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

reply
|
flag


I totally agree with you.

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-

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?

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"

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.

Uh, no.
Darwin'..."
Wonderful comeback.

I enjoyed the Voyage of the Beagle more than Origins. Apples and oranges though.

Um... Darwin never mentions the evolution of humankind in this book. Are you sure you read this? :-)

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!


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.

This is a good documentary on evolution and helps understand Darwin's 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.

I don't understand. Who exactly are you supporting?

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.

I don't understand. Who exactly are you supporting?"
Do you realize you just called people stupid and then used the word "stupider" :)


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.

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.

i am an anthropology undergrad myself at the moment.

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.


but I ..."
Sorry I was replying to someone else but mistakenly clicked the "reply" button on your post. :)

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 .

Not an opinion.
Who disagree is simply ignorant, or stupid, or have economic interest in this.


This book do not menchion mans orgin sorry.

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.


http://www.nature.com/news/2009/09111...

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.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-exa...

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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 :) .

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.

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?

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.



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...."
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic