually move the tool in a specific way, which means that anything without a suitable appendage, or biological capactiy would be unable to develop in that manner. As uasge of tools, and the creation of new ones forces greater and greater demands on the mental abilities of the species, a species developing as much mentally as humanity would probably require tools.

Then explain exactly HOW you disagree with it, no matter how minor.

And your "two sides" are completely wrong. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with god/atheism. So please don't bring religion into this and get my thread locked.

=========================================




My "unique outlook" is that the idea of "irreducible complexity" is either ignorance or outright fraud. Every single example proposed so far has been explained in terms of evolution and natural selection, so the people who keep mentioning them either:

1) Don't understand the theory.

or

2) Know perfectly well that the argument has been disproven, but know that their target audience doesn't. So they keep repeating the same old arguments over and over again, pretending that the counter-proof doesn't exist.


And even in the worst case scenario, "IC" does not prove a designer. Even if an example was found, the most we could say is that "we currently lack an evolutionary explanation for this feature". We are NOT justified in making the jump to "no explanation will ever be found", the critical requirement for setting aside evolution and including a designer/guiding force/etc.


As for the supposed "meaning" of life, it's a completely irrelevant point. An interesting one maybe, and deserving of its own thread, but irrelevant to the factual truth of evolution. Evolution either happens or doesn't happen. It either explains the complexity of modern life, or fails to do so. But it does so completely independently of our human opinion of the truth. If it takes away (or adds) meaning to life, that doesn't change the facts at all... we just have to deal with an uncomfortable reality.




That's somewhat of a misunderstanding... predators have just as much need for intelligence and ability as prey. Remember the concept of predator/prey relationships as an arms race, a predator that fails to improve will lose to prey that is adapting and getting better at avoiding becoming dinner. So capability is far from assured. If you want a counter-example, just look at the various pack hunters... they've evolved a complex method of hunting, requiring far more intelligence than other animals. It's not hard to see how, given the right key advances (tool use, language, etc, whichever of these started the rapid expansion of human-ancestor brain power), a predator could go all the way to full human-like intelligence.

I kinda see where you're going, but think it would be more likely that those advances would happen by a species somewhere in the middle than predator or prey. The advances of the predator are made according to the advances in the prey, which is well and good if both have conditions which require further adaptation. However it is also possible that both species would hit a point of stagnation where there aren't any significant advances on either side. Whereas the one in the middle has to not only beat the predator, but also the prey, so would have to develop the mental capacity to survive at both.

As for tool use, they need a hand or something to operate that tool. Which, in the case of wolves and most animals, would require significant mutations to morphology, and those mutations would have to make a significant different in effectivness. Since more advantage would likely go to the member with sharper claws, or larger paws, and not to those with more dexterity, such things probably wouldn't take place. You also have to remember that such mutations would be more likely to take hold in species with shorter breeding cycles and smaller populations. Which means that larger animals are more likely to improve the traits (through natural selection) they already have than develop new ones (through mutation).

I'm a Grade 9 science guy.
I don't really know what's out there. Why did the Big Bang happen? Saying that it was perhaps caused by some superior being isn't dislogical. But, even if there is a 'God' that created the universe, this God still didn't create all life in one week or less. You can't ignore evolution, there's far too much evidence. I do not believe in creationism, and I also believe that if there is a God, there's no point praying to him (or her) because the mind of this God would be spread across the universe and cannot pay attention to mere mortals.

For anybody who still thinks God made all, let's look at it this way: Evolution is God's work.

Back to science then....
As for this recent predator/prey debate, predators will always rein supreme. The majority of predators are much smarter than their prey. For example:
Wolf IQ>Deer IQ
Grizzly IQ>Salmon IQ
Polar Bear IQ>Seal IQ
Spider IQ>Fly IQ
Eagle IQ>Rodent IQ
Robin IQ>Worm IQ
And so on and so forth......
This has to do with 2 factors, the first of which is the fact that predators evolved to phsically and mentally better their prey. The second factor is that the consumption of meat provides proteins important for brain development.
So now I can say my 2 points:
A) Humans evolved to be smarter and more advanced as they became more predator and less prey.
B)If humans or some other primate hadn't evolved to become the planet's dominant species, whatever would evolve in our place would definitly be a predator.

