Evolution vs. Intelligent Design discussion
"Inherit Darwin" a new play
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Oh yes, please, say this! And I believe you. After all, there is plenty of evidence. Just look out your window. What do you see? Flatness. Well, if you live in the desert on the plains -- hills don't count.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that this:
http://capecodhistory.us/books/books-...
is an accurate representation of the Earth. Even the Bible supports this model -- clearly the mountain in the middle is where Satan took Jesus, and while the elephants aren't exactly "pillars", they are clearly within the artistic license of being pillars allowed by exegesis and hermeneutics. Earthquakes are clearly caused by the elephant pillars giving a shake, flicking of a cosmic mosquito or something.
Even Saint Bellarmine -- a genuine, card-carrying Saint of the Catholic Church, a man who got his boost into fame and eventual saintdom for his Good Christian Work of suppressing Galileo, wouldn't argue with the sense of simply looking out one's window and jumping at the first conclusion one arrives at, especially when it is supported by the wisdom of the holy fathers and that uber-scientist wisest of the wise, Solomon. To quote:
I add that the words ' the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move.
So when the Holy Fathers speak of the corners of the earth and its supporting pillars, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since any fool can see that the world is flat indeed by simply looking out his window and trusting in the wisdom of the holy.
rgb
Mod
rgb
Mod
You may have things that you consider to be evidence of God's existence (such as the existence, versus non-existence, of a Universe in the first place), but they are likely to be different sorts of things and less likely to be universally accepted as sound evidence since one cannot show that God's existence is a necessary prior for the existence of a Universe by any empirical means.
However, without mind, it don't matter -- the possibility that the Universe is God isn't one that can easily be dismissed. On the other hand, it isn't easy to find objective evidence in the local workings of the Universe to support the hypothesis. All one can say is that the evidence suggests that the Universe itself operates objectively, mechanically, and if not randomly in a manner that is very difficult to distinguish from randomly (as far as entropy is concerned).
rgb
Such wailing and gnashing of teeth . . . my, my.Evolution is still called a theory. It DOES take faith to accept this theory, especially for the primary origin of life from non-life. This has not been replicated and acceptance of current theories requires faith. Evolution also has a hard time explain consciousness. In my religion, we believe everything is created spiritually before it is created physically. Although this universe is probably 13+ billion years old, God is outside of time and is responsible for creation. Evolution may explain how a a species evolved, but it does not do as good a job showing how new species are created.
Evolution is still called a theory. It DOES take faith to accept this theory, especially for the primary origin of life from non-life.No, theories are based on evidence, not faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Also, if you knew anything about evolution, which clearly you do not, you would know that evolutionary theory makes no claim at all about how life originated. How life originated from non-life is a completely different issue than the issue of evolution.
Evolution also has a hard time explain consciousness.
Not really. Big brains = conscious brains.
In my religion, we believe everything is created spiritually before it is created physically.
And you might as well believe that you fart out invisible fairies. You have no evidence for either of those claims.
Evolution may explain how a a species evolved, but it does not do as good a job showing how new species are created.
That is the same thing.
??? How life originated from non-life is a completely different issue than the issue of evolution. ???So for that you turn to Intelligent Design?
??? Evolution may explain how a species evolved, but it does not do as good a job showing how new species are created.
That is the same thing. ???
If it is the same thing, why all the hand wringing about finding a missing link? We easily find paleologic evidence of distinct species, but not spans between them.
So for that you turn to Intelligent Design?No, just like every other question I want answered, I turn to science. Science will find the answer soon.
If it is the same thing, why all the hand wringing about finding a missing link?
There is no hand wringing about finding a missing link except by credulous religious people like yourself.
We easily find paleologic evidence of distinct species, but not spans between them.
We do find links between species. Nearly every single fossil one finds is a link between one species and another. They are nearly all transitional forms.
Evolution is still called a theory.It is a scientific theory, which is not the same as saying, "I bet Jim's late because he got distracted reading a magazine at the store." In science, theory is as good as it gets, because scientists are honest and must always consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Gravity, for example, is a theory. It does not take faith to accept gravity.
It DOES take faith to accept this theory, especially for the primary origin of life from non-life.
It doesn't take faith to accept evidence. This is actually the opposite of faith. And evolution does not deal with the primary origin of life. However, using God to "explain" the "primary origin of life" only answers the question by creating a new question: how do you explain the primary origin of God?
This has not been replicated and acceptance of current theories requires faith.
Of course, nobody "accepts" current origin-of-life theories because they currently lack evidence. No one asserts that "the mechanism for the origin of life was ____." And, again, this has nothing to do with evolution, so what's your point?
