Evolution.... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Evolution....

Pages : [1] 2

GOAT = Fed
09-25-2011, 02:27 PM
Do you accept the theory of Evolution? I know a lot of people that don't and personally I am quite shocked especially since there is an abundance of proof for the theory of evolution, sounds the most plausible at describing the origins of man and is accepted as a fact in the scientific community. What is MTF's opinion on Evolution?

Gagsquet
09-25-2011, 02:49 PM
The Earth is approximately 6000 years old. God created our world in 6 days. The seventh he rested up.
Worldwide accepted theory.

GOAT = Fed
09-25-2011, 02:53 PM
The Earth is approximately 6000 years old. God created our world in 6 days. The seventh he rested up.
Worldwide accepted theory.

lol umad? :p

selyoink
09-25-2011, 03:03 PM
Evolution is a fact. Anyone who doesn't agree is blinded by their religion and the fictions written in their holy books.

Har-Tru
09-25-2011, 03:24 PM
Denying evolution is like denying the earth rotates around the sun.

Yet 46% of Americans don't believe it.

BhmsDGanyes


7X2G2W43l44


IjR7AWSmI6o

Ivanatis
09-25-2011, 03:26 PM
Yes evolution. Or Denny Crane.

Har-Tru
09-25-2011, 03:30 PM
Bradley Byrrrrrne!

rlAjTQO11V0

Getta
09-25-2011, 03:33 PM
and, we're still evolving and will continue to evolve. but our future evolution may be dependent more on our growing ability to change the world and less on how the world changes us.

or maybe you rather than not to then than to rather? is your rathering different?

buddyholly
09-25-2011, 03:56 PM
People who question evolution will never change.

GSMnadal
09-25-2011, 04:22 PM
--es4FGwKQg

To quote Colbert: 'But somehow, there are still atheïsts'

Pirata.
09-25-2011, 10:09 PM
Evolution is a fact. Anyone who doesn't agree is blinded by their religion and the fictions written in their holy books.

:yeah:

Some people believe in God-driven evolution, but then you have nutjobs like Kirk Cameron :stupid:

Az8k0uzQ6sA
nfv-Qn1M58I

Lopez
09-26-2011, 05:30 AM
Yes I accept it as a scientific fact and are appalled that there are people who don't. That's a huge problem, especially in the US where some school are actually teaching ID and creationism to show "the other possibility" while schools should be about science...

MaxPower
09-26-2011, 11:21 AM
Evolution is all about acceptance. Can you accept that humans evolved from apes? Can you accept that all life has evolved from simple single cell organisms and that there was no "magic" involved. Just millions and millions of years, mutation and survival of the fittest.

Some people refuse to accept that humans aren't special. That we have no special divine purpose and that the world and all in it wasn't created for us. That the entire human history is only a short parenthesis in the history of the planet...It's understandable because if one major thing is false in their belief system it likely means that everything could be false including eternal life and whatever "rewards" they expect.


It's more the fear of having their entire world rocked than that they are mentally retarded I would guess. Because at this stage you cannot deny evolution. Evidence is all over and even in your own body. So yeah it's a bit like saying the earth is flat or that the sun rotates around the earth. Still a flat-earth-society exists. So I mean it's not like we can expect creationists to disappear...

Lopez
09-26-2011, 03:13 PM
--es4FGwKQg

To quote Colbert: 'But somehow, there are still atheïsts'

This is hilarious :rolls:

Har-Tru
09-26-2011, 07:15 PM
Evolution is all about acceptance. Can you accept that humans evolved from apes? Can you accept that all life has evolved from simple single cell organisms and that there was no "magic" involved. Just millions and millions of years, mutation and survival of the fittest.

Some people refuse to accept that humans aren't special. That we have no special divine purpose and that the world and all in it wasn't created for us. That the entire human history is only a short parenthesis in the history of the planet...It's understandable because if one major thing is false in their belief system it likely means that everything could be false including eternal life and whatever "rewards" they expect.


It's more the fear of having their entire world rocked than that they are mentally retarded I would guess. Because at this stage you cannot deny evolution. Evidence is all over and even in your own body. So yeah it's a bit like saying the earth is flat or that the sun rotates around the earth. Still a flat-earth-society exists. So I mean it's not like we can expect creationists to disappear...

Good points, especially the bit about evolution being about acceptance. You can't say you "believe in evolution", you either accept a fact or you don't, but you can't believe in a fact like you believe in, say, ghosts.

buddyholly
09-26-2011, 08:09 PM
nfv-Qn1M58I

Some people are so blind to science that it is now impossible for me to decide if this is serious or a parody.
I have to assume it is parody because obviously bananas are associated with monkeys and that is a joke right there, but also because monkeys are smarter than us when it comes to bananas and open one by pinching it at the bottom, not by pulling across the grain on the stalk as we humans do.

