The Origin of Species
discussion
Evolution
message 1:
by
Rita
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:14PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 09, 2007 06:51AM
An amazing journey into the evolution of humankind which includes not only fascinating documentation on so many species but is so well written and compelling.
reply
|
flag
I believe in micro evolution but Evoulution? Never. Even Darwin would have changed his mind if he had the science we do now. I just finished watching "Expelled" I really think anyone should watch it. Evolutionists, Christians, Intelligient maker believers, muslims, athiests, anybody. (I apologize that I can't list everybody. There's too many. But I really do mean everybody) I'm going to get this book from the library tomorrow and take a crack at it. :)
TikiPaws12 wrote: "I believe in micro evolution but Evoulution? Never. Even Darwin would have changed his mind if he had the science we do now. I just finished watching "Expelled" I really think anyone should watch i..."I totally agree with you.
Expelled was garbage, sorry it just was. Propoganda with little scientific basis. Andrew and TikiPaws your first mistake is this belief nonsense. It has no business in scientific discussion. Evidence is the only thing that can be used. Micro evolution is evidence for macro evolution. Read some Dawkins, and I don't mean The God Delusion although it was a great book. I mean The Greatest Show on Earth. Now I have been given a book that is supposed to present the science behind Intelligent Design and that I will eventually read but I will not let a belief affect my view on scientific inquiry, it will always be where the evidence lies.
Where does self replication come from? How did it form? We still do not know, and there isn't a scientist that argues that we do know. I'm wasting my time though because I will not be argueing this point any further.
"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant." -Rufus; Dogma-
Darwin was mostly wrong about his findings. Just consider the cell. To him it looked complex now we know it is a thousand times more complex than he thought it was. Evolution is simply impossible. Here are some other things to think about:Where did DNA come from?
Where did "life" first come from?
Why is there blood tissue and hemoglobin in fossilized dinosuar bones supposedly 35 million+ years old?
Why are there blue stars still around which should only last 2-3 million years?
Andrew wrote: "Evolution is simply impossible.If evolution is impossible, then how _do_ you explain the variety of lifeforms?
How do you explain the capability to adapt to changing environments?
Without these life would have to have perished long since...?
TikiPaws12 wrote: "I believe in micro evolution but Evoulution? Never.
..."
I never understood that sentence, either you do believe in small changes being possible and viable or not. There's no logic in talking of "Micro Evolution" versus "Macro Evolution"
It is sad that many people criticize the theory of evolution without reading Darwin's book, The Origin of Species. Darwin does not claim that humans descended from monkeys but that monkeys (actually apes) and humans had a common ancestor. Next, the evolution is a very slow process so in our lifetime we may not see new species formed but we do see adaptations all the time. Bacteria being resistant to certain antibiotics and species of finches in the Galapagos islands are proofs of evolution. It is the creationists who keep mentioning that genesis should be taught in schools alongside evolution. The scientists never suggest talking about evolution in church when the priests talk about genesis.
The day the science teachers insist that the priests mention evolution in church alongside genesis, I believe the creationists may realize the stupidity of their logic.
Nullifidian wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Darwin was mostly wrong about his findings. Just consider the cell. To him it looked complex now we know it is a thousand times more complex than he thought it was.Uh, no.
Darwin'..."
Wonderful comeback.
Speciation has been observed in labs (fruit flies) and gardens (primrose). The turnover of generations has to be high in order to make observations within a human's lifetime. Otherwise, fossil histories (whale) along with genetic discoveries (chicken teeth) work pretty well. Yes, Darwin was wrong about a few things, like wolves. His Theory explaining the fact of evolution stands. Between physiology, genetics, geology, paleontology and probably a few more ologies, common ancestors is a logical conclusion.I enjoyed the Voyage of the Beagle more than Origins. Apples and oranges though.
Rita wrote: "An amazing journey into the evolution of humankind which includes not only fascinating documentation on so many species but is so well written and compelling."Um... Darwin never mentions the evolution of humankind in this book. Are you sure you read this? :-)
Nullifidian wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Darwin was mostly wrong about his findings. Just consider the cell. To him it looked complex now we know it is a thousand times more complex than he thought it was.Uh, no.
