Evolution

[ilikeverin]

I have looked it over a bit more. The problem is that holes in Darwin's early theories are in fact evident, now. But the authors don't try to replace it with scientific evidence of their own. They do, in fact, offer a literal interpretation of the first five chapters of the book of Genesis as an alternative. They point to the presentation of the Archaeopteryx, and the subsequent erratum, as proof of some huge error in Natural Selection Theory, but fail to point out that NGM itself offered the statement of retraction, and explained their mistake very well. I have collected this magazine for many many years, and when I get home I'll go back and look at it, but I'm sure they didn't defeat ideas of Evolution in that one.

Here's the thing. I have no problem with religion. In fact, I have consistently defended the religious against the bigotry of the Left. But you cannot simply state that somehow some new evidence bugs you, in the sense that it inhibits a literal interpretation of mythology, and then not subject competitive theories to scientific rigor.

For example, take the Parting of the Red Sea. Very likely, if plate techtonics is to be believed -- and there's *tremendous* evidence that it's a pretty good theory of continental drift -- the horn of africa, at somalia was part of the same land as the Arabian peninisula (Al Jazirah, in arabic). But eventually they probably pulled apart, sending in a rush of water, creating the Red Sea. Initially, the sea was shallow, simply a depression not too deeply filled, and periodically there were likely land bridges between the african and asian continents. One can imagine that in simpler times, men running from potential adversaries may very well have prayed to whatever gods they held powerful, and thus,if some tidal action allowed men to pass quickly, and others to drown, then this may have been held as a sign that a god had helped them. A brilliant interpretation. And an artful one, worthy of the number-one all-time best-seller in the history of books. But still, a mythology.

Take for example, the Great Flood: We know for certain that the Black Sea was separated from the Mediterranean by a land bridge that is now the Straits of Bosporus. There is plenty of scientific evidence, in the form of decomposed freshwater organisms up to a certain depth, then above that, all brakish or saltwater organisms. You can imagine how a rushing in of water, when the strait finally broke could lead educated men to believe that god was causing a flood.

Many modern religious thinkers don't have qualms with any of this. They take the First Five Chapters, for example, as a metaphor. Hindu people do too. Jews too. Many people, of religious persuasion, understand the mythological parts of their religion to be metaphorical, while they still hold to the decent, noble, and graceful values of peace, mercy, and submission taught by their religions.

I will continue to defend the religious (muslims and christians alike) on this forum against the bigotries of the left. But I must also, defend the teachings of modern science against those who would create an Ayatollah's Iran in the USA. I can't tell you what your god wants of you, and I won't try, but I know for certain Christianity doesn't require abdication of scientific knowledge. Frankly, I do not believe Islam, Judaism, Hindu, or the rest, do either. Science and religion do not attempt to explain the same phenomenon. Religion deals with the Unknowable, whereas science offers tentative, testable explanations for observed facts. You don't have to buy into anyone's scientific theory, but whether or not you buy into a scientific theory should have *nothing* to do with religious notions. They are not incompatible.

The problem with that view is that the proper Bible says all scripture is God-Breathed. Now, can we hold God to be a deciever, telling us He did something one way, when He actually did it in a totally different way?

You're using your opinion that the Bible is right to justify your opinion that the Bible is right

[badnarikin04]

I agree with it, but I believe more time should be spent in science class with debate on the issue rather than the teaching of one theory.

[ilikeverin]

I agree with it, but I believe more time should be spent in science class with debate on the issue rather than the teaching of one theory.

[warning: psychological trauma alert]

No!  No debate!  No no no no no no no!  Never!  No!

[badnarikin04]

I agree with it, but I believe more time should be spent in science class with debate on the issue rather than the teaching of one theory.

[warning: psychological trauma alert]

No!  No debate!  No no no no no no no!  Never!  No!

But it's up to our privatized school system. Each school may have it their way.

Just think ILV...Tax-free America. Isin't it beautiful?

[ilikeverin]

Just think ILV...Tax-free America. Isin't it beautiful?

Tax-free America: Beautiful
Poor-people-sick-people-uneducated-people-free America: Beautiful^{92834792387494237}

[badnarikin04]

Just think ILV...Tax-free America. Isin't it beautiful?

Tax-free America: Beautiful
Poor-people-sick-people-uneducated-people-free America: Beautiful^{92834792387494237}

Ah socialism...So compassionate...yet so unforgiving at the same time.

Such a complex state of mind.

[PBrunsel]

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.

[ilikeverin]

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.

Whoops, there goes most of science... most of math.. most of...

[Inverted Things]

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.

The only question should be "How confident are our biologists in the theory of evolution?" Scientists can generally be trusted to re-examine ideas as new evidence come out. Particularly, a fruitful endevor would be for the biologists and mathematicians to team up and put certain portions to the test.

[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?

[??????????]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

[John Dibble]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

Not arguing against that.

[Gabu]

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?

Well, in science, a "fact" is defined as "something that is likely enough to be true that there is no practical reason to argue otherwise", not "something that is true."  It's impossible to conclusively prove that something is true beyond any and all doubts that anyone could possibly formulate, so technically, everything is a theory.  It's just the case that some are just a lot more likely to be true than others.