Aloimeh
09-27-2011, 01:53 AM
I'm doing my PhD in biology and I utterly reject evolution. :)

Lopez
09-27-2011, 09:05 AM
I was wondering when Aloimeh would get here...

The Magician
09-27-2011, 09:22 AM
I'm doing my PhD in biology and I utterly reject evolution. :)

Are you doing it at Glenn Beck university?

Har-Tru
09-27-2011, 06:10 PM
I'm doing my PhD in biology and I utterly reject evolution. :)

You, sir, are my hero.

Can you enlighten us as to why?

*grabs popcorn*

buddyholly
09-27-2011, 06:35 PM
I'm doing my PhD in biology and I utterly reject evolution. :)

How about the theory of gravity? (I'm serious.)

buddyholly
09-27-2011, 06:58 PM
I'm doing my PhD in biology and I utterly reject evolution. :)

Do your studies take you into the wonderful world of paleontology? Have you spent any time looking at the ornament of ammonites? Do you ever wonder why this ornamentation changes gradually as you go up the stratigraphic column? Or do you reject the stratigraphic column (i.e. reject that one layer of sediment sitting on top of another layer is therefore younger.)

If you have studied ammonites and reject evolution, does that mean you think God placed them so carefully in the stratigraphic column that there are no exceptions to the upward gradual change (evolution) of ammonite ornamentation?

If you refuse to look at the evidence of ammonites, then I can only conclude your belief that God did everything trumps any kind of rational thought. Which is to say, do you utterly reject evolution because there is an utter lack of evidence to support it, or because of your belief that God created everything as it is today, including fossils, and so evolution is not worth considering.
Unless you have some reasons for utterly rejecting it, we can only conclude you reject it because you don't want to think about anything that threatens your priority belief in an all-powerful supernatural force.

So, your statement above is as bewildering to me as someone who might say, "I'm doing my PhD in mathematics and I utterly reject that two and two make four.''

Sapeod
09-27-2011, 07:05 PM
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is simply wrong. Religion?? It's a load of crap, and makes no sense. And the fact that people think that evolution is complete tosh is crazy. How can religion be right?? I just don't see how religious people can argue about this, apart from the fact that they're religious nutjobs.

GOAT = Fed
09-27-2011, 08:08 PM
Wow spoke to a friend today who said that when he told his friend that he was gonna be doing a module on evolution in his degree his friend replied:

''Evolution? I swear scientists disproved that''

:facepalm:

BigJohn
09-28-2011, 03:01 AM
I'm doing my PhD in biology and I utterly reject evolution. :)

Please elaborate.

Pretty please?.. *sad puppy eyes*

Snowwy
09-28-2011, 03:15 AM
So, your statement above is as bewildering to me as someone who might say, "I'm doing my PhD in mathematics and I utterly reject that two and two make four.''

Sorry to disappoint ya, but it doesn't always equal 4. ;)

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

Topspindoctor
09-28-2011, 05:18 AM
Evolution isn't real. We were created by a magical wizard in the sky 6000 years ago. If you don't believe that, you're going to be enjoying baths in a lake of fire when you die.

Har-Tru
10-02-2011, 10:03 AM
Aloimeh still hasn't illuminated us... I don't want to let this thread die.

q9w26JXXpWU

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 12:26 PM
Are you doing it at Glenn Beck university?

Beneath my dignity to respond to this provocation...

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 12:38 PM
Are ammonites beneath your dignity too?

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 12:39 PM
You, sir, are my hero.

Can you enlighten us as to why?

*grabs popcorn*

Lots of problems with the theory. Can you identify them? I can, but what's the point? You're set in your ways.

For one thing, there's the peculiar typology of all life. We see organisms being classified into hierarchical "types" but there's no organisms in between. We know there was a clear progression from MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of fish+amphibians+reptiles+birds+mammals to the MRCA of amphibians+reptiles+birds+mammals (but NOT fish). Where are the descendants of all the transitional forms that took us from this first MRCA to the second one? No where to be found. Nothing. There is no organism that is unclassifiable within a continuum between these different classes of vertebrates.

Then, there's homology in "evolutionary origin" which is not backed up by homology through embryonic stages of development. The mammalian and amphibian kidney are homologous but arise from completely different structures embryologically.

Then there's evolution of complex, coadaptive structures that did not have the luxury of "tinkering." An example is avian respiration which is very different from that of mammals, most reptiles, fish, amphibians, etc. I mean, you can argue that there are some reptiles with these sorts of structures (or similar ones), but then you just push the explanation further back. You cannot play games with respiration. Please study the structure of bird lungs and you will see what I mean.