Darwin'..."
I was going to reply to this thread after reading the first few posts about how evolution isnt possible, and the terrible misunderstanding of Darwin and his theory.
but I must say, this post hits the nail on the head and I can really add nothing more.
Bravo!
You people are stupid and the people trying to change your minds are even stupider. That, for sure, will never happen!
well thanks for the helpful comment troll
Dan wrote: "I was going to reply to this thread after reading the first few posts about how evolution isnt possible, and the terrible misunderstanding of Darwin and his theory.but I must say, this post hits the nail on the head and I can really add nothing more.
Bravo! "
The theory of evolution has gone a long way since Darwin. Read contemporary textbooks or peer-reviewed articles if you want to know about the more sophisticated models of evolution & how it is supported by tons of observable evidence. On the other hand, ID theories of both the Christian and Islamic variety have yet to produce one single verified prediction after all those years & millions of $s spent by Discovery Institute & Saudi government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I91Huv...This is a good documentary on evolution and helps understand Darwin's theory.
Xdyj wrote: "Dan wrote: "I was going to reply to this thread after reading the first few posts about how evolution isnt possible, and the terrible misunderstanding of Darwin and his theory.but I must say, thi..."
i think you misunderstood me. i am an "evolutionist" or "darwinian" as they say. i study biological anthropology currently.
David wrote: "You people are stupid and the people trying to change your minds are even stupider. That, for sure, will never happen!"I don't understand. Who exactly are you supporting?
Nasrul wrote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I91Huv...This is a good documentary on evolution and helps understand Darwin's theory."
i really loved this program. You should also google and find "The Genius of Charles Darwin". Very good if you havnt seen it.
Badgerlord wrote: "David wrote: "You people are stupid and the people trying to change your minds are even stupider. That, for sure, will never happen!"I don't understand. Who exactly are you supporting?"
Do you realize you just called people stupid and then used the word "stupider" :)
Darwinian theory is infinitely valuable to biology, but does it concern anyone else that it seems to be treated with singular importance? Maybe I'm not phrasing this correctly, but the name Charles Darwin is pretty much synonymous with Evolution, I'm a little worried that there aren't other big names in the mix when there should be, otherwise the way we think about life and its origins becomes too constructed. I hope that made sense.
there are so many huges names in evolution:Charles Lyell
Gregor Mendel
Thomas H Huxley
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C Dennett
Sam Harris
Steven Pinker
Stephen Jay Gould
Albert Russel Wallace
these are huge names in science, but Darwins name is the top name because he brought out this theory to the masses.
The names are not the issue w/ evolution, religious ignorance and bad scientific education are the problems.
When I was an anthropology undergrad, one of my professors was a retired Orthodox Archbishop who had returned to school for an anthro masters and then further to a Ph.D. He had no problem not only accepting the precepts of evolution, but in pointing out other areas where the Bible was errant, yet he remains a man of faith. I don't share his views, but I do respect the fact that a gentleman who knows his religion far better than I is willing to reconcile with reality.
the catholic church accepts the theory of evolution as a fact. sadly, many other religions, especially in the US, do not and they think their beliefs conflict with school science classes.i am an anthropology undergrad myself at the moment.
Dan wrote: "the catholic church accepts the theory of evolution as a fact. sadly, many other religions, especially in the US, do not and they think their beliefs conflict with school science classes."It seems to me the problem comes with a lot of religions/churches being founded on the sole principle that their main text _is_ handed down from their respective deity; acknowledging science, would be acknowledging the fact that their whole believe system is founded, at best, on myth.
Well, that's pretty much why most 'mainstream' churches have moved toward the Old Testament as allegory. It's the new 'megachurch' Evangelical movement that's pushing the hard-line fundamentalism. The scary thing is, they pretty much hold the purse-strings for the NARB.
Dan wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "Dan wrote: "I was going to reply to this thread after reading the first few posts about how evolution isnt possible, and the terrible misunderstanding of Darwin and his theory.but I ..."
