PDA

View Full Version : Evolution pole.



Chunky
2008-Sep-12, 04:57 AM
lets have a pole. what word would best describe evolution. (besides the word evolution)

redshifter
2008-Sep-12, 05:10 AM
Hmmm...did this pole start out as a toothpick?

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-12, 05:57 AM
"adaption" might be better.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-12, 06:04 AM
"adaption" might be better.

That implies intelligence.

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-12, 06:07 AM
does it?


what about an automated system like central heating for example, that could be said to adapt to changes in temperature.

I just think it could be used to describe a system changing to be better fitted to its environment; which doesn't necessarily require intelligence.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-12, 06:12 AM
does it?


what about an automated system like central heating for example, that could be said to adapt to changes in temperature.

I just think it could be used to describe a system changing to be better fitted to its environment; which doesn't necessarily require intelligence.

True. I was not criticizing you or your suggestion...
Rather- that that is the implication that most folks will read into it- regardless of it's nature or how you meant it.

thorkil2
2008-Sep-12, 06:13 AM
How does adaptation imply intelligence? Living things have been adapting to environmental change since life began. Or am I being obtuse? Was there a double meaning in your comment? I think the term evolution covers the subject very nicely, but someone somewhere in BAUT (sorry, I don't recall the post now) recently suggested that the term is interpretable only in terms of biological evolution, and that simply is not true. It still has other legitimate uses and contexts. Ideas evolve, planets evolve, discussions evolve--and who would want it any different?

Neverfly
2008-Sep-12, 06:16 AM
How does adaptation imply intelligence?

Two reasons.

1.) We tend to think in terms that we have experience with. Adaptation to most people is a matter of Willful Choice or determination.

2.) Most or average beliefs tend to lean toward I.D.

sirius0
2008-Sep-12, 06:38 AM
Best-Fit
SOFP (Survival Of the Fittest Philosophy)

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-12, 06:41 AM
I don't think adaptation would imply intelligence to anyone who has any.

Ask The Common Man In The Street about adaptation, and he will most
likely come up with the example of a chameleon, which changes its color
to match its surroundings. T.C. Mits may think that the chameleon is a
result of intelligent design, but he isn't likely to think that the chameleon
uses its own intelligence to adapt.

On the other hand, thermostatically-controlled heating systems are
definitely a product of intelligent design, and adapt specifically because
they were intelligently designed to do so.

The answers to the orignal question of this post:

1) Evolution is evolution. The other things you name certainly have
something to do with evolution, and may be essential components of
evolution, but they are not evolution any more than a sleeve is a shirt.

2) Memorize how to spell "poll".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

thorkil2
2008-Sep-12, 07:13 AM
Two reasons.

1.) We tend to think in terms that we have experience with. Adaptation to most people is a matter of Willful Choice or determination.

2.) Most or average beliefs tend to lean toward I.D.

Only people adapt consciously. But living things have been adapting to environmental change since life began. That's why there's so much diversity of life forms on the planet. Consciousness is a brand new card in the deck. Sorry, didn't follow your second statement.

ravens_cry
2008-Sep-12, 07:15 AM
I would say mutation. Without it, natural selection has nothing to work with.

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-12, 07:30 AM
but mutation just refers to one organism reproduction, and not the natural selective accumulation of mutations, that is evolution.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-12, 07:53 AM
Only people adapt consciously. But living things have been adapting to environmental change since life began. That's why there's so much diversity of life forms on the planet. Consciousness is a brand new card in the deck. Sorry, didn't follow your second statement.

One of the most common misconceptions about Evolution:

Remember the Galapagos turtles that Darwin studied?
The latest generation had much higher shells at the neck than previous.
To the Common person- those that have this misconception- This means that the turtles genetic structure willfully adapted to its environment.
By the Turtle stretching its neck to reach food (plants) the shell adapted over generations to be higher.

Another one that leads to this is the Blind Salamanders.
Since there was no light, they adapted to the darkness by losing their eyes.

It implies intelligence.

But the actuality of it is that many mutations occurred. Some were beneficial and some were not. The beneficial ones, slowly over time, dominated. This allowed greater numbers of that gene to be reproduced.

The darkness of the cave or the stretching of the neck was irrelevant. It only became relevant because the mutation offered an advantage.

Jeff Root:
Plenty of intelligent people have this misconception about evolution.

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-12, 07:57 AM
well the stretching of the neck is not quite irrelevant. If the turtle doesn't stretch its neck then there will be no selection based on that part of their anatomy; not that the turtle knows that. Same with a giraffe

Neverfly
2008-Sep-12, 08:03 AM
well the stretching of the neck is not quite irrelevant. If the turtle doesn't stretch its neck then there will be no selection based on that part of their anatomy; not that the turtle knows that. Same with a giraffe

I already said that same thing.

Neck stretching was irrelevant to the occurrence of the mutation.

It only became relevant because it offered an advantage after the mutation occurred.

ETA: I'm explaining the point badly which is ironic considering that I had that misconception myself.
Maybe by exploring TalkOrigins, a person can see better examples of these misconceptions at work.

AndreasJ
2008-Sep-12, 11:12 AM
That implies intelligence.

Maybe it does, but the word has been used to refer to a non-intelligent, non-teleological process in biology much too long to change it now. You might just as well protest the use of "irrational number". (Edit: Of course, "adaptation" won't do as a synonym for "evolution" either - it designates one particular kind of evolutionary change, and shouldn't be applied to others, like drift.)


Regarding the poll, neither will do - both "mutation" and "development" have precise and entrenched meanings in biology that do not equal "evolution".

astromark
2008-Sep-12, 11:58 AM
This is one of those... interesting ideas that we can not talk about here.
Just keep watching this thread as it turns to custard....
I will give it a push a? Look at the way the question is framed. The words used do not lend neatly to the evolutionary concept of natural selection of the best method of survival. I can see a deliberate attempt to lead you to the ID frame of thinking.
I would like to have had adaption as an option also...., but its pointless. We are never going to change the thinking of that group of people. So why try?
For me its just the only conceivable option... for to except ID would suggest a higher intelligence at work and I will not.

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-12, 01:15 PM
I have a simple word that I think "describes" evolution perfectly. That is,
it is essentially a synonym for "evolution", though more general in scope:
"Change".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Swift
2008-Sep-12, 02:37 PM
Evolution is a fine word, I don't think there is an adequate single word to replace it, nor is there a need for such.

And why is this in Q&A?

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-12, 02:45 PM
I just noticed that Frog March said "adaption", not "adaptation".
Not sure whether it makes any difference.

And I could only speculate what Johnathan's intent might have been in
starting this thread. Can you tell us, Johnathan?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

thorkil2
2008-Sep-12, 03:05 PM
One of the most common misconceptions about Evolution:

Remember the Galapagos turtles that Darwin studied?
The latest generation had much higher shells at the neck than previous.
To the Common person- those that have this misconception- This means that the turtles genetic structure willfully adapted to its environment.
By the Turtle stretching its neck to reach food (plants) the shell adapted over generations to be higher.

Another one that leads to this is the Blind Salamanders.
Since there was no light, they adapted to the darkness by losing their eyes.

It implies intelligence.

Jeff Root:
Plenty of intelligent people have this misconception about evolution.

The only people I know of who have used arguments like this are the creationist/intelligent design crowd, and they use them as arguments against the idea of evolution. They hardly fit into your "Plenty of intelligent people" category. One of many evolutionary processes is genetic variation, in part from random chromosome crossing in sexual reproduction. There is variation in neck length in any population (having necks). If a longer neck offers a small statistical advantage to survival, then longer necks have a higher statistical probability of being carried to the next generation. Gradually what was originally a longer neck becomes the median and the process continues. It has nothing to do with willful or conscious change, and I can't imagine anyone (except perhaps a creationist) offering that up seriously as an explanation. There is certainly no implication of intelligence in the process.

a1call
2008-Sep-12, 03:45 PM
The term "Fantasy" seems to be missing from the pole options which would take my vote. :)

I do realize I am asking/arguing ATM here, but I have yet to hear any convincing argument or be shown a single evidence that evolution is a fact.

To keep it within site TOS let's pose a question.

*- If evolution between species is factual, how would you explain the gaps between species where a gradual transformation is to be expected?

AndreasJ
2008-Sep-12, 03:53 PM
I just noticed that Frog March said "adaption", not "adaptation".
Synonyms according to the AHD, and I've never seen anyone make a distinction anywhere.

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-12, 04:00 PM
there's another term for "intelligent design",

"idiot's delusion"

Gillianren
2008-Sep-12, 04:22 PM
The term "Fantasy" seems to be missing from the pole options which would take my vote. :)

I do realize I am asking/arguing ATM here, but I have yet to hear any convincing argument or be shown a single evidence that evolution is a fact.

To keep it within site TOS let's pose a question.

*- If evolution between species is factual, how would you explain the gaps between species where a gradual transformation is to be expected?

How about, we see lots of transitional fossils?

Try http://www.talkorigins.org to understand exactly how much evidence there is.

John Mendenhall
2008-Sep-12, 05:01 PM
"Let's have a poll. What word would best describe evolution (beside the word evolution)?"

vice

"lets have a pole. what word would best describe evolution. (besides the word evolution)"


How about 'fact' ?

Having corrected seven grammar errors in the OP's post makes me suspicious of the education level involved in the question.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-12, 05:04 PM
The thread title made me think of all the email titles I see in my spam box.

"Evolution Pole" from "yourpharmfriend" :

you have pole small so sad lady for

make evolve pole for max prowers!

Gillianren
2008-Sep-12, 05:13 PM
Having corrected seven grammar errors in the OP's post makes me suspicious of the education level involved in the question.

Get me started!

Cougar
2008-Sep-12, 05:31 PM
I have yet to hear any convincing argument or be shown a single evidence that evolution is a fact.

Then take your head out of the sand. It improves hearing and seeing capabilities extraordinarily.

mugaliens
2008-Sep-12, 06:06 PM
If by "development" you're referring to the way no two offspring (except for identical twins) are exactly alike, some are better suited for an environmental change in one direction, thus changes in that direction favor them...

When did okapi and giraffe's split? Was it just that the shorter pre-giraffe/okapis shrank in numbers with shrinking jungle while longer-necked precursors held their ground amidst ever-rising foliage?

If that's what you mean by "develope," ie, at each succession of offspring, rather than a single animal developing (growing stronger, smarter, etc.), then yes:

Both.

Swift
2008-Sep-12, 07:07 PM
The term "Fantasy" seems to be missing from the pole options which would take my vote. :)

I do realize I am asking/arguing ATM here, but I have yet to hear any convincing argument or be shown a single evidence that evolution is a fact.

To keep it within site TOS let's pose a question.

*- If evolution between species is factual, how would you explain the gaps between species where a gradual transformation is to be expected?
Evolution is absolutely not a fantasy. But evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. But then General Relativity or Plate Tectonics are "only" theories too. And it is as solidly backed up by experimental data as those theories.

Gillianren gave you a great link for the answer to your question.

CJSF
2008-Sep-12, 09:11 PM
How about, we see lots of transitional fossils?

Try http://www.talkorigins.org to understand exactly how much evidence there is.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html is a more direct link to the topic...