Then there's the problem of evolutionary analogy. There are way too many organs that have popped out "independently" many times throughout history (according to them). The probability of the eye evolving ONCE is infinitesimally small. The probability of it evolving many times over is practically nil. Add to this the fact that recently they discovered that all eyes - from the compound eyes of dragonflies, the simple eyes of other insects, our eyes, mollusc eyes, etc. - are master controlled by a gene called pax6. There is a problem there: if you have the same transcription factor driving the development of the same functional organ, but with very different structures and specifications, how do you explain how the substrate genes that encode the organ and are driven by the master regulator come to be harnessed under its control? How does the master regulator fine tune between one group of species to another, when it is so amazingly conserved.

And there are cosmological arguments of course. Evolution is generally predicated on a belief in a godless origin of life. There is no adequate explanation for life's origins (or, indeed, the origin of self-replicating information such as nucleic acids) outside of the work of God.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 12:42 PM
How about the theory of gravity? (I'm serious.)

Gravity is testable in real time and is well supported by these experiments. Evolution is predicated on a few real time experiments (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or the mottled/dark moth coloration shift) and an extrapolation. It's basically a narrative. The main thrust of the theory - that we are all descended from one original life form, that humans are descended from non-human primate ancestors, not to mention that whales descended from land-walking animals, birds from reptiles, etc. - has no real-time experimental evidence.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 12:46 PM
Do your studies take you into the wonderful world of paleontology? Have you spent any time looking at the ornament of ammonites? Do you ever wonder why this ornamentation changes gradually as you go up the stratigraphic column? Or do you reject the stratigraphic column (i.e. reject that one layer of sediment sitting on top of another layer is therefore younger.)

If you have studied ammonites and reject evolution, does that mean you think God placed them so carefully in the stratigraphic column that there are no exceptions to the upward gradual change (evolution) of ammonite ornamentation?

If you refuse to look at the evidence of ammonites, then I can only conclude your belief that God did everything trumps any kind of rational thought. Which is to say, do you utterly reject evolution because there is an utter lack of evidence to support it, or because of your belief that God created everything as it is today, including fossils, and so evolution is not worth considering.
Unless you have some reasons for utterly rejecting it, we can only conclude you reject it because you don't want to think about anything that threatens your priority belief in an all-powerful supernatural force.

So, your statement above is as bewildering to me as someone who might say, "I'm doing my PhD in mathematics and I utterly reject that two and two make four.''

Since you seem to think that I owe something to your paleontology expertise, let me just say that I don't. Read my previous posts for my own arguments against evolution. My own background is in physics, chemistry, and biology, and I can say that the sort of supposition and abuse of mathematical improbability (i.e. accepting a needle in a haystack X 1000000) would only be accepted in evolutionary biology. Never in any other ensemble process considered by physics or chemistry would you have someone arguing something on the basis of such ridiculously bad odds. ...which is also the reason why so many mathematicians have found TOE peculiar and somewhat strange.

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 01:13 PM
Since you seem to think that I owe something to your paleontology expertise, let me just say that I don't. Read my previous posts for my own arguments against evolution. My own background is in physics, chemistry, and biology, and I can say that the sort of supposition and abuse of mathematical improbability (i.e. accepting a needle in a haystack X 1000000) would only be accepted in evolutionary biology. Never in any other ensemble process considered by physics or chemistry would you have someone arguing something on the basis of such ridiculously bad odds. ...which is also the reason why so many mathematicians have found TOE peculiar and somewhat strange.

OK, I get it. The paleontological record, which demonstrates beyond a doubt the process of evolution, is a no-no. So let's just ignore it.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 01:38 PM
OK, I get it. The paleontological record, which demonstrates beyond a doubt the process of evolution, is a no-no. So let's just ignore it.

I'm sorry, I have no reason to delve into matters with which I am not intimately acquainted if you refuse to deal with the fortress of physical, chemical, mathematical and yes, even biological, arguments and evidence against evolution. It is not my job to become an amateur paleontologist in order to refute TOE, since the matters I'm already versed in do the job just fine.

I would rather believe that you are incorrect in your assumptions, extrapolations, and deductions, than abandon the principles of these other - rather more rigorous - sciences, which are inconsistent with the evolutionary narrative.

I don't care for your argument from authority. It's petulant and puerile. If you have anything of substance to say, respond to my critiques.

And another thing: it is an insult to physics to compare evolution to gravity. While many TOE-promoters say something like "TOE is as much a theory as gravity," you will never hear a physicist say "gravity is as much a theory as TOE." No physicist would use TOE (or any biological "theory" for that matter) as a comparison to a theory of physics, because there is just no comparison whatsoever.

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 01:40 PM
Then there's evolution of complex, coadaptive structures that did not have the luxury of "tinkering." An example is avian respiration which is very different from that of mammals, most reptiles, fish, amphibians, etc. I mean, you can argue that there are some reptiles with these sorts of structures (or similar ones), but then you just push the explanation further back. You cannot play games with respiration. Please study the structure of bird lungs and you will see what I mean.



It must be very frustrating for you to read peer-reviewed articles. Or do you limit your studies to creationist-approved articles? Or maybe just your own research?

