Theory of evolution

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


Then tomorrow I start using the stairs.

Is it measurable radioactive decay you don't believe in or the consistency of the distribution of carbon isotopes throughout the geological record?

-Oz

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Azeem
And whoever said that religion halts the advance of progress...?

It really depends on what religion. Some religions are suspicious of scientific learning (such as Medieval Christianity) while some embrace it (like Islam during the Middle Ages). Then there are some that are neither suspicious nor interested...

I was actually refering to those religions whose adherents won't use elevators if in doing so they are helping to prove the theory of evolution was actually right all along.

See above posts.....

[ariano_paluda]

Originally posted by David Murray


You find it easier to believe that a big man in the sky waved his magic wand and made everything in a week than to believe that humans evolved from monkeys (who have something like 99 per cent of our DNA)

Actually we humans have more genes in common with the pig. Why do you think they use pigs for "artificial organ" research thing...?

I believe in the bible too...

A theory falls if theres is just one thing that proves it wrong...so thats why there was postdarwinism, neodarwinism and post neo darwinism..they try to fabricate it, so it fits...(impossible undertaking...)

BTW I prefer believing in a creative loving God, than in myself being the result of a lot of coincidences...

I once discussed this with a college biology teacher:

He said that evolution is gradual mutation into something better, survival of the fittest and all that. I asked him wether the eye was functional without one of its parts. No he said...then I asked him why we have eyes..since a gradual mutation couldn't make such a jump. He started saying that maybe a thousand amoebas was born with that same half eye, and they mated (what do you call it, when amoebas do it? ) then it would evolve into a 75% eye....etc. etc. Then I asked him that nasty question about survival of the fittest...a half eye is'nt fit for anything.

AP

[David Murray]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda

A theory falls if theres is just one thing that proves it wrong...so thats why there was postdarwinism, neodarwinism and post neo darwinism..they try to fabricate it, so it fits...(impossible undertaking...)

As for social Darwinism: this evolved not out of a flaw in the theory of evolution per se, rather, it was used by conservatives as a means of justifying 'scientific racism' at the time. That is to say, it was used at the time of Empire (British Empire) to justify slavery and colonialism. I don't think there has ever been a scientific flaw found in the theory of evolution but it has, like religion, been used for the wrong purposes as well as the good.

BTW I prefer believing in a creative loving God, than in myself being the result of a lot of coincidences...

Nice one, good for you.

I once discussed this with a college biology teacher:

He said that evolution is gradual mutation into something better, survival of the fittest and all that. I asked him wether the eye was functional without one of its parts. No he said...then I asked him why we have eyes..since a gradual mutation couldn't make such a jump. He started saying that maybe a thousand amoebas was born with that same half eye, and they mated (what do you call it, when amoebas do it? ) then it would evolve into a 75% eye....etc. etc. Then I asked him that nasty question about survival of the fittest...a half eye is'nt fit for anything.

AP

Okay, so here we are at a crossroads. Myself, I prefer to believe that nature gave us eyes so that we could see. In fact, since we evolved from monkeys, who had eyes in the first place, I think it's a no-brainer. You prefer to think that a big, loving man in the sky gave us eyes so we could Behold His Glory. We would be as well to be debating the meaning of life--it's pointless. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. This is where our discussion ends!

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda



[...] I asked him wether the eye was functional without one of its parts. No he said...then I asked him why we have eyes..since a gradual mutation couldn't make such a jump. He started saying that maybe a thousand amoebas was born with that same half eye, and they mated (what do you call it, when amoebas do it? ) then it would evolve into a 75% eye....etc. etc. Then I asked him that nasty question about survival of the fittest...a half eye is'nt fit for anything.

AP

This is a classic, false, anti-evolution thought problem.

Imagine a primitive sea creature with a handful of photo-sensitive receptors on its topside. It can only distinguish dark from light. What good is this? --

1. It can tell day from night

2. It can tell up from down

3. It can tell, if a large shadow passes overhead, that mayhap a predator is there to be avoided

This is actually quite a lot of useful information. Given that utility, evolution of even so complex a structure as the eye makes sense over evolutionary time -- the more photo-sensitive cells the better and thereby selected for; increased specializiation occurs as with any other evolutionary process; eventually, voila, the eye -- which has evolved independently, according to the fossil record, at least a half-dozen times.

Ocularly Yours,

Oz

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Azeem
If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

Because we can make a living without being really smart; among telling examples are car sellers, congressmen, moderators, etc ...

[DAVOUT]

Ozymandias,

Richard Dawkins wrote some very interesting books about evolution, and your explanation is on the same line. The most difficult element to grasp is the enormous amount of time available.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Ozymandias,

Richard Dawkins wrote some very interesting books about evolution, and your explanation is on the same line. The most difficult element to grasp is the enormous amount of time available.