Evolution also has a hard time explain consciousness.
This statement has no basis, and is also not true. Consciousness fits perfectly in the evolutionary scheme. For example, higher forms of consciousness are found in "higher" animals.
In my religion, we believe everything is created spiritually before it is created physically.
What does this mean? What is a spirit? How does this explain anything? How is the origin of life made more understandable by the insertion of an extra, unnecessary step? What is your evidence for the spirit, or for the pre-physical spiritual creation?
God is outside of time and is responsible for creation.
What does it mean to be "outside of time"? And, again, simply stating, over and over, that God "is responsible for creation" isn't the same as proving or logically demonstrating it. Alien nanobots are responsible for creation. Is this true? How many times would I have to repeat it to make it true?
Evolution may explain how a a species evolved, but it does not do as good a job showing how new species are created.
What are you talking about? A but not A? Evolution explains how species evolve but it also doesn't? Here's how new species are "created": they evolve.
If it is the same thing, why all the hand wringing about finding a missing link? We easily find paleologic evidence of distinct species, but not spans between them.
What hand wringing? The only people babbling about a so-called "missing link" are creationists. How could something be a "span between" species, but not be a "distinct species"? Every single living organism -- past, present and future -- is a "distinct species," because species are ideas that humans invented as a way to categories life forms. You'll never find a fossil of an animal that doesn't have its own "distinct species" because if we find a fossil that seems between species A and species B, but doesn't seem to belong to either of those species, then we'll invent a new species for it.
It is obvious from your posts that you don't really understand anything about evolution. I don't mean this as an insult; not everyone understands evolution, and there are plenty of things that those of us who do understand evolution do not understand. But your ignorance is not proof that evolution is not true. Try reading a book or two on it, like Why Evolution Is True or Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. You might learn something.
So for that you turn to Intelligent Design?
Okay. So what is Intelligent Design . I've met countless people who, as you do, assert that ID is not creationism but is instead some form of science, full of evidence and substance. So lay it on me. What is this evidence? What is the substance?
I mean, we all know that ID is just creationism with a new name. But I'll humor you and pretend it's not. As far as I can tell, the entire substance of ID is simply saying that ID is true and that ID is science, without ever saying anything about what ID is. But no one can actually show me any of the substance of it. So can you, please please please please please enlighten me with some of this ID information? Can you answer any of the questions I posed a few posts ago, in post #61?
???No, just like every other question I want answered, I turn to science. Science will find the answer soon. ???That is called faith.
??? This statement has no basis, and is also not true. Consciousness fits perfectly in the evolutionary scheme. For example, higher forms of consciousness are found in "higher" animals. ???
Evolution can't explain the origin of consciousness, beyond recognizing that it happens.
Excluding Young Earth creationists who are stuck on the literalness of the Bible, there are millions of people that accept the reality of God. The story of creation recognizes that God created the universe, all the elements and the lifeforms. ID is a theory that suggests an alternative to completely random chance in the origin and development of life. A complex system is more likely to be the result of a designer than chance occurances which require random combinations at odds that would boggle the mind. Science says look to the simpliest explanation first - for the origin of life and the major changes in species, the simpler explanation is ID, not random evolution.
ID is too threatening to the secular community. It argues for the existance of a God and that is too inconvient for a society that prefers the "benefits" of moral relativism. If you can eliminate God, you can do away with all His pesky, inconvient rules.
The big questions of life are where did we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go?
With different world views, it is unlikely we will be able to convince each other. I believe God exists, therefore ID makes sense to explain how the universe and life were created. It appears you do not believe in God, so your faith must rest in something else, such as Darwinian evolution to address these questions.
Evolution can't explain the origin of consciousness, beyond recognizing that it happens.How do you know that evolution can't explain this? Because you're unaware of an explanation. Again, you present your ignorance as evidence. If you don't understand the physics of flight, does this prove that airplanes don't exist?
Evolutionary theory can certainly do more than simply recognize that consciousness exists. Hell, even I can do that, as I did in my last post, by pointing out that there is a pattern in the levels of consciousness and complex thought in various animals that roughly corresponds to their evolutionary relationships.
Instead of hiding behind your own ignorance, why not try doing a little research? In less than two minutes on Google I found a paper published in a major scientific journal about the evolution of consciousness. But you would never do this two minutes of research, because you wouldn't want to risk discovering that maybe -- gasp! -- there are scientific explanations for consciousness. Better to say, "I've never heard of it, therefore it doesn't exist, therefore, whatever I decide is true must be true."
there are millions of people that accept the reality of God.
Millions of people believe in God. So what? Millions of people believe in evolution. So what? We don't determine which ideas are true by show of hands.