I googled mammal v bird respiration and all the articles that showed up freely talk about evolution.

I'll give just one quote:

''A recent analysis showing the presence of a bird-like respiratory system in predatory dinosaurs provides more evidence of an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.''

You would toss that article, I suppose, as blasphemous.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 01:43 PM
It must be very frustrating for you to read peer-reviewed articles. Or do you limit your studies to creationist-approved articles? Or maybe just your own research?

I googled mammal v bird respiration and all the articles that showed up freely talk about evolution.

I'll give just one quote:

''A recent analysis showing the presence of a bird-like respiratory system in predatory dinosaurs provides more evidence of an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.''

You would toss that article, I suppose, as blasphemous.

No, just kindly stop referring to authority and explain to me how the bellows lungs give rise to bird lungs: the air sacs, the parabronchi, the unidirectional airflow. Give me a hypothetical sequence of lungs that take us from one to the other, each more adaptive than the previous one.

There's no way to know what dinosaur respiration was like without soft tissue, as you well know that lungs are not something that would fossilize well, if at all.

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 02:09 PM
No, just kindly stop referring to authority and explain to me how the bellows lungs give rise to bird lungs: the air sacs, the parabronchi, the unidirectional airflow. Give me a hypothetical sequence of lungs that take us from one to the other, each more adaptive than the previous one.

There's no way to know what dinosaur respiration was like without soft tissue, as you well know that lungs are not something that would fossilize well, if at all.

I am almost stunned silent by a scientist that would start an argument with ''kindly stop referring to authority and compose a description from scratch.''

We will have to leave it there. You seem to be asking me to ignore the entire history of research on bird and mammalian lung development and think up something for myself. That is not science, but story-telling based on imagination.
I am not about to spend a lifetime studying biology. I could never hope to equal the quantity of well-researched information that is already out there.


And since you have stated you have no interest in studying paleontology, then I suggest you recognise the entire history of paleontological research instead of just saying ''I am not interested in it, because it would not support creationism and is therefore worthless''.
Incidentally, fossils are not restricted to bones. Soft tissue impressions can be very informative, when analysed scientifically.

For most of us, peer-reviewed articles are the only authority we need. You have a higher authority to refer to, obviously.

BigJohn
10-02-2011, 04:32 PM
And there are cosmological arguments of course. Evolution is generally predicated on a belief in a godless origin of life. There is no adequate explanation for life's origins (or, indeed, the origin of self-replicating information such as nucleic acids) outside of the work of God.

Is that not how primitive religions work? We don't understand why it rains or why there is a drought, it must be because we have angered the God of rain! I think you have little faith in humankind.

What then is your take on Adam and Eve? Mitochondrial Eve was around 200 000 years ago, but Y-chromosomal Adam could have lived between 140 000 to 60 000 years ago. How does that make sense?

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 06:35 PM
Is that not how primitive religions work? We don't understand why it rains or why there is a drought, it must be because we have angered the God of rain! I think you have little faith in humankind.

What then is your take on Adam and Eve? Mitochondrial Eve was around 200 000 years ago, but Y-chromosomal Adam could have lived between 140 000 to 60 000 years ago. How does that make sense?

1.) I can't comment on your take on primitive religions. Christianity is a fully developed monotheistic religion with tomes of theology, history, art, music, and culture associated with it and can hardly be termed "primitive." Maybe you were thinking of Australian aboriginal Dreamtime.

If by "primitive" you mean anything that deviates from what can be sensed and argued through logical discourse, I would argue that you are confusing empirical+rational with advanced and anything that is not purely empirical and purely rational as primitive.

2.) I refer you to this, and highly encourage you to get a copy of the full text.

Nat Genet. 1997 Apr;15(4):363-8.
A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region.
Parsons TJ, Muniec DS, Sullivan K, Woodyatt N, Alliston-Greiner R, Wilson MR, Berry DL, Holland KA, Weedn VW, Gill P, Holland MM.
Source
Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rockville, Maryland 20850, USA.
Abstract
The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution.

They did a study of mitochondrial mutation rate in a variety of living cohorts (Europeans, Amish, Africans, etc.) and extrapolated Mitochondrial Eve to ~6000 years ago. Please refer to the paper before arguing with me on this. This is a study based on LIVING SPECIMENS, not random estimates like those absurd figures of 200,000 years ago.

3.) Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are an embarrassment for TOE. It would imply that by sheer luck all of living humanity are descended of one woman and all of living men (at least) are descended of one man. Do you realize what kind of bottleneck that is? What would cause all other human lineages to die out?

Not only is it extremely improbable, it would suggest an extreme genetic bottleneck that would threaten the very survival of the human race. The fact that Old Order Amish and Ashkenazi Jews have so many genetic diseases - and they are descended of several founder families, not just one man or one woman - should make you wonder how this is possible and consistent with what we know about human genetics.

