Evolution

[John Dibble]

I agree with the general principles of the theory, yes. The specifics of it may differ.

[John Dibble]

I believe in natural selection, but not in biological evolution.  To get biological evolution requires not only the shedding of useless traits and the promotion of superior ones, but also the creation of new genetic traits through mutation.  Since no adequate mechanism for these mutations has yet been presented to me, I reject that evolution has been proven.

Mutation is pretty much random as far as we know. Sometimes it is caused by environmental factors, or something else, but for the most part there is no one way it happens. Some mutations are good, some are bad, but the vast majority do nothing useful or detrimental - for instance eye color may change a shade. Of course, the bad ones are likely killed off through natural selection, and the good ones prosper and propagate by the same rule. And of course there has to be many mutations before a full new species can come about. Most heritable mutations would occur in the womb, when the mutation is likely to spread throughout the entire body. Like I said, pretty much random chance. I don't think any solid mechanism would be necessary.

[John Dibble]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

[John Dibble]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

Not arguing against that.

[John Dibble]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

Recently graduated college with a double major in math and physics, actually.

In science a theory is a convenient organizing scheme that explains experiemental observations. A theory cannot by proven. As another example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. That is another example of a theory that we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly.

Theories can't be proven? Uh...what? I'm pretty sure they can be proven, perhaps not at the current time, due to lack of conditions or technology needed, but I'm sure they could be proven at some point in time, and become law rather than theory. Theories could be disproven as well. Of course, maybe you're a perfectionist - remember your calculus, eventually you get to a point where you can say 'close enough.

[John Dibble]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

Recently graduated college with a double major in math and physics, actually.

In science a theory is a convenient organizing scheme that explains experiemental observations. A theory cannot by proven. As another example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. That is another example of a theory that we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly.

Theories can't be proven? Uh...what? I'm pretty sure they can be proven, perhaps not at the current time, due to lack of conditions or technology needed, but I'm sure they could be proven at some point in time, and become law rather than theory. Theories could be disproven as well. Of course, maybe you're a perfectionist - remember your calculus, eventually you get to a point where you can say 'close enough.

Any scientist 100 years ago would have proclaimed Newton's Laws as fact. Today we know that they are wrong.

Don't see what calculus has to do with being close enough.

Hey, like I said, theories can be disproven too. 'The world is flat' was a theory, disproven, and 'the world is round' was a theory, proven.

When graphing calculus equations, eventually a curve can come close enough to the axis to consider it to be touching the axis, even though it is a never actually does touch the axis - it just keeps getting closer and closer, indistinguishable to the human eye. If you calculated area while considering a 'close enough' approach, it would be a finite area, but area could technically be infinite if you considered that the curve never actully touches the axis - kind of like pi has no end to it, just infinite decimal places, so for general purposes we consider pi=3.16. Sorry if that's a sucky explanation, I'm good at math just not good at explaining it.

[John Dibble]

It is true that scientists cannot PROVE how the big bang occurred, but they can prove that evolution occured. I believe I read an article in Discover magazine about how the first life formed on earth, and how Titan is beginning to form that same chemical composition. I don't remember exactly, but I'm sure I will be able to find it, and when I do I will post what it says.

They cannot prove it existed at all, the Big Bang that is.

Indeed. They can speculate based on what evidence they have(mainly from movement of galaxies). But, by that token people can't proove their religious versions of universal origin, but that doesn't stop many of them from saying it's absolutely true.

[John Dibble]

It is true that scientists cannot PROVE how the big bang occurred, but they can prove that evolution occured. I believe I read an article in Discover magazine about how the first life formed on earth, and how Titan is beginning to form that same chemical composition. I don't remember exactly, but I'm sure I will be able to find it, and when I do I will post what it says.

They cannot prove it existed at all, the Big Bang that is.

Indeed. They can speculate based on what evidence they have(mainly from movement of galaxies). But, by that token people can't proove their religious versions of universal origin, but that doesn't stop many of them from saying it's absolutely true.

That's true, but then again we never said we know for a fact that it's true.  We have something called faith.  Ya know, that belief in things that's not seen, but you know it's true thing.  My whole point in bringing this up was that Scientists and believers claim that Evolution and the Big Bang prove Creation never happened, and it's simply not true.  They can't prove anything through their theories.

Let's just say that by some remote chance the Big Bang theory was true, and proven as such.  The theory indicated a big ball of matter exploding and that's how the Universe is still expanding (very simplified version).  Even if that was true, you could still believe in Creation due to the fact that they couldn't explain where that mass came from.  Who created it?  As vern said earlier (mockingly mind you), God.

I never said YOU said creationism was a fact, but believe me, there are those who will say that it is a FACT, 100% true beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's not the same as your faith - it's blind faith, the worst kind of faith anyone could have. Scientists who blindly follow unproven/unproveable theories are just as bad, if not worse since they are supposed to be open-minded, thinking individuals.

And, being agnostic, I don't deny the possibility that the universe, at some point in time, was created or influenced by a higher being(s) or will, or something. Of course, it's most likely if the true answer of creation(and where the creator came from, ect.) was explained to a human that we'd go insane just thinking about it. Sometimes it is better not to think too much.

[John Dibble]

I have a question for non-believers and believers alike. Why could God and evolution NOT coexist?

Being agnostic, I don't rule out the possibility that evolution is the plan of some higher being/will/whatever. Of course, as an agnostic I can only view evolution from a scientific perspective - proof would have to be given one way or another to have me have an absolute view on it, otherwise I can only see the factual aspects of it. I won't claim that God/whatever had a hand in evolution(or whatever the system really is) simply because I can't prove it, but I can't deny the possibility exists, because I can't disprove it either.

[John Dibble]

The Theory of Evolution draws a conclusion that our presense here is the result solely of natural processes.  It concludes that there is no need or purpose for introducing anything supernatural to explain why this corner of the universe suddenly came to be populated with intelligent beings with dreams and desires, who create art and music and war and literature and think of things that will never be.  It is the end of all religion.  The ultimate conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is that we are here only as a result of some blind cosmic accident, and there is no higher purpose to our existence.  That conculsion in and of itself constitutes a belief system - that of that of Orthodox Naturalism.

Actually, the idea that we are here solely because of natural purposes is an assumption of the theory of evolution, not the conclusion.

The fundamental problem some people have with science is that there is no place for God in it. Science is based on repeatable experiments yielding predictable results. If God was consistently stepping into our lives science would not exist.

Science and the church have had a very close history prior to the middle ages.

That's because the church controlled the scientists, or the scientists stayed within their beliefs, which happened to agree with the church, and they were both often wrong. 

Either that or they ended up like Galileo.