Sorry I was replying to someone else but mistakenly clicked the "reply" button on your post. :)
Andrew wrote: "Darwin was mostly wrong about his findings. Just consider the cell. To him it looked complex now we know it is a thousand times more complex than he thought it was. Evolution is simply impossible. ..."I can see that you most defanetley have not really read this book or you would now that in the 1800s that did not know about things like cells and D N A .
Evolution is a fact.Not an opinion.
Who disagree is simply ignorant, or stupid, or have economic interest in this.
Anti-evolutionists rely on a literal interpretation of Genesis which was deprecated by St Augustine, in his work "Literal Interpretation of Genesis." He basically said that when the facts and the literal interpretation of the Bible disagree, it's the interpretation that's wrong.
Rita wrote: "An amazing journey into the evolution of humankind which includes not only fascinating documentation on so many species but is so well written and compelling."This book do not menchion mans orgin sorry.
The trouble with modern evolutionary theory (saying that evolution is slow (punctuated equilibrium etc)), is that these modifications make it unscientific - a theory must be 'falsifiable' - we must be able to disprove it somehow - if we say 'it's too slow to see' this is the logical equivalent of saying 'there are fairies at the bottom of my garden but they're invisible' - how can we ever show this is untrue?In 150 years since the book was published we haven't observed a single new species evolve - this should have been enough to convince us to drop the theory. Unfortunately it's very plausible (random variation, natural selection, it sounds so good), so people want to hang onto it and keep coming up with new excuses for the lack of empirical evidence.
Are they members of a new species? Is the gene conferring antibiotic resistance a new gene or was it always present in the bacterial gene pool?
Nice try :). They'd have to show that it was incapable of breeding with the species of which it's a hybrid (ie speciate), and 'The Grants think there is only a small chance that 5110's descendants will remain isolated long enough to speciate'.http://www.nature.com/news/2009/09111...
Gerd wrote: "It seems to me the problem comes with a lot of religions/churches being founded on the sole principle that their main text _is_ handed down from their respective deity; acknowledging science, would be acknowledging the fact that their whole believe system is founded, at best, on myth. ..."
Precisely. Evolution at its most simplistic is "things change over time." How anyone can dispute this is beyond me.
John wrote: "The trouble with modern evolutionary theory (saying that evolution is slow (punctuated equilibrium etc)), is that these modifications make it unscientific - a theory must be 'falsifiable' - we must..."http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-exa...
I'm not arguing against evolution from a religious point of view, I'm criticising it in terms of the scientific reasoning - if the theory says new species evolve then we should see new species evolving - if we don't see new species evolving then we should drop the theory, not shore it up with a bunch of modifications to make it fit the evidence, particularly the 'punctuated evolution' type modifications, because they make it true regardless of the evidence - which is stupid.Karl Popper's point about a good scientific theory was that it should be capable of disproof - if it's worded in a way that means it can't be disproved then it isn't much use.
John wrote: "I'm not arguing against evolution from a religious point of view, I'm criticising it in terms of the scientific reasoning - if the theory says new species evolve then we should see new species evol..."We do see species evolving. There is even evidence for new species: Scientists have now directly observed new species evolving (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-s...). Recently a scientist performed experiments which show that new species of stick insect originate from small adaptations to their environment via natural selection (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...). Scientists have also studied a new species of mosquito which evolved in the underground tunnels of London (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82...). Obviously there has been a lot of progress made in the field of evolutionary biology.
Patrice wrote: "If I remember correctly, Darwin says that we're all evolving. The line between species is kind of slight.The idea that we have to "see" them evolving doesn't make sense to me. Aren't there a lo..."
You are welcome Patrice. :0)
Ron wrote: "Well, that's pretty much why most 'mainstream' churches have moved toward the Old Testament as allegory. It's the new 'megachurch' Evangelical movement that's pushing the hard-line fundamentalism. ..."That was a move that started with, or before St Augustine. His work, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, include some passages that were not very complimentary to believers who clove to literal interpretations of Scripture despite obvious physical evidence contradicting it.