ID is a theory that suggests an alternative to completely random chance in the origin and development of life.
A theory that you can't explain in the slightest, other than saying its name over and over again. A theory completely without substance. An ID textbook would be exactly one page. It would say, "God did it," and nothing else.
A complex system is more likely to be the result of a designer than chance occurances which require random combinations at odds that would boggle the mind.
First of all, the fact that something boggles your mind doesn't mean its impossible. It only means that you don't understand it. By now, it is unnecessary for you to go out of your way to point out that you don't understand evolution. That point has been well established.
Secondly, evolution isn't about "chance occurrences" and "random combinations." Evolution is not random. It is not a bunch of atoms bouncing against each other until they happen, by chance, to bounce in exactly the molecular configuration for a rabbit. The driving force behind evolution is not randomness but selection.
Science says look to the simpliest explanation first - for the origin of life and the major changes in species, the simpler explanation is ID, not random evolution.
"Random evolution" isn't even one of the choices. Evolution is not random. And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, ID is not simpler. It requires a creator who is even more complex than the system so complex it requires a creator. Meaning, ID implies an endless string of ever more complex creators and meta-creators. It also requires violations of the fundamental laws of science, such as the impossibility of creation of mass-energy, and the existence of some "outside of time" state, whatever that means.
ID is too threatening to the secular community.
Who feels threatened by ID? This is, as usual, a baseless claim. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion that scientists feel "threatened" by ID?
It argues for the existance of a God and that is too inconvient for a society that prefers the "benefits" of moral relativism.
This has nothing to do with anything. Biology is not used as a moral guide. One need not understand the first thing about evolution to dismiss religion, or become immoral; nor must one become immoral if one understands evolution. And, of course, it's beside the point. Even if religion and evolutionary theory both presented themselves as moral guides, and even if one was more useful than the other, this wouldn't prove that either one was true.
The big questions of life are where did we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go?
Again, this has nothing to do with anything, but at least it's not true. The big questions in life differ from person to person. I certainly don't spend any time thinking about any of these questions. And, of course, whether religion is more existentially satisfying has nothing to do with whether or not its creation myth is true. You may as well say that ID is true because ice cream is delicious. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
Your argument is basically that since religion (supposedly) exceeds evolution in one category -- providing satisfying answers to our most pressing questions -- then it therefore exceeds evolution in all categories, such as "being true." This is not logical. You realize that person A can exceed person B in the category of "being tall" while at the same time person B can exceed person A in the category of "being able to do origami," right? A cheeseburger is more satisfying than a zucchini, but that doesn't make it healthier. You understand this, right?
It appears you do not believe in God, so your faith must rest in something else, such as Darwinian evolution to address these questions.
No, I don't have faith in anything. Faith is not reasonable. I look to evolution to answer questions on the diversity of life, not to answer every question I ever have. Evolution is not an alternative to religion anymore than evolution is an alternative to tennis.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to make a single substantive statement about the substance of Intelligent Design theory or answer the questions in post 61.
Don wrote: "Evolution is still called a theory. "I love it when someone drops their pants in front of the class. Others will take this up, but I would refer you to Ken Millers "Only a Theory". Sounds like you really should read this book.
Don wrote: "We easily find paleologic evidence of distinct species, but not spans between them. "Tiktaalik to name but one, since I just saw the exhibit at the Field Museum.
Don wrote: "Evolution can't explain the origin of consciousness, beyond recognizing that it happens."So your solution is that an invisible man is responsible.
What does it say if for example Chimps display a level of consciousness? Is the better explanation that God gave them *some* level or that we share a common ancestor and that our level of consciousness reflects our unique abilities provided by a bigger brain.
Evolution can't explain the origin of consciousness, beyond recognizing that it happens.
Don, something you have to realise is that evolutionary theory deals with history. We have to make assumptions and inferences when dealing with history. Evolution can not definitively explain consciousness because we physically have no access to the past. But evolution can posit logical, scientific hypotheses, and modern scientists must choose which to accept, based on evidence, plausibility, and coherence. In this sense, we do not 'know' how, where, or why consciousness evolved: we can never know why. Not definitively. But we can also never know, in the same way, that Cro-Magnons walked on two legs. But the evidence is so stacked in favour of this conclusion that people don't even consider an alternative (barring some sort of narcotic interference).