It may not necessarily be the case that a predator has the greatest chance of becoming the dominant being in an ecosystem, but it is far more likely given the way that evolution works and the development that the eating of meat allows in animals brains.

The problem people have with believing in evolution is that it shows that humans are definitely not the best that there can be, that we were in all likelihood a giant mistake on the part of natural selection. I mean, look at how humans have treated the environment, each other, and other species in their quest for continual advancement. There is only one other organism on this planet that travels from place to place, staying in one spot only long enough to take all the resources that it has to offer, reproduce wildly, then leave for the next fertile patch. That is a virus. Humans could well be called a virus of the planet, because of our willingness to destroy it to gain material wealth for ourselves. (For those of you for whom this sounds familiar, think of the Matrix)

If there is a superior being, and I do not believe myself, then they must be truly sorry that they ever placed us here.

To return to my point, humans want to believe that they are the best that can ever exist, because we are egomaniacal, and religion allows us to believe this, as we are supposedly the image of a greater being, or greater beings.

Science is slowly explaining away all the 'truths' that religion held, truths such as the origination of the human race, and the beginning of the universe. People still hold with religion because they can't face the fact that their life may have no more meaning than they give it, that they are not going to continue to exist after death. Once science has explained the final truths that religion holds there will still be a 'need' for it, as there will be more questions that we can't answer, and more people that can't bear to believe that our consciousness could be destroyed, when it is so precious to us.

Yes, humans could be considered a parasite, but a mistake? Natural Selection is about survival of the fittest. We have proven that we can survive anything, even ourselves. That shows, there, that e are the fittest, and, thus, not a mistake. A mistake in natural selection would be something like the dodo bird as the dominant species. We may not treat the environment the way most animals do, but that doesn't mark us as a 'mistake'. Evolution doesn't care if everything destroys itself, as long as the strong live on and the weak die out.

I don't know about you, but most of the food I eat has been pre-killed.

Yes, by OTHER humans.

Even if YOU weren't the actual killer of your food, ANOTHER human was, thus; humans are still predatorial in nature.

With their bare hands and teeth, I presume?

Actually, some people suggest that humans were mostly scavengers for awhile, taking meat from things which recently died, or were killed by other animals.

Word is that humans were indeed scavengers. The superior hunting race mentioned in a previous post would leave the brain of their victims, which humans would eat. I lol'd.

This is another common misconception. Evolution doesn't deal in "strong vs. weak". The only thing that matters is how good an organism (really, a set of genes) is at surviving to maturity and reproducing. Humans aren't "stronger" than everything else, we just happen to be well-adapted to reproducing in a specific environment. From an evolutionary perspective, "weak" bacteria are just as successful as humans, if not more so (consider the relative numbers of humans vs. bacteria).

If you doubt this, just look at predators vs. prey. In every sense of "strong vs. weak", the predator has a clear advantage. The prey should be quickly driven extinct, but clearly that doesn't happen. Predators and prey both go extinct, at relatively similar rates. Why? Because the two sets of genes are equally good at getting reproduced. The "weak" prey is well-adapted to surviving in its role, and produces enough surplus offspring to offset losses from predators. So unlike your misconception, the weak DO survive.

Ok, here goes:
Peregrine (in response to PM):
At one point, supposedly the beginning of time, all 4 forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear fusion and nuclear fission) were all bound up into one very small particle. All the mass in the universe was in the form of photons (energy). Suddenly, that changed. In less than a second, serious mass was gained, protons neutrons and electrons came into existance. I am not saying the thought of something with higher levels of thinking deliberatly caused this to happen is an absolute fact, I actually think it's quite unlikely, but isn't it something temptingly easy to believe?
Everybody else:
No, man did not start out scavenging meat. We started out even lower than that, picking bugs from eachother's fur coats. As we moved out from the forest and into the grasslands, a multitude of things happened:
a) we lost our fur
b)the ability to walk on 2 legs allowed us to see over the tall grass
c) we started finding dead bodies (more than in the forest) which we ate, overcompensating for the lack of ticks in our diet (in terms of protein)

After a while, we decided that waiting for animals to die didn't get us enough meat, and seeing that the other predators didn't like sharing, so we decided to kill them for ourselves.