[Redefeatbush04]

9 people said no. I'm surprised there are still people who do not understand evolution.

[Inverted Things]

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.

[Inverted Things]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

Actually, it is the other way around.

I challenge you, prove atoms exist.

In exchange, I will prove evolution happens.

When you get sick and see the doctor, if there is a bacterial infection the doctor will prescribe antibiotics. A small percentage of the bacteria will not be killed by said antibiotic. These will be the only bacteria that reproduce. Eventually we end up saying that the bacteria developed resistence to the antibiotic. That's evolution.

[Redefeatbush04]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

Actually, it is the other way around.

I challenge you, prove atoms exist.

In exchange, I will prove evolution happens.

When you get sick and see the doctor, if there is a bacterial infection the doctor will prescribe antibiotics. A small percentage of the bacteria will not be killed by said antibiotic. These will be the only bacteria that reproduce. Eventually we end up saying that the bacteria developed resistence to the antibiotic. That's evolution.

EXACTLY. Yet some people continue to insist that some mysterious thing which created itself took clay from an unknown source and created modern man as they are seen today.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I believe in most of evolutionary theory.  I believe that man evolved from other life forms.  But since the natural laws were created by God, I believe that the evolution of man was predetermined and not at all random.

[??????????]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

Actually, it is the other way around.

I challenge you, prove atoms exist.

In exchange, I will prove evolution happens.

When you get sick and see the doctor, if there is a bacterial infection the doctor will prescribe antibiotics. A small percentage of the bacteria will not be killed by said antibiotic. These will be the only bacteria that reproduce. Eventually we end up saying that the bacteria developed resistence to the antibiotic. That's evolution.

Their is a difference between Micro Evolution and Macro evolution. What you are referring to is what I believe is called Micro evolution.

[Inverted Things]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

Actually, it is the other way around.

I challenge you, prove atoms exist.

In exchange, I will prove evolution happens.

When you get sick and see the doctor, if there is a bacterial infection the doctor will prescribe antibiotics. A small percentage of the bacteria will not be killed by said antibiotic. These will be the only bacteria that reproduce. Eventually we end up saying that the bacteria developed resistence to the antibiotic. That's evolution.

Their is a difference between Micro Evolution and Macro evolution. What you are referring to is what I believe is called Micro evolution.

Semantics. I made no distinction in my poll question. I made no distinction in my earlier posts. You are simply dodging my point.

[ATFFL]

Evolution flies in the face of the basic scientific principle that all the universe moves from complex forms to simpler forms. 

[The Duke]

9 people said no. I'm surprised there are still people who do not understand evolution.

I understand it just fine, I just find it unconvincing.

Random mutations are an insufficient explanation for biological diversity and the survivability of life forms under adverse circumstances.

[Inverted Things]

Evolution flies in the face of the basic scientific principle that all the universe moves from complex forms to simpler forms. 

This principle is false. Which is more complex, a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule? The hydrogen molecule is more complex, yet if you take two hydrogen atoms there is no way to keep them from forming a molecule.

Which is more complex, a single amino acid or a protein molecule? The protein molecule, of course. When scientists make their best guess as to what the world was like 4 billion years ago, and simulate the conditions, proteins form out of amino acids with incredible ease.

[ilikeverin]

EXACTLY. Yet some people continue to insist that some mysterious thing which created itself took clay from an unknown source and created modern man as they are seen today.

Yet people insist that the Big Bang theory exists, and yet can't explain where the substance from which the bang happened came from.

Why, God, silly

[angus]

it puts me in mind of the famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, when early primitive earth (crica 3 billion BC) was simulated.  A closed vessel containing reduced compounds such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water was set up.  Electrodes supplied an occassional spark ("lightning") and after a week or so, the clear solution in the vessel changed color.  Subsequent analysis showed that the solution contained amino acids!  The beginnings of contemporary life-type molecules were spontaneously organized in a vessel containing reduced inorganic compounds, thus lending support to theories.  At first glance this seems to be both spontaneous and creating negative entropy (?!)  Was Shiva asleep that day?  We need not turn to metaphysics for an answer:  it is simply that the electrodes which supplied the energy for "lightening" borrowed some order (or disorder) from the local power company (the surroundings).  The same thing happens on a universal scale.  Also, the second law deals with equilibrium thermodynamics.  The complex molecules of living organisms are in constant non-equilibrium.  I think the current hypothesis is that life, as a purely energetic event, is a continuity only narrowly tied to the evolution of space-time from the singularity at which the entropy of the universe was zero.  (Really zero!  Not "third law" zero.)  About 15x10^9 years ago, or about 10^-37 seconds after the big bang, original entropy was generated in a phase transition of the entire universe, which, at the time, was about the size of an atomic nucleus (and *very* dense).  At least that's one commonly accepted theory.

As for amino acids *easily* becoming proteins:  hogwash.  No biochemist or biophysisist or molecular biologist I know ever claimed it was easy.  In fact, many moles of glucose must be oxidized in order for the system to acquire enough energy to build proteins from amino acids, and that's even with enzymes lowering the reactive barriers by a few kilocalories per mole!