John wrote: "I'm not arguing against evolution from a religious point of view, I'm criticising it in terms of the scientific reasoning - if the theory says new species evolve then we should see new species evol..."you simply are misunderstanding evolution. its totally falsifiable. any evidence that shows that species do not evolve, or have not evolved would immediately falsify it. finding a fossil out of order, finding a mammal in the precambrian era, etc.
to say you cannot falsify evolution is purely wrong. all evolutionary biologist do is perform experiments to falsify the theory, but, again and again, the evidence shows that species do evolve.
in fact, Darwin dedicated an entire chapter to this book about what would disprove his theory.
Changes in gene frequencies (such as the Peppered Moth or antibiotic resistant bacteria) don't necessarily add up to the diversity of species in the way that slowly rising hills add up to the Himalayas.Punctuated equilibrium amounts to the same thing as saying 'it's too slow to see' - it's like saying nature is playing peek-a-boo instead.
You can say that Eldredge and Gould arrived at their theory after studying trilobites, but if you're a scientist you'll know this isn't how it happens - scientists have pet theories first, then they go looking for evidence to back them up. And try not to lose your temper :) .
John wrote: "Changes in gene frequencies (such as the Peppered Moth or antibiotic resistant bacteria) don't necessarily add up to the diversity of species in the way that slowly rising hills add up to the Himal..."this just proves you dont have a clue what you are talking about. You dont even understand the scientific method.
you dont look for evidence to back up a theory, you start with an observation, you then form a testable hypothesis and test it.
Its cute though that you think youre the big break in evolution theory. 150 years of scientists, actually qualified to make scientific judgements and its YOU that knows the truth.
All I have read in all of your posts is how much you dont understand about science and the theory of evolution. I greatly doubt after your claims you have made that you have read this book or any of the countless others. You simply made up your mind that you dont understand it so it cannot be true.
There doesn't need to be a mechanism, it's perfectly plausible that populations experience fluctuations in the ratios of their genes but that those fluctuations are bounded (as a scientist you should recognise this as Le Chatelier's principle).Punctuated equilibrium amounts to the same thing as saying 'it's too slow to observe', i.e. it's another supposed reason why the phenomenon can't be observed - it's saying it can't be observed because there are only very brief windows of time when it's visible, and if you don't happen to be looking when one of these windows appears, then you won't see it. Which again is like the invisible fairy argument, only this time the excuse is that the fairies only come out once in a blue moon. Understand now?
John wrote: "There doesn't need to be a mechanism, it's perfectly plausible that populations experience fluctuations in the ratios of their genes but that those fluctuations are bounded (as a scientist you shou..."wrong. again. and again.
there is no "window" you have to catch to see something. You dont have to watch and observe something happen live to know it happened. If you can repeat the same experiment over and over and see the same result, you can be assured it happening. This window you are talking about has been open for over 3 billion years, we watch and have watched changes and can see changes over and over again....
you seem to think nothing can be true unless you watch it happen. this is a total fallacy. You say "Understand now?" but oddly enough its you not understanding anything at all.
You have made the same argument over and over, and time and time again, someone has pointed out the fallacy in your logic. There is not one single fairy argument in this theory. Everything has scientific evidence, REPEATABLE, scientific evidence to back up each claim in the evolutionary theory.
What most of you people are doing is mistaking a highly dubious theory for a law of nature, as well as failing to understand the scientific method, important areas of philosophy like logic, rhetoric and epistemology, and in your case good manners.
If the theory was sound we wouldn't be having this 'debate' - you'd be able to point to sound evidence and rely on straightforward reasoning to defend it.
John wrote: "If the theory was sound we wouldn't be having this 'debate' - you'd be able to point to sound evidence and rely on straightforward reasoning to defend it."the theory is very sound. we are not debating the theory at all. we are debating the fact you dont understand the theory. you havnt given a single logical argument against the theory. we are actually only discussing your ignorance, not the theory.
and manners? should i coddle you? or should i throw up my hands and scream thats sometimes "you cant argue with stupid...."
Why would you want to discuss my supposed ignorance?
Patrice wrote: "There is an evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who travel throughout the US explain Darwin's theory. He has a website if anyone is interested."His blog is great, and his book is amazing. "Why Evolution is True" its a must read.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