CJSF

Neverfly
2008-Sep-12, 09:16 PM
The only people I know of who have used arguments like this are the creationist/intelligent design crowd, and they use them as arguments against the idea of evolution. They hardly fit into your "Plenty of intelligent people" category. One of many evolutionary processes is genetic variation, in part from random chromosome crossing in sexual reproduction. There is variation in neck length in any population (having necks). If a longer neck offers a small statistical advantage to survival, then longer necks have a higher statistical probability of being carried to the next generation. Gradually what was originally a longer neck becomes the median and the process continues. It has nothing to do with willful or conscious change, and I can't imagine anyone (except perhaps a creationist) offering that up seriously as an explanation. There is certainly no implication of intelligence in the process.

At least here, in the United States- Yes.
That would be the Majority of the population:neutral:

Do you need to take a statistical Survey among the general population before you accept it?

Most of the average people don't have a clue about how evolution works.

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-12, 09:37 PM
Did anyone else see that film "Evolution"?

It was interesting; pretty much impossible, but I did think that some evolutionary ideas might have been passed on to people through it; like when the flying dragon things emerged but couldn't breath the air, and then one of the dead dragons, on the ground, gave birth to a baby dragon, and that dragon could breath the air, and so survived, to potentially pass on its genes.

bit silly, but not without some scientific educational merit, IMO

clint
2008-Sep-12, 10:24 PM
How about trial and error?

transreality
2008-Sep-13, 08:40 AM
thats three words...

optimisation

AndreasJ
2008-Sep-13, 09:47 AM
When did okapi and giraffe's split? Was it just that the shorter pre-giraffe/okapis shrank in numbers with shrinking jungle while longer-necked precursors held their ground amidst ever-rising foliage?

I don't know when they split (one webpage suggest early Miocene, about 20 Ma), but if I understand correctly the early giraffes looked more like okapis than modern giraffes until much later, so the split probably had nothing to do with neck lengths. Habitat splitting is an alternative possibility that leaps to mind.

Delvo
2008-Sep-13, 01:27 PM
Gewd gawd, I can't stand the @$#% TITLE!

Neverfly
2008-Sep-13, 02:30 PM
Gewd gawd, I can't stand the @$#% TITLE!

Why? Do you have an issue with Polish people?

megrfl
2008-Sep-13, 03:31 PM
This is one of those... interesting ideas that we can not talk about here.
Just keep watching this thread as it turns to custard....
I will give it a push a? Look at the way the question is framed. The words used do not lend neatly to the evolutionary concept of natural selection of the best method of survival. I can see a deliberate attempt to lead you to the ID frame of thinking.
I would like to have had adaption as an option also...., but its pointless. We are never going to change the thinking of that group of people. So why try?
For me its just the only conceivable option... for to except ID would suggest a higher intelligence at work and I will not.

Too bad.

DrRocket
2008-Sep-13, 05:02 PM
This is one of those... interesting ideas that we can not talk about here.
Just keep watching this thread as it turns to custard....
I will give it a push a? Look at the way the question is framed. The words used do not lend neatly to the evolutionary concept of natural selection of the best method of survival. I can see a deliberate attempt to lead you to the ID frame of thinking.
I would like to have had adaption as an option also...., but its pointless. We are never going to change the thinking of that group of people. So why try?
For me its just the only conceivable option... for to except ID would suggest a higher intelligence at work and I will not.

Why not a higher intelligence at work ? I certainly have no scientific proof of such. But suppose for a moment that there is a higher intelligence at work.

How might that higher intelligence manifest itself? Perhaps directly, but perhaps not. Since there is no evidence of direct manifestation, let us suppose a more subtle relationship with the physical word.

If you consider the basic principles of physics and the implication of those principles you see an intricate and beautiful structure. One might reasonably wonder if the structure of those principles is not itself a manifestation of intelligent design. Proof is out of the question, and scientifically irrelevant, but for those inclined toward acceptance of "intelligent design" why not intelligent design of the rules by which the universe operates.

Evolution seems to be one of the rules by which the biological world operates. It is simple in concept, elegant in formulation, and effective in operation. So why cannot evolution be the tool by which whatever plan might be developed by a higher intelligence is implemented?

It seems to me that demanding that a higher intelligence have taken direct action rather than working through natural law, including evolution is a rather arrogant position -- first postulating the existence of a supreme being and then demanding that said supreme being operate according to an mortal individual's dictates. Isn't dictating to God that He cannot operate through evolution, or whatever method He might choose, not only scientifically myopic but also more than a bit blasphemous ?

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-13, 05:06 PM
"emergence" might be another word.

like, emergent structure, or beauty.

blueshift
2008-Sep-13, 06:57 PM
At least here, in the United States- Yes.
That would be the Majority of the population:neutral:

Do you need to take a statistical Survey among the general population before you accept it?

Most of the average people don't have a clue about how evolution works.I would not jump to that conclusion although it is tempting many times. The number of hours spent at work nowadays for the working class is larger than it was years ago. Many hold down two jobs to make ends meet. From this it may appear that workers have less time to stop and indulge in the sciences, leaving them to be nothing but numbskulls. However, divorce is higher than ever and the number of workers that have opted out of marriage and the dating game altogether has risen by a large amount. That leaves such workers plenty of free time and extra funds that would otherwise be consumed and spent on mating rituals. Celibacy after divorce allowed me the time to study physics, astronomy, foreign languages, linguism and evolution's validity amongst other things along with raising my son. Retirement provided more free time. Getting a part-time job bussing children to school provided more funds for solar scopes, observing equipment and gas to get to the dark sky sites.

Now not all workers in similar circumstances obviously spend their free time that way. Most isolate, indulging in only one area. Some do get into drugs, but not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. Computer science is a real drug for many of the bus drivers I work with. A few others are rapped up in religion but they are a vocal minority, giving the press some false impression that the average person cannot buy into evolution since many (but not all) of the religious don't.

The poor tend to look at everything from an economic standpoint. Information one gets is no better than the amount of money you spend for it. What is sent out over the airwaves that they don't pay for brings suspicion. If evolution is put out over the "free" airwaves (most workers don't have cable TV) then people react against it. Newspapers are cheap for a reason. The information they have is cheap. The evolutionary perspective they might have must be cheap as well. When religion is put out over those same airwaves and newsprints they react against those messages in the same way for the same reason. So the victory of one getting one's opinion out over the air or in print will destroy the ideas behind that opinion for the suspicious multitude. The Soviet Union's control over its press for 70 years brought about a religious surgeance in those countries. Atheism gained sympathy from within the context of pulpits and scriptures.

If religious zealots get their way, evolution will become popular amongst the masses.

Yet religions will always survive. Humans are always redefining superior beings. Kepler mentioned that when religious scripture conflicted with experimental results, he would side with experimental results for religious reasons. Kepler saw that the act of experimenting is the act of asking nature a question that the experimenter does not have. Nature then answers with the result. No matter what language anyone speaks and hears is irrelevant to the result. Putting water in a pan and bringing it to a boil over a medium flame on the stove gives the same visual and temperature sensing result to every person on the planet at the same atmospheric pressure. The same food cooked in that boiling water for the same amount of time gives the same taste. Kepler felt that this was the way humans communicate with god. Within this view one can question whether religious zealots are religious at all.

a1call
2008-Sep-14, 02:39 AM
How about, we see lots of transitional fossils?

Try http://www.talkorigins.org to understand exactly how much evidence there is.

Some facts as I see them:

*- Evolution within species is an ongoing and undeniable fact
*- You just have to study the height statistics of different populations for very few generations to see this
*- Fossil records indicate that the ancestors of present day horses were dog-sized animals
*- Embryonic stages of marine mammals indicate that they had limbs at earlier stages of their development
*- Genetic coding of all life is very similar and for the most part identical

And now please bear with me for the following ATM facts (as I see them):

*- In the following "species" does not necessarily define as the current official definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) and is used as a best available term
*- I define a specie as all the members of a genus which have common ancestors or ancestors which could have had interbread at some point in history
*- According to this definition all the members in the same table here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils) are members of the same species
*- The evidence linking species in different tables in the above link is what that is missing from the fossil records
*- In a word accepting a common ancestor for say horses and humans is a matter of imagination and based on circumstantial similarities (both being mammalian for example) and not on any tangible evidence what so ever
*- Hence my position: interspecie-evolution = fantasy

I do understand that the mainstream view holds that fossil record is too rare and fragile to be a complete record, but the fact remains that from a proper scientific point of view the evidence is simply not there (regardless of reasons or excuses).

CJSF
2008-Sep-14, 02:59 AM
Not really commenting on the totality of your post, but this caught my eye:

(most workers don't have cable TV)

I have serious doubts that this is true at all. Most workers don't have cable TV? What do you mean by workers? All the people I know with jobs, whether technical, menial or one of many they have, have at least basic cable or satellite TV. How did you arrive at that statement?

CJSF

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 03:04 AM
Not really commenting on the totality of your post, but this caught my eye:


I have serious doubts that this is true at all. Most workers don't have cable TV? What do you mean by workers? All the people I know with jobs, whether technical, menial or one of many they have, have at least basic cable or satellite TV. How did you arrive at that statement?

CJSF

Yeah... I read the whole post and was left scratching my head.
In science, I've watched Blueshift make some excellent posts at times.

This was not one of them.

It's kinda... Barking up all the wrong trees.

Divorce rate has made people more scientific?
Uhh hok...:doh:


You know... People don't get held back from learning science because they don't have time.

They don't learn it because they don't really care:neutral:

With more time on his hands, a divorcee is more likely to watch football and hang out with his buddies or whatever.

People choose ignorance. It's a Want.

They are not deprived of knowledge by marriage, jobs, parenting or life in general.

That post didn't really convince me of much of anything except for how many times I could scratch my head in one reading.

ETA: I forgot. The whole point of replying to you was to say that I don't have Cable T.V.
I have cable modem though.

ETA2: One more thing: Religious people do not believe in Evolution. They believe in Intelligent Design. Evolution and Creation Religion can never mix. Because to a person that understands evolution- the theory demonstrates a severe lack of an intelligent creator.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 03:24 AM
Oh, one more thing. Some time back, I myself was an "inspired Believer."

And I used to make similar claims. I claimed that I found evolution to be compatible with religion. But it turned out- I only made that claim because I did not understand evolution.

I claimed that science could co-exist with belief.
But I discovered something interesting about myself in making that claim.

I was making that claim because I wanted to believe it was true.

I wanted to think that it was the way it was. But it wasn't. I was wrong. I was making that claim in defense of my belief.

It took a lot of introspection to see that.

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-14, 03:25 AM
Well evidence that supports the theory of evolution may lead someone to believe that there is no "intelligent creator", or they could just believe that he didn't involve himself in the process.

But a person could also believe that the process of evolution, is a part of God.


Or even that the physical world and it actions and interactions(ie physics, chemistry, bowling clubs etc), are part of God.


IMO

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 03:27 AM
Well evidence that supports the theory of evolution may lead someone to believe that there is no "intelligent creator", or they could just believe that he didn't involve himself in the process.
But a person could also believe that the process of evolution, is a part of God.
Or even that the physical world and it actions and interactions(ie physics, chemistry, bowling clubs etc), are part of God.
IMO

I considered all these things when I finally began accepting evolution as I studied it. Because I wanted to retain my beliefs.

In the end, that much justification for a belief just seemed too irrational for me to make the attempt at maintaining it.

It would have also required an almost Conspiracy Theorist mentality that the creator specifically designed it to look like it wasn't designed at all.

That's just too much and I had to let go...<shrug>

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-14, 03:39 AM
Sounds like you were mixed up with Pentecostalists, or something.
My sister was involved with them at some staged, although she has since moved on to more Jewish beliefs, but I think she is still a creationist, although I haven't talked to her, much, in a while.