Don, something you have to realise is that evolutionary theory deals with history. We have to make assumptions and inferences when dealing with history. Evolution can not definitively explain consciousness because we physically have no access to the past. But evolution can posit logical, scientific hypotheses, and modern scientists must choose which to accept, based on evidence, plausibility, and coherence. In this sense, we do not 'know' how, where, or why consciousness evolved: we can never know why. Not definitively. But we can also never know, in the same way, that Cro-Magnons walked on two legs. But the evidence is so stacked in favour of this conclusion that people don't even consider an alternative (barring some sort of narcotic interference).
Don wrote: "?A complex system is more likely to be the result of a designer than chance occurances which require random combinations at odds that would boggle the mind. Science says look to the simpliest explanation first - for the origin of life and the major changes in species, the simpler explanation is ID, not random evolution."On a re-read..... Evolution is NOT random. Please at least understand what you claim to reject.
In my world, rejecting something that you clearly have not made an attempt to understand is the height of ignorance.
Greetings!The crazy thing about the theory of evolution is - since the fall of the Centreal Dogman - there is no consensus on what is the theory of evolution.
The old mutation + natural selection = evolution theriy has been dead for over a decade, now - as highligeted by the Altenberg-16 Summit in 2008.
Not even evo-devo has gained traction.
Richard William Nelson
Richard William Nelson
Richard,The old mutation + natural selection = evolution theriy has been dead for over a decade, now - as highligeted by the Altenberg-16 Summit in 2008.
Haven't we been through this song and dance several times already? The theory of evolution by natural selection is not dead. The Altenberg-16 summit was a non-event that almost no one in the world cares about except for you.
Normally at this point, I would hunt down my posts from the last time you showed up, dropped a few non-sequiturs and ignored everything everyone said, so that I could reiterate the many questions I've asked you that you've ignored. But honestly, why should I bother?
Richard wrote: "Greetings!The crazy thing about the theory of evolution is - since the fall of the Centreal Dogman - there is no consensus on what is the theory of evolution.
The old mutation + natural sele..."
Richard lets be honest. Do you really think you are participating in a discussion? All you seem to do is run in, toss a few assertions around then run away.
Do you feel good about this? Do you feel proud like you made some point? When you click post, do you think "that will show them".
To me it seems that inside you know you have no real argument and this is the only tactic you have in your arsenal. I think that speaks volumes about your position.
You might be better off posting at Uncommon Decent. Over there you would be considered a guru, hailed as a hero and they might even buy your book.
Richard wrote: "Greetings!
The crazy thing about the theory of evolution is - since the fall of the Centreal Dogman - there is no consensus on what is the theory of evolution.
The old mutation + natural sele..."
Richard, please elaborate. You and I are in two groups together, and I feel you talk about nothing but that Altenberg Summit. Please, defend every assertion you made: because I don't think you've ever shown where the evidence is the Evolution is dead. You merely cite the Summit, assuming we all know what it is, and then expect validation in return. Explain to us whence you draw support for these assertions (without the citation of ), and people might stop calling you a fool, a coward, and any number of names that have appeared or been implied. I say this because I am genuinely interested in the idea that there is a community of people who agree with you: because I've never heard of this Summit cited as any refutation of the bastion of Evolutionary Theory.
Also, I am concerned your spelling (theriy?) might reflect a lapse in normal brain-function.
The crazy thing about the theory of evolution is - since the fall of the Centreal Dogman - there is no consensus on what is the theory of evolution.
The old mutation + natural sele..."
Richard, please elaborate. You and I are in two groups together, and I feel you talk about nothing but that Altenberg Summit. Please, defend every assertion you made: because I don't think you've ever shown where the evidence is the Evolution is dead. You merely cite the Summit, assuming we all know what it is, and then expect validation in return. Explain to us whence you draw support for these assertions (without the citation of ), and people might stop calling you a fool, a coward, and any number of names that have appeared or been implied. I say this because I am genuinely interested in the idea that there is a community of people who agree with you: because I've never heard of this Summit cited as any refutation of the bastion of Evolutionary Theory.
Also, I am concerned your spelling (theriy?) might reflect a lapse in normal brain-function.
Greetings!I am concerned about my spelling, too - shows my addiction to spell-check - thought the letters might just evolve - somehow.
Nature in September 2008 ran an article entitled "Postmodern evolution?" - also known as the "Woodstock of Evolution."
"Its agenda is, pretty explicit, to go beyond the 'modern synthesis' [mutation + natural selection:] that has held sway in evolutionary theory since the middle of the twentieth century."
Richard William Nelson
Professor Anthony Flew is an embarassment to all good atheists, having abandoned the faith. How disturbing that a rational critic of God's existence ended up abandoning atheism. Is no one safe?
???Evolution is not an alternative to religion anymore than evolution is an alternative to tennis.???Anyone who has read biographies of Darwin should know that Darwin and his crony Thomas Huxley looked to Evolution to overthrow the belief in God.