I suspect that's because we're limited to our (sorry, I can't resist this stuff ) Biblical "three score and ten" years or so of life. Hundreds of millions of years are outside the scope of anything our brains evolved to contemplate, as it wasn't in any way necessary for our survival (then again, cf. my hopefully wry comment above about frontal lobes).

I'm certainly familiar with Dawkins; it is also interesting to note that "punctuated equilibrium" seems well-supported in the fossil record -- the environment (and thereby the life forms within it) stay relatively stable over a long period of time, then the continents shift Just So, climate changes and evolution kicks in to rapidly cull those whose gene pool contains the elements to adapt from those which don't.

-- It's also ironic that we can glibly attest a belief in the Infinite (as in, the extent of a Divinity's purview) yet struggle with infinitesimal fragments of such, as a 100 million years must a priori be. Again borrowing from the Bible, "A thousand ages in Thy sight are as the passing dawn ..."

Humbly Yours,

Oz

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Is it measurable radioactive decay you don't believe in or the consistency of the distribution of carbon isotopes throughout the geological record?

-Oz

The latter. More so I believe that results can be greatly skewed by changes in pressure and/or tempature. Go to Washington and you will can find fossils of fish that were alive when Mt. St. Helen's (sp?) blew, but now carbon dating dates them to be thousands of years old.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


The latter. More so I believe that results can be greatly skewed by changes in pressure and/or tempature. Go to Washington and you will can find fossils of fish that were alive when Mt. St. Helen's (sp?) blew, but now carbon dating dates them to be thousands of years old.

Thousands of years is considered within an acceptable margin of error on a scale of 10s to 100s of millions of years (1,000 years = .001% on 10 MM and .0001% on 100 MM). Geologic / evolutionary time dwarfs human-perceived time. Put another way, assuming a skew of 1,000 years, carbon dating is 99.999% accurate; skew of 10,000 years = 99.99% accuracy, etc.

-Oz

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Thousands of years is considered within an acceptable margin of error on a scale of 10s to 100s of millions of years (1,000 years = .001% on 10 MM and .0001% on 100 MM). Geologic / evolutionary time dwarfs human-perceived time. Put another way, assuming a skew of 1,000 years, carbon dating is 99.999% accurate; skew of 10,000 years = 99.99% accuracy, etc.

-Oz

First of all, I really don't remember the exact amout the dates were off. Secondly by the same logic you used: In my example fossils that were a day old apear to be (i'm guessing) 10,000 years old. That is a huge amount of error.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


First of all, I really don't remember the exact amout the dates were off. Secondly by the same logic you used: In my example fossils that were a day old apear to be (i'm guessing) 10,000 years old. That is a huge amount of error.

By analogy, you're attempting to apply a microscope's accuracy to a telescope. Carbon dating is used, by paleontologists, for relative accuracy within the 10s - 100s MM years range. So the dinosaurs became extinct ~65 million years ago; no one AFAIK is trying to pin it down to 64,994,037.385 years, on a Thursday.

-Oz

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Azeem
If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

because biological evolution is an extremely slow process, and we save the weak and even allow them to propagate, defeating the surivial of the fittest darwinesque theory.

now, mechanical evolution. much much much quicker, and much more directed. thats the way to go

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by UberKruX


because biological evolution is an extremely slow process, and we save the weak and even allow them to propagate, defeating the surivial of the fittest darwinesque theory.

now, mechanical evolution. much much much quicker, and much more directed. thats the way to go

My only caution is to be careful with the word "fittest": Darwin et. al. meant/mean "best adapted to current local conditions" as opposed to any "objective" criteria for "fitness".

-Oz

[ariano_paluda]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


This is a classic, false, anti-evolution thought problem.

Imagine a primitive sea creature with a handful of photo-sensitive receptors on its topside. It can only distinguish dark from light. What good is this? --

1. It can tell day from night

2. It can tell up from down

3. It can tell, if a large shadow passes overhead, that mayhap a predator is there to be avoided

Hear this: human footprints have been found INSIDE a dinosaur footprint...but that example (and many more for that matter) isn't made public..why? it doesn't support evolution!!! So we are having a basic "war of religion": the religion of evolution, and the religion of a deity...creationism has been blamed for not doing anything but finding the faults in evolution...I cant say wether thats true or not, but one thing I know is this..the above example (and many more) is simply ignored by the the scientists, that support evolution..If you're interested, I could find a website containing some examples...of why creationism "fits the bill" and evolution does not.


Try doing the math of the chance of this happening (evolution)..
and also try reading romans chapter 1 verses 18-32 ( I know its the bible, but give it a shot anyway...) I read secular science magazines even though I don't believe in most of it...Is broadening my horizon..You should definately try the same..

AP