Peregrine( To last post):
Are you trying to say that there's a difference between strong and well adapted? Good! Because that's exactly right! If the weak died, why do mice still exist? However......
I must disagree with you. The weak (and by weak I mean not well adapted) do not survive. The applies to both species and individuals.
For species, let's say we have a Mammal and a reptile. Both are around the same size, at the top of the food chain, and both eat lesser mammals. They live in a fair climate, with colder winters. The mammal copes with winter by quickly growing a fur coat in response to enviromental changes. The reptile copes with winter by laying eggs in a warm spot before the first frost so that, while the adults die off, the young hatch in the spring. If an unexpected Ice age hits, the mammal (both the predator and the lesser prey mammal) will survive. The mammal will only shed it's coat in response to enviromental changes and it's prey wasn't killed off by the ice age, so it should be able to survive the longer than expected winter. But the reptiles are goners. Even if the cold didn't kill off the adults before they layed any eggs, the hatchlings will not survive because in 'spring' when they hatch it'll be -15. This, of course, presumes the reptiles don't migrate or mutate.

For individuals, we have 2 cases, one for predators and one for prey:
Wolves only breed once a year, and only the alpha pair(the pack leaders, usually superior to the others in almost every way) get to. This ensures the best offspring possible. Around mating season, of course, is when most of the in-pack fighting occurs, because every male is trying to beat the alpha male. This isn't just for mating, it's a respect thing too. Less social predators (like tigers) will try somethign like this, but being the alpha doesn't give you the right to breed, it means access to more females. (of course, with no females you can't breed with or without a right). Lower individuals still breed, just with less females. They can do this because with tigers, the weak will have a slimmer chance of survival because no one will feed them when they can't catch their own food and die. Wolves, on the other hand, will feed their their weaklings (such low ranked wolves usually guard the cubs whilst the rest of the pack hunts) they must ensure that the weak aren't too weak with selective breeding, so that there are less weak in the first place .

Vegeterian herd animals usually gather in herds of females, and, with the exception of elephants who hang out in bull herds most of the year, the males wander around. Males often find themselves in the tiger situaion, fighting for access to the most females. When an elk is born, it must be strong, for the wolves will test it. They will chase young elk around , if it appears to be fast and have a lot of stamina, they will leave it alone. But if it is slow and /or tires easily, they will not hesistate to kill it. Wolves will also chase adults, to find and kill any other flawed or uselsss elk.Like the old (no longer able to produce, just slows down herd) the sick (may pass around disease, may have weak immune system, slows herd down) the crippled (slows herd down) and the stupid (slows down herd, has stupidity in it's genes, makes self easy target for preadtors)

So you see, the weak being weeded out doesn't just go for the genetically faulted, it goes for the prey indivduals that have nothign good to offer and are just taking up space, food and air.

OK, my two cents on the matter...

I've have read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." Some of the things he said struck me as somewhat harsh and a bit overstated... But I was unable to formulate any argument other than "well I don't like it." That being said, for 99.9% of his book, I wholeheartedly agree. I encourage you all to read it (and his other works on evolution, a most fascinating topic) when you can.

So...



Origin of life: I am not sure about this, but, so what if it's horrendously unlikely?

It only had to happen once.

Plus Scientific American ran a great article on it in... a recent month's issue involving evolution of chemical cycles.

Missing link: Bull. How can you expect every ancestor for the past billion or so years to be fossilized?

Punctuated/Gradualism: I think both happened. And since mutations very rarely actually have an effect, once sex was invented* evolution sped up a LOT. Basically every time someone found* something new the equilibrium would go "BOING" and shoot out of balance. Then it would stabilize again. I guess mainly there wasn't a huge amount of change per generation, until something came along and whacked the species out of balance.

Sci-Method: We're built* to be pleased at certain effects. I know my own goal in life is to have fun, not in a frivolous way, but I can explain more if anyone cares.

*WARNING: terms are not correct. I'm not attributing intelligence or design here; English is just pitifully unfit for a good passive sort of discussion.

Yes, it only had to happen once. I recently read a rather good account of science, if a bit less technical, called 'A Short History of Nearly Everything', by Bill Bryson. Something that I read in there inspired me to post this. If 'time' stretched back forever, and forward forever, even though there was no time before the Big Bang, then there must have been many instances in which a universe came into being. This significantly reduces the odds against life developing.