So Don, are we now pulling a "Richard"? We pop in, ignore all the questions that were asked of us, drop a few unimportant lines, and then vanish for a little while so people forget we were asked questions which we never answered?
Anyone who has read biographies of Darwin should know that Darwin and his crony Thomas Huxley looked to Evolution to overthrow the belief in God.Crony? Hilarious. Illogical Christians always make scientists their enemies.
Many religious people accept evolution and believe in God. Not the way I would go, but it is obvious that many do go that way. So, evolution is not an alternative to religion as you claim.
Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution, intended it to replace belief in God.When people have different world views, it is pointless to debate secondary issues. ID makes sense for believers in God because it explains how life originated and evolved. ID is rejected by secularists because moral relativism doesn't stand if there is a God who has given us commandments and natural laws to live by. Better to adhere to the religion of Darwinian Evolution and all the freedoms from the chains of religion it brings.
The Judeo-Christian world view is at war with Secular Humanism. Evolution vs. ID is just one of the battlefields.
I don't expect my play will sway secularists to change their beliefs, but it can help religious people, who only get evolution propoganda in school, to see that ID can explain the creation of life easier than evolution does.
ID makes sense for believers in God because it explains how life originated and evolved. How does it explain it? I have asked you countless times to explain some of the substance of ID, some of the evidence, some of the methodology behind what is supposedly a form of science. You simply ignore these questions and prattle on about evolution being a religion or some other such nonsense, as if that has anything to do with anything.
ID is rejected by secularists because moral relativism doesn't stand if there is a God who has given us commandments and natural laws to live by.
This is an absurd claim. I wonder if you have any evidence to back this claim up.
ID can explain the creation of life easier than evolution does.
Especially when you don't ever have to articulate the "explanation."
Can I play this game? I have a new theory, called Astromagicism. It explains the origins of life better than either evolution or ID. I won't tell you anything about this theory other than that it is the best theory. Do you now believe it?
Richard,Until you go back and actually answer some of the questions and address some of the points raised in the many posts people have written to you and that you've ignored, I doubt anyone cares what you have to say. Especially if it is more nonsense about this Altenberg summit.
Don wrote: " who only get evolution propoganda in school, to see that ID can explain the creation of life easier than evolution does."Just what we need in school. "Look class, we no longer need to think or try and understand this, an invisible man is responsible for this. Here in science class we don't know who this entity is, but if you go down the hall and speak to Paster - Father - Imam- god or religion of choice in here he will point you in the right direction."
ID = science stopper.
Please I would be interested. What is the modern (testable) definition of the ID Theory as it pertains to biological life.
After all if you are a supporter of this idea you *must* know what it says.
Richard wrote: "Greetings!Nature in September 2008 ran an article entitled "Postmodern evolution?" - also known as the "Woodstock of Evolution."
"Its agenda is, pretty explicit, to go beyond the 'modern synthesis' [mutation + natural selection:] that has held sway in evolutionary theory since the middle of the twentieth century."
And just how can that in any way be detrimental to the TOE? What I did find interesting was the summary. It would seem Richard that they were speaking directly to you. They had you in mind thats for sure.
Richard wrote: "Greetings!
I am concerned about my spelling, too - shows my addiction to spell-check - thought the letters might just evolve - somehow.
Nature in September 2008 ran an article entitled "Post..."
Richard, please respond as I asked you to. I requested you respond in your own words, not with references to Nature. The only contribution you made to your own post was a smart quip and the clarification of what the Modern Synthesis is. Fact is, I think the Synthesis is imperfect, too: but the man to whom I go for such things is the evolutionary theorist and palæontologist Stephen Jay Gould. I don't renounce Evolution because the Synthesis hasn't been restructured. Please, Richard: answer my prompt as I requested. I seem to be the only person in this group willing to hold a real debate with you. Will you throw away such a chance? If so, I suppose I shan't have anything to say to you anymore: as your manifesto is pretty clearly copied and pasted into every other post.
I am concerned about my spelling, too - shows my addiction to spell-check - thought the letters might just evolve - somehow.
Nature in September 2008 ran an article entitled "Post..."
Richard, please respond as I asked you to. I requested you respond in your own words, not with references to Nature. The only contribution you made to your own post was a smart quip and the clarification of what the Modern Synthesis is. Fact is, I think the Synthesis is imperfect, too: but the man to whom I go for such things is the evolutionary theorist and palæontologist Stephen Jay Gould. I don't renounce Evolution because the Synthesis hasn't been restructured. Please, Richard: answer my prompt as I requested. I seem to be the only person in this group willing to hold a real debate with you. Will you throw away such a chance? If so, I suppose I shan't have anything to say to you anymore: as your manifesto is pretty clearly copied and pasted into every other post.