I gave some creationist beliefs a consideration for a while, because of my sister, and going to her church, much to my annoyance, but I was never convinced.

Now I just think you have to find your own beliefs, by thinking and listening/reading about other people's ideas and beliefs.

You don't have to take on board what some preacher says, but you can listen to him and think about what he says.

So now I believe in God, and evolution, although apart from a brief atheist stage, of sorts, that always was true, well from the time when I understood the basic ideas of evolution. Although I'm not sure when I started to beleive in God; I do remember that I believed in him, at around age 5 or 6.

blueshift
2008-Sep-14, 05:31 AM
Yeah... I read the whole post and was left scratching my head.
In science, I've watched Blueshift make some excellent posts at times.

This was not one of them.

It's kinda... Barking up all the wrong trees.

Divorce rate has made people more scientific?
Uhh hok...:doh:No. The divorce rate has ALLOWED more free time to pursue science. It is the availability of free time that was my point. I pointed out that not all lives do take such a journey. Twenty years ago someone in manual labor needed only one job to make ends meet, leaving more free time at the end of the day. Today that is false. The standard of living has dropped for manual labor.



You know... People don't get held back from learning science because they don't have time.

They don't learn it because they don't really care:neutral:How many people have you interviewed concerning that matter? Have you taken a look at the educational system? It does not pass people based on what they know but what they guess. That is how the multilple choice question/answer system became introduced to the American public. So they could pass science in the hand-me-down educational system. Maria Montessouri set up a school system that was based upon her thesis of the apprenticeship program in Italy. She figured out that workers learn by using tools and build vocabulary by associating words to their experiences with tool use. Once a human touches a hammer and learns its use, they have no need for memorizing. In traditional schools students sit in desks, shut off their brains and take orders. They are taught to try and make the world fit what is written in books. So science is confusing.


With more time on his hands, a divorcee is more likely to watch football and hang out with his buddies or whatever.Another misnomer about the populace. The museums and the arts outdraw professional sports. In Chicago the major sports teams draw about 7 million to the gates each year with many of those repeaters. The museums draw 9 million and the majority are not repeaters. The librairies pull in way more. The press her admitted that they don't represent majority thinking. Sports fans are just a well organized small minority who do circulate a lot of revenue.


People choose ignorance. It's a Want.To make a choice is not to be ignorant. To bypass choices is ignorance.


They are not deprived of knowledge by marriage, jobs, parenting or life in general.The only way to find that out is to deprive yourself of those things and make a comparison. I was mentioning mating rituals. What does marriage and parenting have to do with mating rituals? Married people are quite often the most celibate people on earth.


That post didn't really convince me of much of anything except for how many times I could scratch my head in one reading.You should scratch your head on this one. You have an arrogance against the working class (average people). I presented another view as to why we reject being dictated to and you refuse to consider it. John Archibald Wheeler admitted in an interview that students learn nothing from teachers. He further stated that he went into teaching in order to learn. That makes sense. As a teacher he had to take into consideration all the views of all of his students, complete with misinterpretations and newer insights. As a student he only had to take into account one opinion, the teacher's. He often gave his students questions that he didn't know the answer to. He wasn't interested in seeing if they could get the right answer that he already knew. He would often be puzzled by their complicating simple concepts which could get them stuck at times. He told his confused students that if each one wishes to learn calculus then each should try and teach it.


ETA: I forgot. The whole point of replying to you was to say that I don't have Cable T.V.
I have cable modem though.And just what information has any value on it?


ETA2: One more thing: Religious people do not believe in Evolution. They believe in Intelligent Design. Evolution and Creation Religion can never mix. Because to a person that understands evolution- the theory demonstrates a severe lack of an intelligent creator.It depends on what is called "religious people". The pope now recognizes evolution as a fact. (Anyway, the one that fell over dead a few years back did. I don't know about the present one.) Religions have their internal contradictions and that was my point. All belief systems do. We have many church goers in our astronomy club that are firm believers in evolution. My niece has a Phd in microbiology and believes in both evolution and ghosts and supreme interventions. I'm not telling you that she is sane but that is the way she is.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 06:33 AM
No. The divorce rate has ALLOWED more free time to pursue science.
Ahh yes. Exactly. Doesn't mean that they DO.


The only way to find that out is to deprive yourself of those things and make a comparison.
Have you done this and this is the foundation upon which you made your claims?
You made your claims. I disagreed. You then state that I would need to do a social study to find out.
Have you?


I was mentioning mating rituals. What does marriage and parenting have to do with mating rituals?
"My dear, I am trying to conduct a wedding! Which has nothing to do with love! Now please be quiet!"


Married people are quite often the most celibate people on earth. You should scratch your head on this one.
Perhaps what you mean is that they engage in such activities less than singles?
Any citations to back that up?

Celibate means to not engage in the activity- At All.


You have an arrogance against the working class (average people).
Is this an accusation?


The pope now recognizes evolution as a fact. (Anyway, the one that fell over dead a few years back did. I don't know about the present one.) Religions have their internal contradictions and that was my point. All belief systems do. We have many church goers in our astronomy club that are firm believers in evolution. My niece has a Phd in microbiology and believes in both evolution and ghosts and supreme interventions. I'm not telling you that she is sane but that is the way she is.

Because neither one of them understand evolution. You, yourself, even said it.
"I'm not telling you that she is sane but that is the way she is."
And the pope was painted into a corner anyway- Much as the pope that accepted that the Earth was not the Center of the Solar System. The evidence finally became too great to be denied.

speedfreek
2008-Sep-14, 11:39 AM
This pole is a little pointless. How can one word properly sum up a theory?

Big-Bang: What word fits best? - Expansion?

Relativity: What word fits best? - Equivalence?

Quantum Theory: What word fits best? - Weirdness?

Evolution: What word fits best? - Evolution. Or perhaps, progress?

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 01:59 PM
Evolution: What word fits best? - Evolution. Or perhaps, progress?

Not necessarily:p

Gillianren
2008-Sep-14, 06:41 PM
ETA2: One more thing: Religious people do not believe in Evolution. They believe in Intelligent Design. Evolution and Creation Religion can never mix. Because to a person that understands evolution- the theory demonstrates a severe lack of an intelligent creator.

Um, perhaps you have forgotten, as I do not mention it often. (For obvious reasons.) I am a religious person. Also, Pope John Paul II probably was, and he came out in favour of evolution. So.

As to "there's change between species but not outside of species" (you didn't say it, but I'm not going back to add the quote), what stops it? No one's ever provided an answer to that question.

dodecahedron
2008-Sep-14, 07:06 PM
Someone PLEASE fix the title from "pole" to "poll".
I have not seen anything in this thread that has anything to do with a long, round rod made of wood, metal or plastic. Nor does this thread discuss anything, in a serious manner, regarding Polish culture, heritage and lifestyles.
I have no idea how someone was able to make such an error (twice!) when the "Create a Poll" page and link uses the correct spelling. If this is a troll then it is truly a magnificent one 10/10

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 07:26 PM
Um, perhaps you have forgotten, as I do not mention it often. (For obvious reasons.) I am a religious person. Also, Pope John Paul II probably was, and he came out in favour of evolution. So.
Funny. You must not have read what I said in the part you quoted.
Also, being religious does not necessarily prevent a person from accepting evolution- However, being such in that you believe in a creator that created the Earth and created all the animals and such as in Genesis- that would be what I was referring to.
Our design and creation show a clear lack of design or intelligent planning.

As to "there's change between species but not outside of species" (you didn't say it, but I'm not going back to add the quote), what stops it? No one's ever provided an answer to that question.
"There's a change within species but not outside of species" would be an Intelligent Design idea. Not Evolution.

Theory of Evolution states that these changes occur within species until those changes are radical enough that new species emerge from the old. We can observe a great many existing 'in between' species today that are emerging.

If a person believes that evolution teaches that there is a change within species but not between them, then they do not understand evolution and are confusing their own Intelligent Design Theory with Evolution Theory.

If you think such is the Case Gillianren, I might refer you to Talk Origins, under the irony that you suggest others go there so often.

astromark
2008-Sep-14, 07:27 PM
From Gillianren;--- As to "there's change between species but not outside of species" (you didn't say it, but I'm not going back to add the quote), what stops it? No one's ever provided an answer to that question.--- end quote;

Would you please try to explain this better? Not suggesting that there's anything wrong with this, Its just not understood be me.

It is difficult not to judge religious belief as ignorance... I am guilty of that myself and voiced my thoughts earlier on that. But it is not the truth, and I know that. My example is that my insistence in the science is in itself a religious balief... Any fact not supported by hard verifiable evidence is a act of faith. So I am lost. :)Acts of faith are non scientific and I am not happy with that.

The problem with this line of thinking is that we can not expect people with a lifetime of conditioning can not be expected to just dump the whole idea in favor of another as yet unproven idea of evolutionary progress.

Being right is not enough.

We need to soften our stance and show a little more understanding of cultures different to ours....mark.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 07:36 PM
The problem with this line of thinking is that we can not expect people with a lifetime of conditioning can not be expected to just dump the whole idea in favor of another as yet unproven idea of evolutionary progress.

Being right is not enough.

We need to soften our stance and show a little more understanding of cultures different to ours....mark.

You know.. It's funny.
I was even in the Ministry.

yet, this is exactly what I had to do once I studied into Evolution.

I had no real choice.. I did not want to do it and it was quite painful.

I kept trying to find ways to rationalize it and make excuses... But I knew that those were irrational.

So I had to let go.

CJSF
2008-Sep-14, 07:49 PM
Thank you, Neverfly for sharing your personal and unique transition from a "religious" person to a "logical" person.

I would ask that perhaps what seems obvious and painful to you, may not be anything like what some of us are likely to experience or are experiencing when we accept our "religion" and evolution.

CJSF

P.S.
I'm not even sure all of us are refering to quite the same thing when we use the term "religion" anyway.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-14, 07:57 PM
You know.. It's funny.
I was even in the Ministry.

yet, this is exactly what I had to do once I studied into Evolution.

I had no real choice.. I did not want to do it and it was quite painful.

I kept trying to find ways to rationalize it and make excuses... But I knew that those were irrational.

So I had to let go.

I admire your intellectual honesty (very rare in my experience), but this kind of "all or nothing" attitude people have about evolution versus creationism/intelligent design perplexes me.

Why?

Religious adherents would be far more likely to accept the fact of evolution if it were possible to clarify that the fact that species evolve does not have to be the opposite of the fact (in theology) that God created all species and the universe.

What makes people think that Creation would have to be a static thing? Even in our mortal hands, we make things that evolve independently:

Viruses - both digital and physical, genetically engineered plants and animals that end up changing on their own after human intervention has stopped, children who grow and adapt without our being able to control them.

Why should God's creation of the universe and life on Earth be any different? We're made in his image according to the Bible and other sacred texts. Should his way of creating something be totally different from ours?

As Stan said in the South Park episode about this subject:

"Why does evolution have to be used to prove there isn't a God? Couldn't evolution just explain How God did it, and religion explains Why?"

Of course the teacher puts a dunce cap on him, but it was the smartest thing anyone said on that show.

Personally I find it entirely plausible / likely that there is more going on with our existence than mere chaos theory. But the idea of a higher power does not clash at all with the proven facts of evolution to me. They just explain a little more about how we went from "Let there be light" to modern man with almost godlike powers in our own right, through technology.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 08:23 PM
Thank you, Neverfly for sharing your personal and unique transition from a "religious" person to a "logical" person.