This is like saying, after the event, 'Wow, I saw the number plate with 1 A07 475 (insert your countries equivalent), what are the chances of that! And yet, in all likelihood one of these events had to happen, whether this or another number plate, to continue the analogy. So in a way, life and evolution were inevitable, and because of this may have existed in other universes, may exist elsewhere in this one and will most definitely exist in the 'future' or after this galaxy has once again become a singularity because of the uneven forces acting upon it.

This also gives rise to the possibility of a 'supreme being' existing in a place with difference universal laws, but I don't think I'll go there. (He says knowingly)

WOAHWOAHWOAH.......slow down.
We don't actually have any proof there are any other universes YET(although if there was any I'd like to see it) so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Personally, I don't know why anybody still believes in the Bible. I don't mean to offend any religious persons, I have nothing against people who believe there is a god, but I do not trust the Bible. No geographical evidence exists that a major flooding of the earth happened after the rise of man (heck, I don't even think there's enough water in the world to flood everywhere!) We never did find the lost arc, we never found the garden of Eve and Adam (even though we have mapped the entire world and even parts of the moon) and it's a simple fact that getting eaten by a whale results in death, even if it regurgitates you up a few weeks later.
People gathered together in the ancient times and tried to explain the phenomina around them, like weather, why the sun rises everyday, lightning, why trees grow, etc. They made gods to explain these events, and satisfy their curiosity. But why do we still need these gods when we have an explaination for everything?
Simple, we don't. Religion's time is up. It is time for science to take over.

I accept your scepticism of the multiple universes comment, it hasn't been proven, and really it is unlikely that it ever will, I was just including it for the implications that it creates.

Even without proof the multiple universes concept is quite likely, as universes do not last for ever and either expand or dilate, almost never staying at the critical size needed for the heavier elements to form and stay together to form planets and all other physical substances. So, as there was no true beginning, and will be no end, it is incredibly likely that other universes did, and will exist, even if humans cannot truly comprehend them.

While the bible literally concentrates on events that cannot happen (there isn't enough water, frozen or otherwise, to cover the Earth) when analysed intelligently it, like any other religious text, or religion for that matter, concentrates on ways we should live our lives. In all likelihood supreme beings are just the 'moderators' of life, there to explain the mysteries and to control the people who believe in a religion.

I believe that some of what they teach, such as tolerance and a healthy level of pacifism can actually help us, even if we still refuse to believe in a god.

Oh, and good on the Trilobites, the origin of the structures we see in life today, and the reason for this comment: 'Oh f***, not another phylum.' (Conway Morris)

Actually, about this universe thing......
before the big bang, all matter was in the form of energy. The big bang was when it lost momentum and gained mass. So......theoretically, there could have been a universe before the big bang. Of course, if we only count it as the universe if it has mass, there's a 50/50 chance the theory's wrong. 50% chance the universe was always pure energy before the big bang, making the theory wrong, and 50% chance that there was mass but it was all convertedd to energy before the big bang, making the theory right. Actually, when you consider how difficult it would be to convert all the mass in the universe into energy, those stats are off. But whatever.

Ok, seriously people, READ THE DAMN FIRST POST AND STOP TALKING ABOUT RELIGION. It's against the forum rules, and Dark0ne has a personal problem with my anti-religious beliefs. If you somehow don't get my thread locked by yourselves, I guarantee it'll be done the moment I answer any of your comments. If you wish to debate it with me, my AIM screenname is listed in my profile, and I'll be happy to argue all you want. But don't get my thread locked.



And as for the idea of "weak vs. strong", my point is that it's a somewhat mistaken version of the theory. The issue is "'genes that are good at replicating' vs. 'genes that aren't'". In general, this tends to lead to species that are well-adapted, but it's not a necessary rule. A species can be "weak" in our opinion, but evolutionarily very successful, as long is it is still good at replicating its genes. For example, lets invent two hypothetical animals: animal A is "strong" and perfectly adapted, animal B is "weak" and falls well short of A. BUT... B reproduces 10x as fast as A. A is clearly the "fittest" and should survive, but B will quickly drive it to extinction by sheer numbers.

The main reason I bring this up is the misconception that all organisms are aranged in some pyramid of "fittest" with humans at the top. It doesn't work this way, evolution doesn't care one bit about how "fit" you are, it just cares about how well your genes replicate in your environment.