4.) Having suggested in point 2.) that the dating of Mitochondrial Eve you gave is inaccurate (and I would like to know how they came to that number, care to explain?), I will address the question of why Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam do not match up.

The Bible predicts exactly this finding. Please carefully follow my reasoning:

i.) The last common male ancestor of all living men (and women) is Noah. That is your Y-chromosomal "Adam." It would be better to call him Y-chromosomal Noah.

ii.) The last common female ancestor of all living women (and men) is not Noah's wife, because Noah's sons were married to women outside of the family, and we are all (mitochondrially-speaking) descended from those women. Therefore, the last common female ancestor of all living humans is the last common ancestor of Noah's daughters-in-law. Whether this is Eve or some other unidentified woman, we do not know.

iii.) It is likely that she lived at least several generations before Noah (it is unlikely that Noah's daughters-in-law were all biological sisters). That explains why Mitochondrial "Eve" is dated as having lived before Y-chromosomal Noah.

GOAT = Fed
10-02-2011, 06:39 PM
1.) I can't comment on your take on primitive religions. Christianity is a fully developed monotheistic religion with tomes of theology, history, art, music, and culture associated with it and can hardly be termed "primitive." Maybe you were thinking of Australian aboriginal Dreamtime.

If by "primitive" you mean anything that deviates from what can be sensed and argued through logical discourse, I would argue that you are confusing empirical+rational with advanced and anything that is not purely empirical and purely rational as primitive.

2.) I refer you to this, and highly encourage you to get a copy of the full text.



They did a study of mitochondrial mutation rate in a variety of living cohorts (Europeans, Amish, Africans, etc.) and extrapolated Mitochondrial Eve to ~6000 years ago. Please refer to the paper before arguing with me on this. This is a study based on LIVING SPECIMENS, not random estimates like those absurd figures of 200,000 years ago.

3.) Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are an embarrassment for TOE. It would imply that by sheer luck all of living humanity are descended of one woman and all of living men (at least) are descended of one man. Do you realize what kind of bottleneck that is? What would cause all other human lineages to die out?

Not only is it extremely improbable, it would suggest an extreme genetic bottleneck that would threaten the very survival of the human race. The fact that Old Order Amish and Ashkenazi Jews have so many genetic diseases - and they are descended of several founder families, not just one man or one woman - should make you wonder how this is possible and consistent with what we know about human genetics.

4.) Having suggested in point 2.) that the dating of Mitochondrial Eve you gave is inaccurate (and I would like to know how they came to that number, care to explain?), I will address the question of why Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam do not match up.

The Bible predicts exactly this finding. Please carefully follow my reasoning:

i.) The last common male ancestor of all living men (and women) is Noah. That is your Y-chromosomal "Adam." It would be better to call him Y-chromosomal Noah.

ii.) The last common female ancestor of all living women (and men) is not Noah's wife, because Noah's sons were married to women outside of the family, and we are all (mitochondrially-speaking) descended from those women. Therefore, the last common female ancestor of all living humans is the last common ancestor of Noah's daughters-in-law. Whether this is Eve or some other unidentified woman, we do not know.

iii.) It is likely that she lived at least several generations before Noah (it is unlikely that Noah's daughters-in-law were all biological sisters). That explains why Mitochondrial "Eve" is dated as having lived before Y-chromosomal Noah.
I take it that your Christian? Are you an orthodox Christian who follows the modern bible?

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 06:45 PM
I take it that your Christian? Are you an orthodox Christian who follows the modern bible?

Yes.

cobalt60
10-02-2011, 07:01 PM
I think this is why I love the recent Battlestar Galactica

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 07:05 PM
I am almost stunned silent by a scientist that would start an argument with ''kindly stop referring to authority and compose a description from scratch.''

I asked because the scientists haven't come up with a sequence. You just pointed me to the fact that some reptiles may have (or had) birdlike lungs. How does that solve the problem? It just takes it one step back. We still need an explanation of how bellows lungs go to avian-type lungs without killing the organism. I want a progressively adaptive sequence, please.

We will have to leave it there. You seem to be asking me to ignore the entire history of research on bird and mammalian lung development and think up something for myself. That is not science, but story-telling based on imagination.

I agree on the first part. Regarding the second, story-telling based on imagination is more the purview of the evolutionists. Creationists don't need to come up with ad hoc BS narratives, they already have a narrative that's nearly 3500 years old.

I am not about to spend a lifetime studying biology. I could never hope to equal the quantity of well-researched information that is already out there.

You won't spend even a minute to come up with a hypothetical sequence while accusing me of not doing my job by learning paleontology. Why should I when clearly that science has not equipped you to approach scientific questions with rationality and even, one might say, intellectual integrity.

And since you have stated you have no interest in studying paleontology, then I suggest you recognise the entire history of paleontological research instead of just saying ''I am not interested in it, because it would not support creationism and is therefore worthless''.