I would ask that perhaps what seems obvious and painful to you, may not be anything like what some of us are likely to experience or are experiencing when we accept our "religion" and evolution.

CJSF

P.S.
I'm not even sure all of us are refering to quite the same thing when we use the term "religion" anyway.

That could be very well the case. There are many different religions.

I was Christian.

And the reason why people accept both? Good question. I don't see how that is possible.
Evolution makes it quite clear that we lack a creator.
Others may try to argue this point- but what it comes down to is- Our history shows no divine intervention whatsoever.

In order to believe in a creator and accept evolution at the same time, would require a person to also consider that the creator is a conspirist- hiding his presence and presenting a false image of history.
To me, it seems too irrational to accept. But perhaps others WANT both badly enough to go to those lengths.

DrunkVegan- I think I just answered your post as well.

blueshift
2008-Sep-14, 08:30 PM
Ahh yes. Exactly. Doesn't mean that they DO.


Have you done this and this is the foundation upon which you made your claims?
You made your claims. I disagreed. You then state that I would need to do a social study to find out.
Have you? A full social study? The population each of us would accumulate would be too small and how many answer those polls truthfully? Have I done this? I have lived a celibate life (if that is what you are referring to) for the last 26 years and I would not have been able to pursue science as much as I did had I been engaged in such activity. I only needed to raise an autistic son who still lives with me as an adult. Autistic humans are hampered with a lack of communication and live in a ritualistic world. Therefore, it is extrememely quiet living with him and I wind up with plenty of time others don't have to pursue science.

A fellow letter carrier was quite involved in quantum physics study and lost time to pursue it once a blond came along, sending his head (to quote him) "right into the gutter." Another letter carrier who was involved in Newtonian physics studies all his life (he predicted in 1960 the at a computer revolution was on the horizon) lived a celibate life. It guaranteed him a personal overhead that was so low that the interest rates on his bank accounts exceeded his salary, allowing him to leave work ten years before he would have been eligible for retirement. A scientist from Argonne, a good friend of mine, poiinted out to me and his students that he was not smarter than anyone else. He merely has had the free time to pursue science that others do not. He never married and didn't date until long after he got his Phd. I have heard that repeated by a number of scientists at Fermilab and at Argonne when I have taken tours there and have heard that from several scientists that have given lectures at our astronomy club. My Phd niece had many boy friends but those had to be celibate until after she did her thesis since they all lived on other parts of the globe while she was stuck in her lab and they were stuck in theirs. They communicated and met online. She claimed that while she was in the lab, she was married to her experiments. They could not leave them alone. Cancer research and hepatitis A were her areas of experimenting and she worked at the Louis Pasteur Institute in Athens. She finally married and settled in London with a lawyer. My nephew never dated when he went after his degree in chemistry. My other niece tried to date while pusuing her degree in botany but found that it interfered and hurt her studies. Her grades were dropping. My former brother-law, their father, did not leave his apartment and separated from his spouse each time during pursuit of his two Phds. They put in 70 hour work weeks. Find time to flirt with that schedule. My mother's best friend worked with Enrico Fermi in Chicago and they could not resume contact for a number of years.

Now the network of people that each of us contacts each day are varied. Aside from those mentioned above, I am a celiac and have to find gluten/wheat-free retailers for food which makes me run into other celiacs. From such a narrow perspective I could conclude that celiacs are a majority. We are not. The scientists and letter carriers and bus drivers I contact is also a touch narrow. So is the culture of music, sports and the dating world. I would not conclude that the populace at large is ignorant of evolution. Even in their own slanted view of evolution they can cook up a belief in it. One told me that the fact that we grow old and die and the existence of brain diseases tell him that evolution is still continuing and we may, in the future evolve into complete numbskullls that can no longer add or subtract. These moments of existing as an intelligent species may be something that is merely has a short window that doesn't last more than a few million years.

I will admit that the majority of those who do like to contact the media show a lot of ignorance concerning evolution.






Perhaps what you mean is that they engage in such activities less than singles?
Any citations to back that up?Above is as close as I can get.


Celibate means to not engage in the activity- At All.Agreed. Married couples do not all participate in the reproductive act. Many do marry only for a partnership and some have mentioned that they could not like one another if they touched one another. Because many of their married friends do not understand their stance, they often keep their celibacy secret, claiming they just can't or won't reproduce. Too many leverage games get associated with sex for them and for me. Not every male on this planet is some weakling that needs to have that urge satisfied and not every woman is some narcisstic, money grabbing fool that spends a lot of time in front of mirrors. I do recognize that the species needs to reproduce but other than that there is no social need for the activity to continue. There appears to be personal need for many and there is a culture that is oriented around it.



Is this an accusation? If you state that the average people are clueless about the workings of evolution, what other conclusiion can one draw? It could be my perception here because I usually do put up a red flag when someone even drops a hint that average people are ignoramuses. We don't know that and cannnot conclude that. I see 4 year olds experimenting with relativity every day on school buses. All of them do it.




Because neither one of them understand evolution. You, yourself, even said it.
"I'm not telling you that she is sane but that is the way she is."
And the pope was painted into a corner anyway- Much as the pope that accepted that the Earth was not the Center of the Solar System. The evidence finally became too great to be denied.You are getting away from the example I gave concerning Kepler's religious views and how those views tie to the worship of experimental results. Perhaps I did as well by even mentioning the example of the pope.

When it comes to the word "religion", are you merely referring to offiacially recognized religious institutions? I am not. Don't forget that there are religions that do not believe in a superior being or beings.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 08:42 PM
If you state that the average people are clueless about the workings of evolution, what other conclusiion can one draw? It could be my perception here because I usually do put up a red flag when someone even drops a hint that average people are ignoramuses.

Let me make something very clear to you Blueshift.

I never stated that the average person was an ignoramus etc.

I said that the average person does not understand evolution. I said there are a great many misconceptions about evolution.

The average person isn't too well rehearsed in chemistry either. Or in Relativity. Or particle physics.

This does NOT in ANY WAY mean that I am claiming people are stupid- You have simply put words into my mouth.
In so doing- and and so drawing such conclusions on your own- I can also claim that you are calling me an ignoramus.
Because I am sure I have a few misconceptions about Relativity and quantum mechanics too. I'm working on it though.

"Blueshift- Please stop calling me an ignoramus."

The rest of your ramblings about Most Married People are celibate and whatnot- I'm not even going to bother trying to address again.

cosmocrazy
2008-Sep-14, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE=Neverfly;1323587]
In order to believe in a creator and accept evolution at the same time, would require a person to also consider that the creator is a conspirist- hiding his presence and presenting a false image of history.[QUOTE]

No not at all.

from our point of view it may seem so but this would only apply if we did know everything in, and the workings of the universe.
From a "Creator's" point of view we could be just one stage of unimaginable evolution paths which the "Creator" has chosen for us to take or let us go down. Intelligent design is fully compatible with evolution all the way down to one thing the "Creator" its self.
We as creators ourselves have taken simple designs or ideas set them in motion and even when we have the power to intervene sometimes we just sit back and watch the experiments unfold or the ideas evolve, :)

kleindoofy
2008-Sep-14, 08:52 PM
... 2.) Most or average beliefs tend to lean toward I.D.

Yes, and a few centuries ago "most or average beliefs" said the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe, that a man's sperm contained the entire fetus which only grew in the female - like a seed of wheat in a field -, that kings ruled by God's grace, ... etc., etc.

To this very day there are still people around who believe Pepsi tastes better that Coke. ;) And how many polls have been done on that issue? Lots.

As for poles, the previous pope was a Pole and he believed in I.D. and I guess any poll conducted at the Vatican would come up with a large majority for I.D., which of course doesn't mean much.

Back in 1966, my fourth grade teacher tried to teach us that evolution meant that, e.g., giraffes found it easier to eat when they stretched their necks, so they did just that and their offspring then had long necks. Being the loud mouth little brat that I was (and still am), when I asked her how stretching one's neck could possibly alter one's genes such that one could pass that trait on to one's offspring, I was told not to disrupt class and had to clean the blackboard during recess. I never got my answer.

Even back then I thought it was rather obvious that giraffes who already had slightly longer necks found it easier to eat (from trees), so those giraffes tended to survive while the short necked individuals tended to die out leaving fewer short neck offspring which, over time, eventually lead to a long necked species.

My teacher refused to listen and I'm pretty sure that it's all a bit more complicated than that.

However, in that light, one could say that over time a *species as a whole* adapts by natural selection, but not an individual.

I see I.D. as a last trench for pious Judeo-Christians who don't want to dismiss Genesis as a folk legend but also don't want to look silly standing their ground on the staunch "6 day work + 1 day rest" story.

Fence, sit.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 08:56 PM
No not at all.

from our point of view it may seem so but this would only apply if we did know everything in, and the workings of the universe.
From a "Creator's" point of view we could be just one stage of unimaginable evolution paths which the "Creator" has chosen for us to take or let us go down. Intelligent design is fully compatible with evolution all the way down to one thing the "Creator" its self.
We as creators ourselves have taken simple designs or ideas set them in motion and even when we have the power to intervene sometimes we just sit back and watch the experiments unfold or the ideas evolve, :)

To me this requires a rather extreme appeal to ignorance and is just more rationalizing in order to keep the creator in the picture.

Also, if you think I.D. and evolution are fundamentally the same- I suggest you learn more about Evolution.

Here is Evolution in a nutshell- We are the Product of a lot of trial and error. We were not designed. Not Planned. Not coached.

In order for there to be a creator- would require that creator to have initiated Creation At The BB itself- and ever afterward- not take part nor interact in any way with his creation.

Currently, we have no theory that makes that seem likely or unlikely. It's perfectly possible.

The only problem with it is that you tend to wonder why the creator ditched right after the BB and the fact that most mainstream religions view such a creator as taking active involvement in his creation.

Again- it's more justification and rationalization than my poor brain can handle.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-14, 09:09 PM
In my mind it seems a bit narrowminded to say evolution proves the absence of a God.

Absence of evidence does not = evidence of absence.

Ok, consider:

Theologically speaking, God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Meaning he knows everything and is capable of anything.

So, should not that all-knowingness extend into the future as well?

Why is it so implausible for a God to create life, with the ability to grow and evolve, and then leave it to do so?

His ultimate goal may have been Man or even a race that will evolve from us.

But all he had to do was create that first single-celled organism. And let it divide, multiply, and mutate into every other life form, entirely on its own.

He knew what would come from that little cell because he's omniscient.

I like the words of Jon Stewart on the subject:

"I believe in God, I just don't think he takes the kind of intense interest in us that everyone thinks He does.

I mean, He created the universe in 6 days, over 13 billion years ago. Don't you think maybe He's moved on to another project by now?

We're like a 3rd grader's science project here."

Again, I don't have the answers here. I don't know that there is necessarily a higher power, although the idea makes sense to me. But I try to keep an open mind.

The nature of the scientific method is in proving a hypothesis through evidence. While something is empirically less likely to exist if there is no evidence for it, it is far from a certainty that something doesn't exist simply because we cannot empirically prove it.

cosmocrazy
2008-Sep-14, 09:12 PM
To me this requires a rather extreme appeal to ignorance and is just more rationalizing in order to keep the creator in the picture.

No



Also, if you think I.D. and evolution are fundamentally the same- I suggest you learn more about Evolution..

No, and I'm aware of the differences, and I'm aware of the point you are trying to make.



Here is Evolution in a nutshell- We are the Product of a lot of trial and error. We were not designed. Not Planned. Not coached.