Well, the problem with that statement is that talking about events before the universe's existence is like giving people advice on the best place to get gas if they're ever going North of the North Pole. Anything you could say about any property of the universe before its own existence --- before the existence of time itself --- is a logical impossibility. Thus, if you talk about events leading up to the Big Bang, you're already assuming that there was a universe before that event. Using that logic, I can tell you that the moon is made of cheese, pi is equal to exactly three, and the female orgasm is real.


You're gravely misunderstanding some very basic principles of probability and statistics. If I flip a coin, there isn't a 25% chance that it lands heads-up, a 25% chance that it lands heads-down, a 25% chance that it falls perfectly-balanced on its side, and a 25% chance that it instantaneously sublimates and dissipates into a slight breeze. If I draw a card in a game of poker, there isn't a 30% chance that it's a face card and a 7.4% chance that it's actually from another game. A six-sided die doesn't have a 14% chance of being a sugar cube.

Agreed. One thing to keep in mind is that evolution also deals with groups of genes. Groups of genes work to create environments in which certain genes flourish. For instance, "fang" genes on a tiger are good. If you gave them to a horse, however they'd be pointless. Theres several different layers of environmental evolution that go along with the base genes.

As far as a pre-universe goes, its more or less irrelevant. there is absolutely no way of knowing what happened before existance. If anyone, in this lifetime, can definitivly prove anything before the universe, I will call him god.

as far as evolution goes, people seem to polarize between intelegent design and evolution. But isn't Darwinian evolution a type of intelegent design? It is just natures way of makeing sure the things living in an ecosystem are abel to survive there.

Intelligent design suggests that something with the power of conscious thought and creativity is designing all life, the way engineers design machines. Evolution would be more like the machine designing new improvements for itself.

Please only let trained professionals come up with analogies, thank you. It took me years to get where I'm at.

Hmm, I'll have to disagree with you. Evolution doesn't change itself; it changes the genomes of life.

When I said " Evolution would be more like the machine designing new improvements for itself." I meant that the machine would represent a species, and evolution is only the action of self improvement.

No, self-improvement is going out and getting a tan. I don't know who told you this, but getting a tan is not evolution.

What if you're getting a tan on a species level? Would that be evolution? Hmm?

Okay, let me explain what I mean. Pretend that, instead of in Africa, man evolved in Eurasia and started off white. Man migrates south to Africa, why the sun really gets to him. Everybody gets a tan, but those with the best tan (the naturally darkest skin) survive long enough to reproduce. A few generations later, we have black people.

I know it happened the other way around, man evolved dark in Africa, went North and lost his tan, but my example was purely based on the mention of a tan.

First I want to say something about time. Time is just a thing used by man to understand everything around him. From the big bang till now, might just be one second. But it is also possible that while I'm typing this, a billion years have passed. The only thing we can use as time, is the earth's rotation around it's axis (day) and around the sun (year). But are these really days and years? Or merely a fraction of it? It is entirely plausible that the universe only exist 10.000 years, while that consists of millions of human years.

Confused ? I hope so , I allways use this with my friends, and they can't stand it. I thought it fitted the topic a bit, but now I'll say something serious (Note: this is one of the first times of my life I'm being serious...)

Well, I believe in the evolution theory, although I am an outspoken Catholic (It's not forbidden to say that, is it? ) It makes sence that there weren't any complex creatures like us in the beginning. Still there are some things I'm unsure about.

For example: Dinosaurs. They supposedly evolved into birds. It is a bit hard to believe a heavy creature with scales suddenly grew feathers, got hollow bones like birds and could fly. Although skeletons of the 'fifty-fiftyrace' have been found, I'm still doubting there realness. The best explenation they have found untill now is that a dino ate flies and jumped in the air to get them. Suddenly the species grew feathers and could fly to catch flies!

Another reason to doubt is the next one: If it was only one dinosaur race that canged into birds, how can it be that there are thousands of different bird species today? And if all dinosaur races changed into birds, why did they only find a skeleton of one kind?

The thing that makes this topic so unclear, is that Darwin supposedly said his theory of evolution wasn't correct a few years after he published it. I don't know if it is true, but I've read about it in several books.

So: I think evolution is real, but I KNOW humans still don't know anything about it, and we only have a few pieces of the puzzle.

Cya

Fritz

Absolutely and completely wrong. Time is defined in terms of a physical constant (rate of decay for a specific element, I believe). The only way to get a 10,000 year old universe is if you redefine the english word "year" to refer to a different physical value. But then it's a meaningless statement, it would be just as valid to say that the universe is one year old, a trillion years old, or any other arbitrary age I could think of.