Science is not math. There are many approaches and many angles. I know a bit about physics/biology/chemistry and not much about paleontology. All sciences have skeletons in their closets, and these are usually known only to professionals in the field. I'm sure this is the case with paleontology, I just don't have the time/interest to dig it out.

Incidentally, fossils are not restricted to bones. Soft tissue impressions can be very informative, when analysed scientifically.

I am sure of that, that's why I said "not likely to fossilize," not that it never could. And since this is the case, perhaps you can look up your paleontology literature and explain to me the sequence - in soft tissue impressions - that demonstrates how birds got their lungs from what their ancestral reptiles had.

For most of us, peer-reviewed articles are the only authority we need. You have a higher authority to refer to, obviously.

Newton wrote Principia Mathematica without peer review.

Har-Tru
10-02-2011, 07:08 PM
I think this is why I love the recent Battlestar Galactica

Isn't it great? Best modern TV series all right.

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 07:10 PM
They did a study of mitochondrial mutation rate in a variety of living cohorts (Europeans, Amish, Africans, etc.) and extrapolated Mitochondrial Eve to ~6000 years ago. Please refer to the paper before arguing with me on this. This is a study based on LIVING SPECIMENS, not random estimates like those absurd figures of 200,000 years ago.



I think that in a previous thread Aloimeh rejected all radiometric dating as wrong because the ages obtained do not comply with biblical ages. That is the kind of ''science'' being preached here.

cobalt60
10-02-2011, 07:10 PM
Isn't it great? Best modern TV series all right.

:worship: It allows my religious and scientific mind to become one. Oh and yes I loved the Matrix too. But you most likely guessed that. It all started though when I was so much younger with the Wiz of Oz and Alice.

Har-Tru
10-02-2011, 07:10 PM
I asked because the scientists haven't come up with a sequence. You just pointed me to the fact that some reptiles may have (or had) birdlike lungs. How does that solve the problem? It just takes it one step back. We still need an explanation of how bellows lungs go to avian-type lungs without killing the organism. I want a progressively adaptive sequence, please.

Otherwise, I'm sticking with bearded man in the sky.

cobalt60
10-02-2011, 07:12 PM
Alo- have you decided on your field of medicine yet?

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 07:12 PM
Alo- have you decided on your field of medicine yet?

No, why?

Har-Tru
10-02-2011, 07:13 PM
:worship: It allows my religious and scientific mind to become one. Oh and yes I loved the Matrix too. But you most likely guessed that. It all started though when I was so much younger with the Wiz of Oz and Alice.

So say we all! :cool:

Alice used to freak me out and fascinate me at the same time when I read it as a child... it was like an LSD trip before I knew what LSD even was.

cobalt60
10-02-2011, 07:13 PM
to Alo-Just curious. Medicine is not what it used to be.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 07:13 PM
Otherwise, I'm sticking with bearded man in the sky.

See, you couldn't deconstruct my scientific arguments, so you decided to resort to cheap humor.

Weak sauce.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 07:14 PM
Just curious. Medicine is not what it used to be.

Is this connected in any way to this thread, or you just meant in general?

Any advice of what fields to avoid/go into?

I was thinking internal medicine combined with pediatrics, then do research on infectious disease and/or be an international missionary.

cobalt60
10-02-2011, 07:18 PM
Is this connected in any way to this thread, or you just meant in general?

Any advice of what fields to avoid/go into?

I was thinking internal medicine combined with pediatrics, then do research on infectious disease and/or be an international missionary.

In general as I like derailing threads;) I can't advise you- you have to go practice and see what fits for you. My only advise and wish for the new docs I have dealt with is learn how to think out of the box. Do what's best for the patient. Important to not lose sight of that- at least in my field.

BigJohn
10-02-2011, 07:18 PM
The Bible predicts exactly this finding. Please carefully follow my reasoning:

i.) The last common male ancestor of all living men (and women) is Noah. That is your Y-chromosomal "Adam." It would be better to call him Y-chromosomal Noah.

ii.) The last common female ancestor of all living women (and men) is not Noah's wife, because Noah's sons were married to women outside of the family, and we are all (mitochondrially-speaking) descended from those women. Therefore, the last common female ancestor of all living humans is the last common ancestor of Noah's daughters-in-law. Whether this is Eve or some other unidentified woman, we do not know.

iii.) It is likely that she lived at least several generations before Noah (it is unlikely that Noah's daughters-in-law were all biological sisters). That explains why Mitochondrial "Eve" is dated as having lived before Y-chromosomal Noah.




The Bible? Oh god...

I am sorry, I thought we were having a rational discussion. I see... you have faith that your position is right even if you can't prove it.


You understand perfectly well what I meant by primitive religion. And your views in what we are discussing here are no more advanced than those of animist tribes. You don't understand: it's God.