But evolution could be of I.D



In order for there to be a creator- would require that creator to have initiated Creation At The BB itself- and ever afterward- not take part nor interact in any way with his creation.


Yes, non that we are aware of at least.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-14, 09:15 PM
In order for there to be a creator- would require that creator to have initiated Creation At The BB itself- and ever afterward- not take part nor interact in any way with his creation.

Currently, we have no theory that makes that seem likely or unlikely. It's perfectly possible.

The only problem with it is that you tend to wonder why the creator ditched right after the BB and the fact that most mainstream religions view such a creator as taking active involvement in his creation.

Free will.

Even the angels have it according to theology.

Heavy interference in mortal affairs would effectively destroy free will.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 09:20 PM
In my mind it seems a bit narrowminded to say evolution proves the absence of a God.
I never said that it did. In fact, I think I was very clear in what I did say.


Theologically speaking, God is omniscient and omnipotent.
Meaning he knows everything and is capable of anything.
So, should not that all-knowingness extend into the future as well?
Why is it so implausible for a God to create life, with the ability to grow and evolve, and then leave it to do so?
If he did so at the Big Bang.
And even then, we must make many many assumptions.
1.) That the creator IS omnipotent and all knowing.
2.) That his intention WAS in fact, to create life.
3.) That he has some strange desire to create and then either take zero part in in afterward, or cover up his role so precisely as to leave no trace.

Again, For Me, the assumptions required to maintain the faith in Divine Creation are just too irrational for me to continue to entertain.


His ultimate goal may have been Man or even a race that will evolve from us.
How so? Demonstrate in scientific terms that "Man" is a product of divine intervention and not evolution.


But all he had to do was create that first single-celled organism. And let it divide, multiply, and mutate into every other life form, entirely on its own.
Which is what would be required to maintain that Faith. Again, it's too much rationalization for me.

He knew what would come from that little cell because he's omniscient.
Requiring the assumption that he IS omniscient and that he was pleased with the result. Including that he knew about the Massive Extinctions and strange diversity and all the strange little variances and factors that led up to "us."

Seems more than extremely inefficient to me.

The nature of the scientific method is in proving a hypothesis through evidence. While something is empirically less likely to exist if there is no evidence for it, it is far from a certainty that something doesn't exist simply because we cannot empirically prove it.
Which is what I have been saying all along.

I cannot say there is or is not a creator.

I can only say, given the massive observational evidence- that it seems extremely unlikely that there is one and in order for me to entertain the notion and maintain that kind of faith would require me to extend myself into Conspiracy theories and such rationalizations that I am unwilling to do.


All of this also bears one Major Problem.
Most any Mainstream Inspired Faith places great importance on the thought of a Loving and interactive Creator. Evolution as YOU just described it still takes that away.
The conflict remains.

No matter how you dice it- that conflict will always remain.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 09:23 PM
But evolution could be of I.D
Explain how please.

Yes, non that we are aware of at least.
One that apparently sends prophets to teach of his existence and yet also goes to extreme lengths to cover up any tangible or measurable or observational evidence of him?
One that Knows exactly where to place each photon in it's path to Earth to present the appearance of having traveled billions of light years?
One that Places dinosaur bones for us to find- to what- Test our faith?

Too much rationalization for me <shrug>

Free will.

Even the angels have it according to theology.

Heavy interference in mortal affairs would effectively destroy free will.

Irrelevant to Evolution.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-14, 09:25 PM
All of this also bears one Major Problem.
Most any Mainstream Inspired Faith places great importance on the thought of a Loving and interactive Creator. Evolution as YOU just described it still takes that away.
The conflict remains.

No matter how you dice it- that conflict will always remain.

True. I have to say that the one thing I will never buy is a God of interference/intervention.

For a deity that is supposed to value free will, such meddling would be entirely inconsistent.

Either he doesn't mind cheating in the game by changing the rules, or he prefers that it be played according to the rules (the laws of physics and the nature of our reality).

It can not be both ways.


One that Knows exactly where to place each photon in it's path to Earth to present the appearance of having traveled billions of light years?
One that Places dinosaur bones for us to find- to what- Test our faith?

Who says these rationalizations need to be made to accept evolution * and * faith?

I think it's perfectly rational to accept that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and dinosaurs evolved before humans. And that all of that happening was not somehow an affront to God - it was intended. Just because something changes on its own (life, the universe, and everything we know of does so) does not mean it could not have been planned.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-14, 09:31 PM
Irrelevant to Evolution.

Not at all. Evolution shows that things changed and grew without God's hand necessarily directing everything.

That life has free will would make evolution consistent with faith.

cosmocrazy
2008-Sep-14, 09:32 PM
this also bears one Major Problem.
Most any Mainstream Inspired Faith places great importance on the thought of a Loving and interactive Creator. Evolution as YOU just described it still takes that away.
The conflict remains.

No matter how you dice it- that conflict will always remain.

Yes, but really depends on where we stand in importance or are valued compared to the rest of the universe, if any at all.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 09:38 PM
Not at all. Evolution shows that things changed and grew without God's hand necessarily directing everything.

That life has free will would make evolution consistent with faith.

Free will is about determination.
Free Will also, (incidentally) requires a soul or spirit independent of the flesh.
Free will is a human concept.
We did not choose to evolve.
Free Will has no bearing on evolution.

Who says these rationalizations need to be made to accept evolution * and * faith?
Who says Rocks are hard or water is wet?

I think it's perfectly rational to accept that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and dinosaurs evolved before humans. And that all of that happening was not somehow an affront to God - it was intended. Just because something changes on its own (life, the universe, and everything we know of does so) does not mean it could not have been planned.
In order to consider that it was all "planned" requires that the faithful believer accepts that the "plan" was set into motion at the very instant of creation in the Big Bang.
Theory of evolution itself, demonstrates a severe lack of planning. It demonstrates instead, trial and error and survival of genes by those that manage to live and reproduce, not by those that are special, favored or divine.
Evolution demonstrates that all life existing now is the product of both Good AND Bad genetic traits that have survived.

Whatever genes resulted in a bit more success than others, was sometimes favored. Sometimes it wasn't. I often wonder how many amazing genetic traits were lost to us modern folks simply because they were not chosen by mates a long time ago.
Like - regrowing limbs. Salamanders do it.
The only conceivable "Plan" was..."Let's Blow out a Universe and see what happens in it."
Anything beyond that requires extreme assumptions and extreme rationalization to maintain that faith in those assumptions.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 09:40 PM
Yes, but really depends on where we stand in importance or are valued compared to the rest of the universe, if any at all.

The Original Point I had made was that Evolution will always be at odds with Inspired Faith.

The Faith likes to see us as favored.

If there was an Absolute Value- If we had some part in that value is irrelevant.
These are just further assumptions and justifications for maintaining the belief.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-14, 09:47 PM
Anything beyond that requires extreme assumptions and extreme rationalization to maintain that faith in those assumptions.

True, but nothing more extreme than what is * already * a central part of religious dogma.

It's already presupposed by religious adherents that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

That he should use his omnipotence to create a universe that he can see will end up the way he wants it through his omniscience is hardly a leap of faith that should be difficult for a religious person.

And I very much doubt "time" would be an issue for such a deity either. It's not inefficient to make a big bang and wait 13.7 billion years if you don't experience time.


In order to consider that it was all "planned" requires that the faithul believer accepts that the "plan" was set into motion at the very instant of creation in the Big Bang.
Theory of evolution itself, demonstrates a sever lack of planning.

Not really.

Have you ever played the game Trade Wars: 2002?

The beginning of the game involves a System Operator creating a Big Bang with initial conditions from which the game can unfold.

He sets the resultant number of trading ports, planets, alien species, available technology and planet types, etc. Then he tells the computer to initiate a Big Bang, and it does.

Where the ports, planets, aliens, technology, etc end up in the universe is entirely random.

But the parameters (size of the universe, laws of physics, etc) are exactly as the System Operator intended.

I could argue that the random events that happen during gameplay and the changing conditions over which no one has any control indicate that the Sysop does not exist.

But it seems far easier to just say that the important stuff that happened the Sysop intended, the rest just happened on its own.


Evolution demonstrates that all life existing now is the product of both Good AND Bad genetic traits that have survived.

True, we are not the best possible lifeform that could have evolved. But nor are we the worst.

And as the Bible notes:

"Every strength is a weakness, every weakness is a strength."

- It's really just a matter of how you use the resources that you've been lucky enough to get, and compensate for the weaknesses that you have.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-14, 10:06 PM
Just to clarify:

I don't think science can or should prove or disprove the existence of God, for many reasons:

a) The empirical / scientific method is used to explain how things happen. It can not be used to explain the original apriori origin of all things (IE, "before" the Big Bang) nor can it explain anything beyond the observable universe. The "why" should be left out of the science.

b) Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence - so you can't prove that a deity, or intelligent alien races, or divine beings who exist on a higher plane (angels) - exist. You can only rationalize - even if every particle in the universe were counted and weighed you could still not rule those out.

c) There is only one universe of which we are aware and can gather data on. 1 is far too limited a sample from which to draw a conclusion.

If there were two other universes, one of which was one in which higher powers interfered freely and daily and everyone knew there was a deity, and another where no one had ever even considered the idea of spirituality, then I suppose we could compare those universes to ours and decide if ours is one with a deity.

Since we have no examples to compare, we can not ascertain the truth. We'll never know whether there is or is not a God.

d) Any argument you make for the non-existence of God can be countered by reasonable argument from the faithful.

Any argument you make for the existence of God can be countered by reasonable argument from the faithless.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 10:10 PM
True, but nothing more extreme than what is * already * a central part of religious dogma.

It's already presupposed by religious adherents that God is omniscient and omnipotent.
Many Native American religions do not.
As well as Roman and Greek Myths.

Funny isn't it? How if the religion is THAT old- we are satisfied to call them myths. But not if they are still being used...
Eh... Anyway...
No- the Ominipotent single God is more the modern accepted trend. In the old days it was many Gods.
Ra, the Sun God, was the first 'declared' Monotheistic deity and that was about 4000 years ago. It was not a popular notion. The Pharaoh that introduced the idea was slain along with his followers.


That he should use his omnipotence to create a universe that he can see will end up the way he wants it through his omniscience is hardly a leap of faith that should be difficult for a religious person.
Not much of ANYTHING is for a specific kind of mentality. Read the CT forum...


And I very much doubt "time" would be an issue for such a deity either. It's not inefficient to make a big bang and wait 13.7 billion years if you don't experience time.
It doesn't matter how the deity perceives time- if at all.
It remains extraordinarily inefficient.
It isn't just about the time it takes- but the overwhelmingly vast amounts of factors that come into play and interact- all of which the deity cannot interfere with? and still achieve the desired result?
I bet the KT extinctions had said deity sweating...

Have you ever played the game Trade Wars: 2002?
Nope.
But the conditions of that game are nothing like the conditions of the Universe.

True, we are not the best possible lifeform that could have evolved. But nor are we the worst.
Exactly. We aren't very divine or special.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 10:12 PM
Just to clarify:

I don't think science can or should prove or disprove the existence of God,

Just to clarify:
It can't.
Nor is that it's purpose.

But I cannot prove or disprove that we landed on the Moon either.

I can tell of the evidence and let others draw their conclusions.

The original point was not whether or not there IS a creator God- but that Evolution makes it very very very difficult to justify the existence of one. For this reason, There will always be a conflict of interest between Evolution and Faithful Believers.

cosmocrazy
2008-Sep-14, 10:12 PM
[QUOTE=Drunk Vegan;1323678] But the parameters (size of the universe, laws of physics, etc) are exactly as the System Operator intended.