You have a few mistakes here. First, not all dinosaurs were big and heavy, many of them were small, about the same size as modern birds. Second, all those features are useful for flight, but not absolutely necessary (flying squirrels, for example, have neither feathers nor hollow bones). You won't fly as well as a species that has them, but it's possible to get useful flight while developing those adaptations. There could be a simple order:

1) Controlled falling/long jumping: only the most minimal wing-like structure is necessary.

2) Gliding: more demanding, but doesn't require the full set of adaptations (of course they will help, and natrual selection will pick them).

3) Clumsy flight: even more demanding, probably needs the adaptations, but not at full strength. For example, bones that are somewhat hollow, but not perfectly optimized yet.

4) Modern flight: now all the adaptations are present at full strength, and you have a modern bird.


And this process is NOT sudden. There is a continuous spectrum of flight improvements all the way from essentially zero to the most adapted bird. This development can happen over a LONG period of time, since the adaptations will be useful in their partial state. Give it enough time, and the species as a whole will adapt better and better.



The same way any other set of species with a common ancestor developed. The ancestor split into two or more isolated populations, genetic changes happened over a long period of time, and eventually the two populations became too different to breed (the definition of a species).



Use some common sense. Fossils only develop under a rare set of circumstances, and we have only searched a tiny fraction of the planet. For every fossil we have, there are billions of organisms that died without ever becoming fossils, or ended up paved over by another parking lot. We're lucky we have the evidence you call "too few".

And it's not just the fossil record. You can trace the genetic changes back to a common dinosaur ancestor, completely independent of any fossils. In fact, this has been done, humbling the mighty t-rex by discovering its closest living relative is the chicken.



This is an outright lie. Darwin never took back his theory. The suppsed "deathbed conversion" is a lie spread by creationists who want to discredit the theory by any means necessary. Unfortunately, the fraud seems to work, as many people believe it without checking the facts.

Well, slightly and technically a bit off. The SI second is defined in terms of how long a stable, non-radioactive cesium-133 atom takes to react to electromagnetic waves at around the microwave range. The principle here is vaguely similar to neon lighting, but very precisely timed and controlled. The kinetics of radioactive decay are much trickier to handle compared to this, and thus radioactive decay isn't a suitable basis for a standard.


Yes, exactly! Also, have you ever considered how we define up and down? I mean, it's really very arbitrary. Someone seriously just sat down one day and said, "hmm, I think up will we upward, and down will be downward; that makes sense, right?" How do we know what's up and what's down?

Now, I believe in the theory of gravity --- don't get me wrong here. I think that gravity comes to objects and makes them fall down. It only makes sense that heavy objects are further down than light objects. However, do we really know that down is down? Do we really know that up is up? It is possible that down is up. It is also possible that down is sideways. Our only basis of comparison is that the sky is upward, and the ground is downward. We only have a few pieces of the puzzle.

So then let's think about this "gravity" business for a second. Since nobody has proved, to my satisfaction and in a manner that I completely understand, that down is down, then that must mean that whatever I think about the subject is automatically true, with no proof required. I happen to believe that down is up. Thus, if I were to push you out of a seventh-story window, you'd fall up. Care to test this hypothesis? Don't worry, my faith is very strong.


When you get a tan, your children don't inherit the tan. People of African descent don't all just have extremely thorough tans. I just don't know who keeps telling you these things.

Sigh....here we go again.
By 'getting a tan on a species level' I meant evolving a darker skin. I hate having to explain myself!!!!
Now what was peregrine saying.......
"The thing that makes this topic so unclear, is that Darwin supposedly said his theory of evolution wasn't correct a few years after he published it. I don't know if it is true, but I've read about it in several books.


This is an outright lie. Darwin never took back his theory. The suppsed "deathbed conversion" is a lie spread by creationists who want to discredit the theory by any means necessary. Unfortunately, the fraud seems to work, as many people believe it without checking the facts."
Not to argue with that or anyyhing, BUT..........
recent evidence shows that some of the minor (and I mean minor) mutations that occur in life actually assist in survival. So, in Darwin's giraffe situation, small mutations may stretch the neck a bit, and this trait would be passed down to the children, but it would not have as much of an effect as having naturally longer necks at birth.