Don wrote: "Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution, intended it to replace belief in God."
Don, I am very concerned when I see this. Darwin waited a decade to publish because he knew that every reverend and priest in the world would misinterpret his theory as atheistic, and ravage him with unkind words. His wife was a devout Christian, and she was significant in this hold-over. Darwin had respect for the religious, even if he thought them silly. After his daughter's death, he gave up his lax faith in God. But because Darwin was an atheist, and because he worried about the religious leaders' response to his theory does not mean he intended Evolution to replace God. That can't even be done, though some have tried. Now, if you had said, Richard Dawkins, the Blowhard of Evolution, intends it to replace belief in God, then I would have agreed.
Don, I am very concerned when I see this. Darwin waited a decade to publish because he knew that every reverend and priest in the world would misinterpret his theory as atheistic, and ravage him with unkind words. His wife was a devout Christian, and she was significant in this hold-over. Darwin had respect for the religious, even if he thought them silly. After his daughter's death, he gave up his lax faith in God. But because Darwin was an atheist, and because he worried about the religious leaders' response to his theory does not mean he intended Evolution to replace God. That can't even be done, though some have tried. Now, if you had said, Richard Dawkins, the Blowhard of Evolution, intends it to replace belief in God, then I would have agreed.
who only get evolution propoganda in schoolI missed this little nugget the first time I read this post. How exactly is teaching evolution "propaganda"? Is math class full of "addition propaganda"? Is English class full of "verb tense propaganda"?
Dan wrote:
How exactly is teaching evolution "propaganda"? Is math class full of "addition propaganda"? Is English class full of "verb tense propaganda"?
I choose to interpret it as the literal Latin ('those things that must be brought forth'), rather than the modern, derogatory usage.
How exactly is teaching evolution "propaganda"? Is math class full of "addition propaganda"? Is English class full of "verb tense propaganda"?
I choose to interpret it as the literal Latin ('those things that must be brought forth'), rather than the modern, derogatory usage.
Could anyone explain how the theory of evolution is compatiable with the evidence in the butterfly. Specifically, how is the theory compatible with the caterpillar, cacoon, and butterfly forms - without corresponding changes in the same DNA?
According to the theory of evolution, the phenotype should follow on the geneotype.
Richard William Nelson
Richard wrote: "Could anyone explain how the theory of evolution is compatiable with the evidence in the butterfly..."Why do we have to show you how to do an internet search every time you ask a stupid question? I found loads of information regarding evolutionary explanation of metamorphosis with a simple search. Try "evolution and metamorphosis" in google and then peruse (or in your case ignore) the results.
Also: you're speeling iis giong funy again – time to take one of those yellow tablets by the side of your bed…
Oh look, Richard popped in to say something stupid. Well, that is step #1. What's next?#2 - Ignore the responses he gets to his stupid question
#3 - Disappear for a week or so
#4 - Repeat steps #1 - #4
Logan wrote: "I seem to be the only person in this group willing to hold a real debate with you."But Richard isn't debating in any way, shape or form.
If he presents some debatable ideas then I'm all for it.
Richard wrote: "Could anyone explain how the theory of evolution is compatiable with the evidence in the butterfly.
Specifically, how is the theory compatible with the caterpillar, cacoon, and butterfly forms ..."
Dammit, Richard! Just answer my questions, you coward!
Yes, Hp, you are absolutely right. I don't know what Richard hopes to accomplish by popping by every week or so to make some complete non-sequitur. I actually can not fathom what is going through his head when he does so.
Specifically, how is the theory compatible with the caterpillar, cacoon, and butterfly forms ..."
Dammit, Richard! Just answer my questions, you coward!
Yes, Hp, you are absolutely right. I don't know what Richard hopes to accomplish by popping by every week or so to make some complete non-sequitur. I actually can not fathom what is going through his head when he does so.
Logan wrote: "Richard wrote: "Could anyone explain how the theory of evolution is compatiable with the evidence in the butterfly. Specifically, how is the theory compatible with the caterpillar, cacoon, and bu..."
I guess Richard is treating us to:
DEBATING CREATIONISTS on Evolution is like playing chess with a pigeon — it knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and then flies back to its flock to claim victory. -Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
Chris wrote: "Logan wrote: "Richard wrote: "Could anyone explain how the theory of evolution is compatiable with the evidence in the butterfly.
Specifically, how is the theory compatible with the caterpillar, ..."
I just don't understand.