I could argue that the random events that happen during gameplay and the changing conditions over which no one has any control indicate that the Sysop does not exist.

But it seems far easier to just say that the important stuff that happened the Sysop intended, the rest just happened on its own.
[QUOTE]

And this is the point I'm trying to relay.

The laws of the universe.
do they evolve too or were they set at the initial point of creation? Is it the mainstream science consensus that they were set just after the initial big bang? and are they the parameters which within the universe can evolve? If so how was that to be and what/who decided it so? Or is it random chance?

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 10:24 PM
cosmocrazy, your questions are almost philosiphical in nature.

The Mainstream view is that the properties- or laws of physics- were determined right after the instant of the Big Bang.

If a Rock is hard- Who or what determined that it should be?
Well, if we examine the rock under a microscope we will see that the molecules are more tightly packed together than water, explaining its hardness. A person can then ask who or what decided to pack them in closer together? We can keep increasing the magnification, but never be able to satisfy the person that keeps asking who or what decided such.
Maybe no one decided such.
Maybe it's just the rocks nature to be hard. After -all, SOMETHING had to accept the job for a "hard thing."

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-14, 10:38 PM
I don't see how science can be a threat to faith as long as some of its important axioms are unproven, and unprovable, like "energy cannot be created or destroyed"

cosmocrazy
2008-Sep-14, 10:40 PM
cosmocrazy, your questions are almost philosophical in nature.

They are, and were meant that way, my reason being that it doesn't always have to require mainstream faith to include I.D into the fold.



The Mainstream view is that the properties- or laws of physics- were determined right after the instant of the Big Bang.



Agreed, and the universe evolved from this point.

If i was to include I.D into this, then for me it would be the actual creation of the big bang. From which point any further intervention from a creator to us would only be defined as a law of nature anyway.

This is just the way i would rationalize it in my own head..:)

cosmocrazy
2008-Sep-14, 10:52 PM
Hey Neverfly, I've only just noticed that you've reached and passed your 10,000 posts mark :dance:

I have just had a quick calculation and i reckon it'll take me about another 8 years! :lol:

regards David ;)

a1call
2008-Sep-14, 11:04 PM
Hey Neverfly, I've only just noticed that you've reached and passed your 10,000 posts mark :dance:

I have just had a quick calculation and i reckon it'll take me about another 8 years! :lol:

regards David ;)

Interesting indeed and congrats Neverfly.

It would take me just over 85 years to break the 10000 posts mark (at my current rate). :)

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 11:15 PM
They are, and were meant that way, my reason being that it doesn't always have to require mainstream faith to include I.D into the fold.
Agreed, and the universe evolved from this point.
If i was to include I.D into this, then for me it would be the actual creation of the big bang. From which point any further intervention from a creator to us would only be defined as a law of nature anyway.
This is just the way i would rationalize it in my own head..:)

In other words, you accept some of the Mainstream up to a point- then rationalize further existence in an effort to maintain the faiths and beliefs that you grew up believing.
This is exactly what I was saying earlier that most people do.
It is what I have been doing the majority of my life.
In this particular regard, I reached a point where I could no longer do so and hold my head up.

I hope to prevent myself from doing it in other areas as well. It takes serious conscientious effort to catch myself when doing so. It helps to have others point it out for me when I do- simply because I won't always see that I'm doing it.
It may even be hard for me to accept at the time. But as I examine it- My hope is that it becomes evident that I was rationalizing and can set out to correct it.
This is that Free Will- of sorts- at work. It's the best I can do- as a human being.

I loved my faith, For a very long time. It was my support, guide and encouragement. A point was reached where I had a choice. That choice was to either give that faith up and let it go- or rationalize it. I made my choice and there is simply no going back. I cannot step backward now. I can Only move forward. That choice is made.
And I'm glad. I feel like I have gained something for it. Something much more powerful than a faith- something that is enabling.
It enables me to overcome MYSELF.
And to me, that is the most crucial support, guide and encouragement I could ever have.
Unlike the Stars in the sky, I can change my path. I can choose. i can avoids collisions.
I have the power to do so. And it seems best, to me, to use that power in my life rather than to rationalize a faith and then rely on it.

This does not mean that I'm anti-faith. It does not mean that I think it's useless. I think it's an individual choice. Depending on the individual, some need it. Some don't. For me, I no longer need it.

My original point was that was is- what exists- the reality- is observable and at times, those observations will be in conflict with traditional faith. And as long as that happens, conflict will remain. There are those who will do everything in their power to justify the faith and attack the observational evidence.
It makes me glad to have made my choice.


Hey Neverfly, I've only just noticed that you've reached and passed your 10,000 posts mark :dance:

I have just had a quick calculation and i reckon it'll take me about another 8 years! :lol:

regards David ;)

Interesting indeed and congrats Neverfly.

It would take me just over 85 years to break the 10000 posts mark (at my current rate). :)

It's actually a bit embarrassing. I post too much.

There are much greater minds on here that I would like to see posting a lot more than I.
I lack subtlety and the ability to express myself effectively.
It often takes me ten posts to clarify what the heck I'm saying whereas I see others do it all in one short post:doh:

a1call
2008-Sep-14, 11:26 PM
No need to Neverfly.

I enjoy your posts and appreciate your humor.

I wished my life responsibilities would permit me to post more often.

Please keep up the good work.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-14, 11:29 PM
What are you trying to say? that I have no responsibilities in life?
That's it! You sir, I challenge to a Duo!

And CosmoCrazy too. Make that a Trial instead.

a1call
2008-Sep-14, 11:58 PM
Anytime Neverfly,

Just name the time and place and I will make sure CosmoCrazy is there. :)

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-15, 12:21 AM
Just to clarify:

I don't think science can or should prove or disprove the existence of God

Just to clarify:
It can't.
Nor is that it's purpose.


I can tell of the evidence and let others draw their conclusions.

The original point was not whether or not there IS a creator God- but that Evolution makes it very very very difficult to justify the existence of one.

Woah. Back the logic truck up here for a second.

1. Science can't be used to prove or disprove God.
2. You, personally, can tell of the evidence, which you believe makes the idea of God laughable at best.

How can these two statements be reconciled?

If you are speaking to others of evolutionary theory as though it were a proof of atheism, then you are indeed trying to disprove the existence of God using science.

You may just be giving the facts about evolution, but they will be colored by your personal belief that they are a reason to not have faith.

Not to be offensive here (I've always liked your posts Neverfly, very well-reasoned and insightful, you see things others can't or won't see) but I have to wonder:

Can it be that the very attitude of evolutionary supporters to believe that the fact of evolution disproves God is the very reason that religious adherents feel so threatened by it?

I've met plenty of people with faith that were not idiots. I think they could understand the idea of a neutral theory that doesn't say anything about God one way or the other. (What evolution theory actually is, in reality).

Granted, there's religious zealots who just want to fight. But as for the rest of the faithful I think we might find it easier to get them to come around to the facts of evolution if we didn't try to trim it with atheism that is entirely unnecessary and unsupported.

Granted, they will never stop trying to trim science in our schools with unnecessary and unsupported deism, but I say we take the high ground here.

It's just like a political campaign - slinging mud might get you a few votes. But staying positive will win you respect from both sides and sway the moderates and the independents.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-15, 12:29 AM
But the parameters (size of the universe, laws of physics, etc) are exactly as the System Operator intended.

I could argue that the random events that happen during gameplay and the changing conditions over which no one has any control indicate that the Sysop does not exist.

But it seems far easier to just say that the important stuff that happened the Sysop intended, the rest just happened on its own.



And this is the point I'm trying to relay.

The laws of the universe.
do they evolve too or were they set at the initial point of creation? Is it the mainstream science consensus that they were set just after the initial big bang? and are they the parameters which within the universe can evolve? If so how was that to be and what/who decided it so? Or is it random chance?

I'd wager that yes, the laws of physics have been set for all or most of the lifetime of the universe.

As to the what/who nobody knows.

If there is a deity, then God did it. Those are the parameters that he's set for this "game" of his, the game of Universe and Life.

If it is random, then I would argue that it's natural that the laws became set. Every natural process we've ever seen has fit a pattern. It seems it would be hard to have a universe exist for 13.7 billion years if the laws that allowed it to exist changed constantly.

The very fact that we're still here proves that the laws have been stable for a long, long time. If they weren't one of the random rule changes would have resulted in matter and antimatter being far more destructive than they are, and all the matter in the universe would have annihilated.

Or gravity would have become so weak that every atom in the universe would have flew millions of lightyears away from every other atom.

Or gravity would have become so strong that the entire universe would be one gigantic black hole.

There are so many different ways the universe could have died if the laws of physics did not become set. That it is still going on is proof that the universe has had set laws for a long time.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 12:37 AM
Woah. Back the logic truck up here for a second.

1. Science can't be used to prove or disprove God.
2. You, personally, can tell of the evidence, which you believe makes the idea of God laughable at best.

How can these two statements be reconciled?

If you are speaking to others of evolutionary theory as though it were a proof of atheism, then you are indeed trying to disprove the existence of God using science.
For clarity- Creator Being.
Yes they can be reconciled. I cannot convince an HB that the evidence "proves" that we went to the Moon.
But I can convincingly relay that evidence. It is not treated as "proof." it is treated as evidence.
There is a slight possibility that the Moon landings were perfectly hoaxed.
However, it's highly unlikely and too unlikely for me to entertain.
I consider that the Moon landings were real as far far more plausible.
There is no "proof" or "proving" involved.

You may just be giving the facts about evolution, but they will be colored by your personal belief that they are a reason to not have faith.
If I am giving the facts about the evidence that we landed on the Moon, are they colored by a personal belief on my part that we did land? It would be irrelevant if they were. Because facts are facts. That's why they are facts.


Can it be that the very attitude of evolutionary supporters to believe that the fact of evolution disproves God is the very reason that religious adherents feel so threatened by it?
I would say that most evolutionists just say that Evolution removes the necessity for the existence of a creator.
Believers in a creation myth will be threatened by ANYTHING that does such a thing.
To those of us that will not allow ourselves to be deluded by a belief that is in contradiction with the evidence, we must either try to be PC about it- or call it like it is.
I choose to call it like it is.
It won't make me friends and it wont make me well liked. But at least I was honest and did not beat around the bush and can rest a bit easier with myself as a person.
Now- others getting offended or threatened is not my concern. It is their responsibility to review the facts and make their own choices. Just as many believers in certain creation myths will call all others that don't agree with them "wrong." It is not their concern if I am offended or threatened by them. I have the choice to face their claims responsibly and apply logic and critical thinking instead of emotion.


I've met plenty of people with faith that were not idiots.
I don't think I was an idiot during all my years as a Christian:neutral:
Like I said to Blueshift- DO NOT put words in my mouth or apply meanings that I never said.

I do not write between the lines.
Do not try to read between them. Anything you read there would have been written by you- because I don't write there.

I think they could understand the idea of a neutral theory that doesn't say anything about God one way or the other. (What evolution theory actually is, in reality).
It is, in a way. It certainly makes it very hard to accept a creation myth though. No matter how you look at it.
That's just the way it is.
painting it all pretty like in order to maintain that PC "Maybe" doesn't change any of the facts either.

When talking to an HB, I do not bother painting the facts pretty. I tell him what evidence exists that makes it very clear that the Moon landing was most highly unlikely to have been hoaxed.