You did not get my point: I mean, we say a year is 365 days (or 366), each day consisting of 24 hours, 1440 minutes or 86400 seconds. But is that really a year? We can't know. My point is: The time we know today, are just the values a smart guy gave them hundreds of human years ago. Example: He said a day consists of 24 hours, so we think it consists of 24 hours. All invisible things are given names so man can understand it (feelings,...).

So the real value of an universal year might be 2 human seconds, while an universal day might be 3547 human years.

Marxist ßastard did get it though

For the rest I didn't quote: if you think so, that's fine by me. Still it is hard to believe dinosaurs evolved into birds with so little proof.

As for Darwin: it might be a lie, it might not be a lie. Creationists cay say Darwin said that, while Evolutionists can say it is a lie of the Creationists. How do you know who's lying? You can't. It has been told so often, nobody knows who started lying, Creationists or Evolutionists. Every group will

cya

Fritz

There is no "Universal year", because the universe does not orbit anything.
There is a "Galactic year", which is estimated to be between 225 and 250 million years, although the term "Solar year" might be more apt.
There is also a "Cosmic year", but this appears to be more of a convenience for comparing the relative lengths of different periods.

The fact is that when Up was first defined as up, the world was thought to be flat, so no mater where you were up would always be up. Hovever, now we know that the world is round, so the concept of up and down becomes subjective. I would say up is exacly 90 degrees from the floor in my room, While some one in China would say the oppisite. Time, as we know it today, is a constant. Mabey one day some physicist will make the discovery that time is omnidirectional, but for the time being it is constant.

And I suppose you would also claim that two parallel lines can never meet?

If you are complementing my ability to state the obvious, thanks I guess. But its not as good as other peoples ability to utterly ignore the obvious.

Actually, my intent was to point out that Euclidean geometry doesn't apply to a sphere. All straight lines meet, and there is no "other side".

Ah, I see what you mean. I was thinking in terms of the dimension of time. Any way, we are probably way of topic by now.

I was under the impression that seconds are measured via the radioactive decay of cesium 2 ions...?

OK, dude, look; time as we know it is a constant with the exception of two places.

One: near the singularity of a black hole
Two: near lightspeed.

We're near neither, and most of the universe isn't either, or it'd be red- or blue-shifted out of the visible spectra.

I don't get what your argument is about anyway.

Marcus Wolfe: What? Yes, the epigenome can mutate, and yes that tends to get passed along, but... Huh?

And, who CARES what Darwin said on his deathbed? The THEORY has to much evidence behind it that there's no way in hell he could have had any evidence it was wrong, and we had a good long time to disprove it and no one has.

Thanks, I knew it was something at the atomic level, but I was just too lazy to look it up.


And who cares what the human definitions are. The age of the universe is billions of years, with years being defined in terms of that physical constant. All you're doing is changing the English language word "year" to mean something other than the scientific definition. So you might have a universe that's only a few "years" old, but then the young-earth creationist would have to claim a universe younger than a single day!



Did you even bother reading my reply? There is plenty of proof, in the DNA of modern birds, as well as traces in the fossil record. This isn't just wild speculation, we have some pretty solid evidence here.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

Key point: "These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."

Besides, as KzinistZerg said, even if Darwin had changed his mind, unless the Theory of Evolution was just a giant appeal to authority, it's completely irrelevant. Since Darwin's time, the theory has been supported by vast amounts of evidence and independent verification. While Darwin of course deserves full credit for his work, his approval is not necessary. The theory is perfectly capable of standing on its own without him.



Err, what are you talking about here? A mutation by definition is present at birth (well, the genetic code that produces it is present at birth, even if the effects of that code don't show up immediately). What you're saying makes no sense.

If you're trying to say that a giraffe could gradually stretch its neck (NOT a mutation) and then pass it on, you're completely wrong. This idea has been completely disproven for a long time. An organism's genetic code is fixed, there is no mechanism for changes in the physical body to alter those genes. If you doubt it, just use a little common sense: people lose various body parts, for various reasons. But their children are completely normal, the dramatic change is NOT copied into their genes.

The most you could have is genes for "is able to stretch the neck over time" being passed on through Darwinian selection. But it's the ability that's being passed down, not the end result itself. The offspring will still have to repeat the same stretching process themselves.