Specifically, how is the theory compatible with the caterpillar, ..."
I just don't understand.
Greetings!Looks like a week went by and no one can answer the question how is the neo-Darwin theory of evolution is compatible with the caterpillar, cacoon, and butterfly forms - without corresponding changes in the same DNA?
It is beginning to look like all the evolution emperors have no clothes. At least someone must have a real answer and not some lame link.
It's not that no one has an answer, Richard. It's that no one really cares to engage you in your silly games. 1. You ask some ridiculous, non-sequitur question -- not out of curiosity, but in the vain hope that it will somehow catch us red-handed and upend our "faith" in evolution.
2. We answer the question and respond to everything in your post, often because the questions are so silly, misguided and simple that they are very easily answered. Out of frustration with your obvious ignorance, we sometimes provide links instead of going into lengthy explanations, in order to demonstrate that if you actually cared about finding answers to these questions, the answers could be easily found on a first- or second-attempt Google search. Your disingenuous implication that you have uncovered some gaping hole in evolution, some unanswerable question that unhinges the whole thing, is easily disarmed by demonstrating the ridiculous ease with which the answers to these questions can be found on the Internet.
3. You ignore our responses, and jump to the next non-sequitur, semi-rhetorical question.
4. After a few iterations of this skull-fuckingly obnoxious game, you disappear for a month or so before popping up on a different thread to start the game all over again.
So, no, Richard, you haven't stumped us. You haven't single-handedly unraveled evolutionary theory with your childish game. You have simply irritated us all beyond the limits of patience, beyond the edge of any futile hope that you might grow up and engage in actual conversation rather than play this stupid game. We're tired of playing whack-a-mole with Richard' juvenile game of question-and-ignore-answer.
Greetings!
Farewell!
See you in a month!
Richard wrote: "Looks like a week went by and no one can answer the question how is the neo-Darwin theory of evolution is compatible with the caterpillar, cacoon, and butterfly forms - without corres..."Ok, Richard, what is your answer to the question you have posed? You must surely know the answer to so glibly ignore reasoned models.
As you can't be arsed to investigate I have entered some information below (from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
"Four insect groups comprising beetles, bees and ants, moths and butterflies, and flies and mosquitoes make up nearly 60 percent of the more than 1 million known animal species. They are so prolific and exhibit great diversity because of metamorphosis, a process in which larval, pupal and adult stages differ greatly, allowing each to occupy a different habitat and consume different food sources.
Now two University of Washington zoology professors are proposing a novel hypothesis for how metamorphosis evolved. Their proposition suggests that a change in hormonal function during embryonic development led to the evolution of a unique larval stage, an innovation that allowed a virtual population explosion among these species in the last 250 million years.
"Metamorphosis really opened up niches that weren't available to insects before that," said UW zoologist James Truman, who along with UW zoologist Lynn Riddiford published their findings in the Sept. 30 issue of Nature.
The earliest insects, which strongly resembled today's silverfish, lacked metamorphosis and their juveniles looked very much like adults except that they didn't have functioning genitalia. After the evolution of flight, more advanced species, such as cockroaches and grasshoppers, developed incomplete metamorphosis. Their immature stages, called nymphs, still resembled the adults except that they lacked genitalia and bore wing buds that only transformed into functional wings during the molt to the adult stage. In both cases, the insects molt, or shed their external skeletons, several times as they grow to adults.
The higher insects, species with complete metamorphosis, spend their juvenile life as larvae that bear no resemblance to the adults. What allows the change from, say, a caterpillar into a butterfly is the way a group of insect hormones, juvenile hormones (JH) and ecdysteroids, interact during embryonic, larval and pupal stages, the researchers said.
Juvenile hormones suppress the development of adult structures. In insects with partial or no metamorphosis, the absence of JH during embryo formation and development allows the embryo to become a miniature version of the adult. In embryos of insects with complete metamorphosis, Truman and Riddiford said, there is an early appearance of JH that suppresses some of the adult-directed growth and promotes formation of the larval stage. Juvenile hormones remain as the larva grows, then disappear to allow growth of imaginal discs, which will give rise to specific adult structures. A complex interplay between JH and ecdysteroids then allows the larva to progress to a pupa, and finally ecdysteroids alone drive the transformation to adult.
Juvenile hormones play such an important role in the embryonic and larval development of metamorphosing insects that they have been used as the basis for insecticides. For instance, JH mimics are used to treat ponds where mosquitoes breed, thereby blocking their metamorphosis. Such treatment also prevents eggs from hatching.
The four major insect groups with complete metamorphosis all are thought to descend from a common ancestor, so it appears the development of metamorphosis in the insect world has occurred only once. There are indications that another group, called thrips, has evolved toward complete metamorphosis but so far has fallen short, Truman and Riddiford said.