One dissenting study does not disprove the M-eve theory, and I am pretty certain that the VAST majority of the scientific community would support the M-eve/Y-adam theory over the Noah and his daughter-in law theory.

And just to be sure, are you referring to Noah as an historical figure?

Excuse me, I'm watching evolution in action right there...
PoeIIZFApF4

Perhaps as a scientist yourself, you should have a look.

Har-Tru
10-02-2011, 07:23 PM
See, you couldn't deconstruct my scientific arguments, so you decided to resort to cheap humor.

Weak sauce.

Unfortunately, my knowledge in biology is very limited, so I can't make a founded analysis of your ideas.

However, in my ignorance and knowing your history, I think I'm going to go with what 99% of biologists say instead of what you put forward.

Oh and my previous post might have had a touch of humour, but there was an argument behind it. Resorting to a supernatural being as an automatic response to a (supposed) gap in science is nothing rational at all.

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 07:35 PM
I asked because the scientists haven't come up with a sequence. You just pointed me to the fact that some reptiles may have (or had) birdlike lungs. How does that solve the problem? It just takes it one step back. We still need an explanation of how bellows lungs go to avian-type lungs without killing the organism. I want a progressively adaptive sequence, please.



All sciences have skeletons in their closets, and these are usually known only to professionals in the field. I'm sure this is the case with paleontology, I just don't have the time/interest to dig it out.



Newton wrote Principia Mathematica without peer review.

Doesn't ''taking a step back'' in the evolutionary process with the use of paleontologic evidence just prove that there is indeed a progressively adaptive sequence? Of course I am not going to devote years of learning biology just to prove to you that bird and mammal lungs are different due to evolutionary processes. That is why the weight of scientific research and evidence is there to be consulted. And I went as far as to see that the papers dealing with this that came up on Google, all seem to talk normally about how the differences observed to day are a result of evolution. I can not do better than that.

You just keep on saying that you will not even try to look up a few paleontology references, because the paleontological evidence is invariably at odds with the scriptures and must therefore be rejected for this reason alone. You reject paleontology outright, but you accept biology. However, when I tell you that the overwhelming percentage of fellow biologists seem to have no problem with the evolution of bird lungs you immediately say, no, no, no, don't consult the scientific literature, make it up yourself.

And yes, in paleontological labs all around the world, the closets are bulging with skeletons. That is the whole point.

By the way, before the technological age, peer reviewing was a lot slower process, but Einstein eventually got around to Newton.

So in summary your argument seems to be: paleontology is considered by most scientists as a ''beyond a doubt'' proof of evolution and for that reason I refuse to think about it. Biology is fine as long as you ignore the overwhelming evidence contained in biology literature and make up your own story.

Carry on!

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 07:38 PM
Alo- have you decided on your field of medicine yet?

Let me guess - homeopathy!!! Based on faith and goes against every scientific argument. It would be a natural.

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 07:48 PM
And just to be sure, are you referring to Noah as an historical figure?

Excuse me, I'm watching evolution in action right there...
PoeIIZFApF4

Perhaps as a scientist yourself, you should have a look.

Oh, that makes me feel good. I was thinking that I would have to explain to Aloimeh that these observed lizards have not actually evolved a great deal, because a single specimen does not physically change. But I have no doubt, if the observations are valid, that over some generations these lizards will evolve with natural selection favouring the fastest runners (or those with the longest legs). But of course, the narrator, then did just that at the end.
Eventually the long-legged variety will stop wasting their genes reproducing with the slow-pokes and hey presto! - a new species will have evolved.

However, from previous threads, I suspect that Aloimeh will come back with -''OK, when a single scientist observes that lengthening of legs and sees them getting longer, get back to me, but not before then. Until then there is no actual evidence of the process.

It is a similar kind of non-argument such as used by those that sneer, "Well if we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?''

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 09:11 PM
The Bible? Oh god...

I am sorry, I thought we were having a rational discussion. I see... you have faith that your position is right even if you can't prove it.

You've proved nothing so far. I can't see why I should be held to a higher standard. I presented counterarguments to the evolutionary narrative, you chose to pose a question about reconciling the fact that the science points to an older female MRCA than the male MRCA. I answered that, explaining how my own foundation, Biblical exegesis, would predict a generational discrepancy in the female MRCA and the male MRCA.

You understand perfectly well what I meant by primitive religion. And your views in what we are discussing here are no more advanced than those of animist tribes. You don't understand: it's God.

No, I'm sure I don't understand what you mean by "primitive religion" when you discuss Christianity. In the spectrum of religion (as a human phenomenon, not talking about it's validity), Christianity is among the most complex, developed, and richest religions. What's a sophisticated religion? Evolution?

One dissenting study does not disprove the M-eve theory, and I am pretty certain that the VAST majority of the scientific community would support the M-eve/Y-adam theory over the Noah and his daughter-in law theory.