Granted, there's religious zealots who just want to fight. But as for the rest of the faithful I think we might find it easier to get them to come around to the facts of evolution if we didn't try to trim it with atheism that is entirely unnecessary and unsupported.

Are you saying that Evolution is Unsupported or unnecessary?
The theory speaks for itself.
It is not trimmed with Atheism. But one thing about the theory is that it puts severe constraints on just how far a person might be willing to go in order to maintain their belief in a Creator.

No matter WHAT you do- the theory cannot be altered for your whims. And this means that even if the theory allows for a creator at the BB- it is still in heavy conflict with EveryThing Else About The Belief system.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 12:51 AM
I will add- Much of the posts being made in disagreement with me here- are the same arguments I made myself- maybe two years ago or less.
I commented on this earlier. And I commented on how I had to confront myself about the reasons that I was making those arguments. It wasn't easy, either. But in the back of my mind- I had known it all along.

I cannot change the world or reality to please other people.
Nor can I pander to others whims.

If a rock is hard, I must admit that rocks are hard with no beating around or fancy footing about it.
I must admit that water sure is wet stuff.
I cannot say that water could be dry- but it's highly highly unlikely that it's dry due to the evidence all the time. I will just say that water is wet.

It then becomes the burden of others to think about it.

Even if they feel funny. Or angry. Or react in other ways.
They still bear the burden of thinking on the issue.
As time passes, as it passed for me, maybe all that thinking will cause them to reach certain conclusions.
Then again, maybe they will choose rationalizing or justification no matter what. It is still their responsibility to recognize or try to recognize if they are doing it.
Just as it is mine to do so as well.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-15, 12:59 AM
I don't think I was an idiot during all my years as a Christian
Like I said to Blueshift- DO NOT put words in my mouth or apply meanings that I never said.

I do not write between the lines.
Do not try to read between them. Anything you read there would have been written by you- because I don't write there.

My apologies, it's not my intention to put words in your mouth.

There are however plenty of evolutionary theorists who do try to paint all deists as gullible, mentally unstable idiots.

Case in point, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

When the top theorists sell evolution as a proof of the nonexistence of God, then of course believers are going to feel threatened by it. It turns it from a factual scientific theory into an attack on religion.


It is not trimmed with Atheism. But one thing about the theory is that it puts severe constraints on just how far a person might be willing to go in order to maintain their belief in a Creator.

No matter WHAT you do- the theory cannot be altered for your whims. And this means that even if the theory allows for a creator at the BB- it is still in heavy conflict with EveryThing Else About The Belief system.

Anyone who can believe in something for which there is no evidence is * already * altering the facts to fit their whim. That's the very essence of belief. Suppositions that are founded on zero evidence.

I still don't think idiocy about dinosaur bones being there to test our faith, man and Trex living at the same time, and photons from billions of lightyears away being an illusion are necessary either though.

But people don't seem to be capable of taking a moderate approach and finding the middle ground. It's rather disheartening actually.

WaxRubiks
2008-Sep-15, 01:19 AM
I don't like the way Dawkins says that he is 99.999999%, or what ever, certain that there isn't a God, therefore he is an agnostic.

is 100%-99.999999% really not worth bothering with?

Oh, it's only the belief in the ultimate source of life and knowledge, maybe, so why bother with thinking about it....

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 01:24 AM
M
But people don't seem to be capable of taking a moderate approach and finding the middle ground. It's rather disheartening actually.

Which is why I have the stance you have seen here.<shrug>

No matter how I discuss Evolution- No matter how I try to please everyone- I won't.
And those that choose to do so will believe, rationalize, accuse, justify...

All I can do is vouch for Me.

Gillianren
2008-Sep-15, 05:53 AM
Funny. You must not have read what I said in the part you quoted.
Also, being religious does not necessarily prevent a person from accepting evolution- However, being such in that you believe in a creator that created the Earth and created all the animals and such as in Genesis- that would be what I was referring to.
Our design and creation show a clear lack of design or intelligent planning.

But I don't believe that. Nor did John Paul II. That's being a creationist, not being religious. The two are not necessarily the same.


"There's a change within species but not outside of species" would be an Intelligent Design idea. Not Evolution.

Yes. I know. As I said, I wasn't asking you.


Theory of Evolution states that these changes occur within species until those changes are radical enough that new species emerge from the old. We can observe a great many existing 'in between' species today that are emerging.

Yes. I know.


If a person believes that evolution teaches that there is a change within species but not between them, then they do not understand evolution and are confusing their own Intelligent Design Theory with Evolution Theory.

Yes. I know. Which is why I was asking the question, not of you.


If you think such is the Case Gillianren, I might refer you to Talk Origins, under the irony that you suggest others go there so often.

You're not hearing what I was saying. I want an answer to the question from people who believe it's true. We hear, repeatedly, that people accept evolution within species but not to create new species, and I want someone to explain to me what stops it. As I said in the post you quoted, I was not asking you. I was trying to get a response from a1call but was too lazy to quote the post.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 06:32 AM
You're not hearing what I was saying. I want an answer to the question from people who believe it's true. We hear, repeatedly, that people accept evolution within species but not to create new species, and I want someone to explain to me what stops it. As I said in the post you quoted, I was not asking you. I was trying to get a response from a1call but was too lazy to quote the post.
You're right. I did misunderstand you.

And that's a good question. What would stop it?

astromark
2008-Sep-15, 08:43 AM
Nothing would stop it... Is a alligator not just a crocodile that has a different line of descendancy. They are not the same creature but obviously share a past linkage. Does a raccoon have any close relatives. Of coarse it does. Is a squirrel in any way close to a mongoose or a mare cat.? Are there not hundreds of these examples?
What are you asking such a open ended question for?

I can not prove to any of you that this belief in a super being that is responsible for the 'creation' of all things.Is right... As I can not prove he does not have any thing to do with us... But norr can you. Although I might agree with Mr Richard Dawkins, I do find his method offensive.
I can prove that Niel Armstrong did visit Earths moon. You can not prove he did not.

Can you see the difference here? ( allowing for the fact that I might just be completely wrong )... There are some things we can actually prove. That some will choose to Deni is sad but true.

While logical scientific conclusion might be my truth I except that for some it is not enough. Faith is a part of life for many. I will not tolerate the opinion that denies freedom of choice. Faith is a choice. Its a right worth fighting for...

Having got that out of my system I will now crawl back under my ecological rock and watch you all kick my butt.

John Mendenhall
2008-Sep-15, 02:52 PM
Explain how please.



Please refer to the Rev. Dodgson and his Red Queen for the answer to this kind of irritating question.

NF, best regards, John M.

a1call
2008-Sep-15, 03:00 PM
As to "there's change between species but not outside of species" (you didn't say it, but I'm not going back to add the quote), what stops it? No one's ever provided an answer to that question.

If we define specie as members of life which have a common ancestor or their ancestors could have interbred at some point in history then according to the theory of evolution all life is a single specie.

The evidence (gaps between species be it live or fossil) indicates otherwise.

Here the burden of proof is on the evolutionists to show that distinct but parallel life forms could not have developed on the same planet without ever exchanging DNA material.

As for religion, it seems to me that to a certain degree evolution is accepted as factual/prevailing-theory simply because it opposes some religious views rather than based on adequate evidence.

In other words just because religion is not scientific then the opposing view must be right.
This type of logic is flawed.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-15, 03:25 PM
And the logic that "God created Man, not monkeys who became Man!" is not exponentially worse logic?

I'll stick with evolutionary theory because it actually involves science.

That some deists are threatened by it to me means mostly that they lack imagination.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 03:36 PM
If we define specie as members of life which have a common ancestor or their ancestors could have interbred at some point in history then according to the theory of evolution all life is a single specie.

The evidence (gaps between species be it live or fossil) indicates otherwise.
Could you specify these 'gaps' and where they exist?
What makes these gaps compelling?
Do these gaps exist across the board?
For example: Let's say there is a gap between the common ancestors of two birds.
Are there also gaps in common ancestors of say mammals or amphibians that correspond to those bird gaps?
If not- and those gaps are filled, then it strongly suggests that those bird-gaps are just unfound fossils for that specific creature- but the gaps that WOULD exist in other creatures (if your claim was sound) are found- demonstrating that there are no actual gaps. Only gaps in discoveries of fossils.

Which is to be expected really. It would be ridiculous to expect that we are going to stumble upon every single fossil of every creature that ever existed.


Here the burden of proof is on the evolutionists to show that distinct but parallel life forms could not have developed on the same planet without ever exchanging DNA material.
Wrong, actually.
DNA is well understood and well studied.
Unless you have another theory that shows something OTHER than DNA as responsible- the burden of proof is on YOU to show what this other agent is and how it acts.


As for religion, it seems to me that to a certain degree evolution is accepted as factual/prevailing-theory simply because it opposes some religious views rather than based on adequate evidence.

In other words just because religion is not scientific then the opposing view must be right.
This type of logic is flawed.
The logic here is flawed, but only because of your claim.

Many various belief institutions have resisted scientific change for centuries.
Take a look at geocentrism.
Eventually, a point is reached where the evidence can no longer be denied while they can still hold their head up.

It is not because they decide the opposing view must be right. You claiming that as the reason does not make it so.
It is because the evidence overwhelms their claims and they cannot deny that evidence any longer.
There are some other reasons too- that I will not get into here as they are more than a little discouraged on this Board.

a1call
2008-Sep-15, 03:37 PM
My point is that both some religious views and evolution might be not-right.

Man might have evolved from monkeys but none of his ancestors might have been able to bread with horses or their ancestors.

If life initiated once on Earth, why couldn't it have done so again and in a separate process.
How can evolutionist be so sure that it never ever did or could have?

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 03:49 PM
My point is that both some religious views and evolution might be not-right.

Man might have evolved from monkeys but none of his ancestors might have been able to bread with horses or their ancestors.

If life initiated once on Earth, why couldn't it have done so again and in a separate process.
How can evolutionist be so sure that it never ever did or could have?

Have you even looked at Earths Family Tree?
Or looked into Genetics at all?

Are you aware that Human beings- Us creatures- carry genetic material from.. Horses!?
We cannot breed with horses now. But way back when, common ancestors may have been able to if you put them in the same room.
Do you know what a Liger is?
How about a Tigon?


Also- what's this monkey business?
Humans descended from the Ape lineage. Not Monkey. Way back when, humans and Monkeys also share a common ancestor. But Monkeys and apes branched off that common ancestor. Then Humans off of apes. Monkeys and Humans share a common ancestor, but humans did not come from monkeys and monkeys did not come from humans.
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=1701&rendTypeId=4

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 03:52 PM
a1call, the wording in your posts on this issue show me that you do not understand the theory very well at all.
It shows that you are not read up on the topic and are likely missing a lot of the information available on the subject.

If this is the case- then what is causing this apparent bias against the theory?

a1call
2008-Sep-15, 04:06 PM
Reference to monkeys was in reply to Drunk Vegan who brought it up.

Please see below a quote of my earlier post.

The link indicates there are no fossil links between apes and horses.
I have also mentioned the DNA coding and it's similarities, but this does not "prove" interbreading. What ever process that created the DNA coding could have created similar codes at different times/locations without any exchange and based on reaction to similar environmental stimuli.