In insects with complete metamorphosis, the lack of competition between juveniles and adults for food is a major factor in their success and diversification, the husband-wife team said. Adults can feed on one source, such as nectar or blood, and only lay eggs when there is appropriate food for their young, such as dung, carcasses, fruit and other relatively temporary sources.
"The key to different types of development is timing, when certain kinds of proteins are made, how long they're present, and so on," Truman said. He believes metamorphosis will provide a valuable model for researchers to understand the molecular basis for how shifts in the timing of protein production can lead to the creation of different body forms. That, in turn, could shed greater light on how life patterns have evolved.
"Any innovation that helps you generate species that account for more than half of all living animals is not a trivial innovation," he said."
Hp,How generous and patient of you to entertain Richard's "question" with a detailed explanation, which he will no doubt ignore.
By bothering to answer his question, though, you may be implicitly buying into his faulty premises. Let's look at the flaws in his reasoning.
For one thing, he doesn't understand what a phenotype is, as is demonstrated by this statement: "According to the theory of evolution, the phenotype should follow on the geneotype." A phenotype is the result of the genotype in conjunction with environmental factors, not just a direct expression of the genotype. If they were the exact same thing, they wouldn't be two different terms. He might try reading this, but of course he won't, beacuse it's a link to a web page, which, for some reason, doesn't count as information to him.
Secondly, the relationship between genotype and phenotype isn't just a product of evolutionary theory, but also of genetics in general. Creationists tend to use DNA as evidence for creation, since it's information that determines our morphology, etc. I've never heard a creationist argue that DNA either doesn't exist or doesn't do anything, and if that is Richard's position I wish he'd say so, but he won't, because he never actually says what he believes.
So even if his premises were true (which they aren't), what would it prove? If morphological changes require changes to DNA, does this undermine evolution? Well, it would undermine all understanding of genetics: not just in regards to evolution but in regards to the creationist claims about DNA, as well.
But, of course, morphology can change without changes to DNA. Humans grow, change body proportions, bones fuse, teeth fall out and are replaced, genetalia change and grow, etc. Does the onset of puberty require new DNA? Must the genotype of a person change in order for her arms to get proportionally longer in the first several years of her life? Obviously not. This has never been our understanding of DNA, nor has it been observed. If anything Richard said was correct, it would mean not that evolution is wrong, but that we don't understand DNA. If we then further studied and came to properly understand DNA, we would have to incorporate this new understanding into whatever theory for the diversity of life is correct, whether evolution, creation, or something else.
Richard's argument may as well be, "How does evolution explain the tiger's strips, since, according to evolutionary theory, things don't have stripes?"
Greetings!Looks like another week has elapsed - with nothing more than wishful speculations.
The bottom-line is no one has been able to answer the question within the confines of the old "Modern Synthesis" theory: DNA/RNA mutations + natural selection = evolution.
Massimo Pigliucci's new book by MIT Press, Evolution - The Extended Synthesis, is an excellent resource detailing the problems with all the current theories of evolution.
Would highly recommend everyone interested in a critical examination of evolution to read the book.
Richard William Nelson
Greetings!Which hand do you use to beat your wife? The left or the right?
Richard wrote: "Greetings!Looks like another week has elapsed - with nothing more than wishful speculations.
Looks like another week has elapsed - no answers to our questions yet from Richard...
Looks like another week has elapsed - no answers to our questions yet from Richard... And the sad part is that he probably thinks he's stumped us. Whenever he checks Goodreads, he probably sits there thinking, "Boy, I've got them backed into a corner now! My butterfly question really put the screws to evolution! By now they must all realize that evolution can't be possible!"
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Books mentioned in this topic
Your Inner Fish: a Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (other topics)Why Evolution Is True (other topics)
The Origin of Species (other topics)
Except that evolution requires no faith, just evidence. Which, of course, there is mountains and mount..."
You betcha. I really object to this use of the term "faith" -- the kind of faith I have in the law of gravity is fundamentally different than faith that Jesus once raised somebody who might or might not have been named Lazarus from the dead. Really.
Secularists don't have "faith" in Darwin. I don't have any Darwin-idols in my house, and opted for the FSM logo for the back of my car over the fish with feet. Evolution is simply the only plausible explanation for the origin of species, the diversity of species, the adaptations of species within an ecology to changing environmental conditions, and so on. As I pointed out, the alternative is to believe in four billion year old insane alien civilizations or some other more or less sane superintelligence without evidence.
The latter is faith.
The former is just common sense.
rgb