Some facts as I see them:

*- Evolution within species is an ongoing and undeniable fact
*- You just have to study the height statistics of different populations for very few generations to see this
*- Fossil records indicate that the ancestors of present day horses were dog-sized animals
*- Embryonic stages of marine mammals indicate that they had limbs at earlier stages of their development
*- Genetic coding of all life is very similar and for the most part identical

And now please bear with me for the following ATM facts (as I see them):

*- In the following "species" does not necessarily define as the current official definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) and is used as a best available term
*- I define a specie as all the members of a genus which have common ancestors or ancestors which could have had interbread at some point in history
*- According to this definition all the members in the same table here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils) are members of the same species
*- The evidence linking species in different tables in the above link is what that is missing from the fossil records
*- In a word accepting a common ancestor for say horses and humans is a matter of imagination and based on circumstantial similarities (both being mammalian for example) and not on any tangible evidence what so ever
*- Hence my position: interspecie-evolution = fantasy

I do understand that the mainstream view holds that fossil record is too rare and fragile to be a complete record, but the fact remains that from a proper scientific point of view the evidence is simply not there (regardless of reasons or excuses).

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 04:28 PM
Reference to monkeys was in reply to Drunk Vegan who brought it up.
Yeah well, he's a Vegan. You can't really expect those things to understand HUMAN evolution...

The link indicates there are no fossil links between apes and horses.
You might want to double check on that...:whistle:
Because yes, there are. Which look neither like ape Nor Horses.

I have also mentioned the DNA coding and it's similarities, but this does not "prove"
Be careful with this word- You are in clear and present danger of misusing it.

interbreading.
Interbreeding is not a necessity of Evolution by any means. It may be a factor.
But the expansion of species does not require it- Why would you think so?
Mutations in the DNA, over the millions of Years involved, result in the species itself changing.
You may have gotten away with the Monkey comment, but you cannot evade your "interbreeding" misconception.

What ever process that created the DNA coding could have created similar codes at different times/locations without any exchange and based on reaction to similar environmental stimuli.

Again the interbreeding misconception.
I would suggest
that as you begin to learn about evolution- you forget about interbreeding. It is not really necessary to consider that factor at this time.

Furthermore- Clarify what this mysterious "whatever process" is and how it works.

ETA: You also have repeatedly been claiming that the evidence is not there.
This is incorrect. The evidence is not only there but overwhelming.
a1call, you have also shown many misconceptions about evolution theory. Big ones.
Add that factor to the claims you make about lacking all this evidence- and you sound just like a creationist webpage.
Perhaps you should first clarify your misconceptions. Overcome them. Then- let's take a Good Hard Look at what evidence is there- and what is lacking.
Get the facts straight so to speak.

It's easy for both of us to sit here and make claims.
I say, let's drop the claims and go over the evidence- bit by bit- and see if we're lacking all this evidence like you claim.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-15, 04:40 PM
Yeah well, he's a Vegan. You can't really expect those things to understand HUMAN evolution...

You offend my honor Sir.

I have contacted the nearest Vegan battle contingent, currently performing orbital maneuvers in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.

They will be arriving here to enslave your pitiful race in approximately 4.5 years.

Enjoy the time that you have remaining.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 04:48 PM
You offend my honor Sir.

I have contacted the nearest Vegan battle contingent, currently performing orbital maneuvers in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.

They will be arriving here to enslave your pitiful race in approximately 4.5 years.

Enjoy the time that you have remaining.

No problem.
Gives me time to upgrade my training and then kick E.T.'s butt.

lek
2008-Sep-15, 05:14 PM
Here the burden of proof is on the evolutionists to show that distinct but parallel life forms could not have developed on the same planet without ever exchanging DNA material.


Forgot the possibility that it did happen, but just didn't survive long enough?

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-15, 05:20 PM
If we define specie as members of life which have a common ancestor
or their ancestors could have interbred at some point in history then
according to the theory of evolution all life is a single specie.
The word "species" is singular as well as plural.

You don't need to give the word "species" a new, ridiculous definition
in order to say what you meant above. You could instead have said,
"According to the theory of evolution, all living things have a common
ancestor, or have interbred at some point in history."

Saying it that way has some advantages:

- You don't have to redefine a word to a new and absurd meaning,
- Everyone will understand what you are saying,
- People who understand evolution will agree with the statement,
- Those people won't have to correct you,
- You won't come across like a fool.



The evidence (gaps between species be it live or fossil) indicates
otherwise.
No, they don't.

If you really think that they do, it is either because you don't know
much about living things, or because you have poor judgement, or
because it is what you want to think. Or some combination.

What is a gap? How similar do two creatures have to be for you to
say that they are related? How different do they have to be for you
to say that they are unrelated?

Horses and donkeys are different species. Before humans interbred
them, they never mated with each other. But they are close-enough
relations that they *can* be interbred, resulting in a hinny or mule,
which is usually though not always sterile.

Dromedary and bactrian camels are obviously different species, yet
they are obviously closely related. The example given by Mark, above,
of alligators and crocodiles is the same: The two are obviously different
species, but they are obviously closely related. In what way do you
think they are related, if not by their common ancestors? Do you think
that they are not related?



Here the burden of proof is on the evolutionists to show that distinct
but parallel life forms could not have developed on the same planet
without ever exchanging DNA material.
This just shows that either you don't know much about living things,
or you have such poor judgement that you can't assess the knowledge
you do have, or you want to believe what you suggest so strongly
that you will ignore the evidence you have. Or some combination.

The burden of proof is on you to show that a copper penny is denser
than a ping-pong ball. I have both in front of me. I say the ping-pong
ball is denser.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Hugh Jass
2008-Sep-15, 06:03 PM
If we define specie as members of life which have a common ancestor or their ancestors could have interbred at some point in history then according to the theory of evolution all life is a single specie.


I'd like to know from where this definition of Species came? It makes no sense and doesn't jive with any usage of terms Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, or Genus, let alone species.

Using the same logic that went into that post I could say,
If we define Football as all sports that use a ball or have ever used a ball then according to the theory of sport all sports are football.

a1call
2008-Sep-15, 06:11 PM
I'd like to know from where this definition of Species came? It makes no sense and doesn't jive with any usage of terms Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, or Genus, let alone species.

It comes from my earlier post quoted below.



*- In the following "species" does not necessarily define as the current official definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) and is used as a best available term
*- I define a specie as all the members of a genus which have common ancestors or ancestors which could have had interbread at some point in history



But my reason for using the term specie differently is because in my opinion the definition is problematic. Any members of life that can be shown that they have at some point exchanged DNA sexually or otherwise should be considered same specie even if they have since lost the ability to do so.
This would simplify things and would facilitate expressing the point that just because some "species" are related that doesn't prove that all species are or have to be.


And despite the suggestions to express my thoughts differently I reserve the right to post my posts as I please.

Thank you very much.

Hugh Jass
2008-Sep-15, 07:00 PM
But my reason for using the term specie differently is because in my opinion the definition is problematic. Any members of life that can be shown that they have at some point exchanged DNA sexually or otherwise should be considered same specie even if they have since lost the ability to do so.
This would simplify things and would facilitate expressing the point that just because some "species" are related that doesn't prove that all species are or have to be.

:confused: huh? How can you accept that two "member's of life" that cannot currently reproduce were able to do so in the past and call them the same species, lets say Donkey and Horse, yet not accept that a Horse and a Human at some point in the distant past did have a common ancestor, (which by the way was neither a horse nor a human). :confused:

How are you "showing" the past exchange of DNA? You have already asserted the possibility that similar DNA sequences like occuring in all members of a Class of animals could have evovled seperately.

Why do you accept evolution only to a point? You seem to be using the same evidence and logic to accept a limited scope, yet not believe it can apply to a wider reality.

a1call
2008-Sep-15, 07:09 PM
:confused: huh? ...

Why do you accept evolution only to a point? You seem to be using the same evidence and logic to accept a limited scope, yet not believe it can apply to a wider reality.

That is right, If any members of life can be shown through fossil records or any other scientific means that they are related then they must-be/are related.

If it can not be shown that they are related such as horses and apes then there is the possibility that they may or may not be related.

If anyone claims that they are then he has the burden of proof to back up his claim.

I am confused on how this can be confusing. :)

An analogy would be:

*- Earth orbits counterclockwise
*- Mars orbits counterclockwise
*- Moon orbits counterclockwise
*- Jupiter orbits counterclockwise
.....

Thus all members of solar system are orbiting counterclockwise.
Which happens to be false.

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 09:03 PM
That is right, If any members of life can be shown through fossil records or any other scientific means that they are related then they must-be/are related.

If it can not be shown that they are related such as horses and apes then there is the possibility that they may or may not be related.

If anyone claims that they are then he has the burden of proof to back up his claim.


The burden of proof remains in your court.
Why?
Because you are trying to claim that an "outside" force must be involved.
That is what you need to demonstrate.
But...

I have given you the offer to go over the fossil record- Bit By Bit- and determine where common ancestors are.
We can start with the Horse.
Is your failure to respond to this challenge a rejection?

a1call
2008-Sep-15, 10:10 PM
The burden of proof remains in your court.
Because you are trying to claim that an "outside" force must be involved.


I have made no such claims anywhere.

Please stop imagining things.

Thanks

Neverfly
2008-Sep-15, 10:20 PM
I have made no such claims anywhere.

Please stop imagining things.

Thanks

Be careful...




Here the burden of proof is on the evolutionists to show that distinct but parallel life forms could not have developed on the same planet without ever exchanging DNA material.
Wrong, actually.
DNA is well understood and well studied.
Unless you have another theory that shows something OTHER than DNA as responsible- the burden of proof is on YOU to show what this other agent is and how it acts.

You have not addressed This statement. Thus- I tend to Back my imaginings up.

You also have not addressed whether or not you are willing to take a close look at the fossil record. I've asked three times now with no answer.

Gillianren also was apparently asking you where it comes from- with no answer there as well.

Hugh Jass
2008-Sep-15, 10:38 PM
An analogy would be:

*- Earth orbits counterclockwise
*- Mars orbits counterclockwise
*- Moon orbits counterclockwise
*- Jupiter orbits counterclockwise
.....

Thus all members of solar system are orbiting counterclockwise.
Which happens to be false.

This is a horrible analogy and if this is how you think this is in any way close to the way evolutionary theory has worked it shows gross ignorance of the subject. I wish I could give a semester's worth of lessons in a nice concise post on a forum but I can't.

Since we are working with analogies lets try language. Basically if i understand your point, Mandarin, Italian, Tsonga, and Mayan all originated on their own and no matter how we trace back human history and migration we will not be able to find common links between them?

If you're answer is the tower of babel then go ahead and say so, and that ID is your response to the evolution "pole" as well, that way I know this conversation is an absolute dead end.

a1call
2008-Sep-15, 10:52 PM
I replied to Gillianren latest post to me in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/78764-evolution-pole-4.html#post1324019).

He has not addressed me since.

So again please stop imagining things and also please stop representing other members.



Wrong, actually.
DNA is well understood and well studied.
Unless you have another theory that shows something OTHER than DNA as responsible- the burden of proof is on YOU to show what this other agent is and how it acts.
You have not addressed This statement. Thus- I tend to Back my imaginings up.

I have yet one more request to add to not imagining things: Please read someon's post before replying to him.

I replied to your post here (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/78764-evolution-pole-4.html#post1324054).

and I will quote again:

I have also mentioned the DNA coding and it's similarities, but this does not "prove" interbreading. What ever process that created the DNA coding could have created similar codes at different times/locations without any exchange and based on reaction to similar environmental stimuli.

a1call
2008-Sep-15, 10:57 PM
I know this conversation is an absolute dead end.

I am glad to see we can finally agree on something. :)

antoniseb
2008-Sep-15, 11:03 PM
I agree too.