Please tell me how those M-eve/Y-adam dates were obtained. The only legitimate clock, to my thinking, is one based on calculating mutation rates within living human populations, then extrapolating from there. That's exactly what the authors of the study I posted did.

And just to be sure, are you referring to Noah as an historical figure?

Of course.

Excuse me, I'm watching evolution in action right there...
PoeIIZFApF4

Perhaps as a scientist yourself, you should have a look.

I am sorry, that was a demonstration of natural selection, not of the TOE narrative. You may feel comfortable with extrapolating lizard leg length to the origins and diversity of all life, but I do not.

Furthermore, the demonstration above tells us nothing about the mechanism of the effect. Did they demonstrate a mutated gene in the population that leads to the behavior? Did they demonstrate that the behavior/leg length are passed down to future generations? I am not a fan of Lamarckian theories, but as you well know (or perhaps you don't), behavior and environment affect gene expression and phenotype. For all I know, the frog behavior itself (and we don't know whether this is something sporadic going on in the nervous system or genetically-encoded) stimulates secretion of growth hormone, which drives a modest change in leg morphology.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 09:14 PM
Unfortunately, my knowledge in biology is very limited, so I can't make a founded analysis of your ideas.

However, in my ignorance and knowing your history, I think I'm going to go with what 99% of biologists say instead of what you put forward.

Oh and my previous post might have had a touch of humour, but there was an argument behind it. Resorting to a supernatural being as an automatic response to a (supposed) gap in science is nothing rational at all.

You can believe whatever you want. You can trust whomever you want. You trust biology authorities. I trust God.

Resorting to a supernatural being as an explanation for an uncrossable canyon in scientific understanding is not rational. I agree with that. However, it is no more unreasonable than having faith that a scientific explanation even exists or, if it does, is attainable. You have limitless faith in the scientific method, I have doubts as to its powers and suspect that it is far more circumscribed than we are lead to believe.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 09:28 PM
Doesn't ''taking a step back'' in the evolutionary process with the use of paleontologic evidence just prove that there is indeed a progressively adaptive sequence? Of course I am not going to devote years of learning biology just to prove to you that bird and mammal lungs are different due to evolutionary processes. That is why the weight of scientific research and evidence is there to be consulted. And I went as far as to see that the papers dealing with this that came up on Google, all seem to talk normally about how the differences observed to day are a result of evolution. I can not do better than that.

You just keep on saying that you will not even try to look up a few paleontology references, because the paleontological evidence is invariably at odds with the scriptures and must therefore be rejected for this reason alone. You reject paleontology outright, but you accept biology. However, when I tell you that the overwhelming percentage of fellow biologists seem to have no problem with the evolution of bird lungs you immediately say, no, no, no, don't consult the scientific literature, make it up yourself.

And yes, in paleontological labs all around the world, the closets are bulging with skeletons. That is the whole point.

By the way, before the technological age, peer reviewing was a lot slower process, but Einstein eventually got around to Newton.

So in summary your argument seems to be: paleontology is considered by most scientists as a ''beyond a doubt'' proof of evolution and for that reason I refuse to think about it. Biology is fine as long as you ignore the overwhelming evidence contained in biology literature and make up your own story.

Carry on!

Thank you for arguing well the problem of a peer-review driven process. You must reconcile all theories to what is previously "known." I'm afraid that while previous knowledge is invaluable in constructing new theories, it is equally dangerous in that it leads us to a priori discard viable hypotheses because they do not agree with "established" knowledge.

You have accepted that because "the overwhelming percentage of biologists seem to have no problem with the evolution of bird lungs," that that means that there is no problem. Well and good. I, however, believe that there are viable questions here that need answers.

As I said before, referring me to paleontology is useless since you have worked in the field and can come up with any sort of counterargument to attempt to refute my amateurish ruminations on paleontology. I know nothing about paleontologic methodology, nor am I sufficiently interested in the subject to devote my time to it. I know that it is deeply ideologically driven because it aspires - like all softer sciences - to have some sort of mechanistic or predictive rigor in the way the physical sciences do. Without the theory of evolution, paleontology is an entirely descriptive exercise, which is what it should have remained.

To my thinking paleontology lies within the same sphere in which taxonomy, zoology, and botany reside. It's job is to describe and even systematize our understanding of ancient life much in the same way that modern botany, protistology, microbiology, zoology, and mycology do. Objectively, the job of a mycologist is to describe the life cycle, biochemistry, genetics, physiology, anatomy and microanatomy, etc. of fungi. His job is not to describe what direction a fungus was "heading" or "where it came from." Likewise, paleontology should be devoted exclusively to describing the morphologic structures and as much else (such as can be obtained from fossils) can be known about ancient life.

Your field is obscenely, egregiously even, devoted to gaining respectability by setting itself up as the handmaiden of TOE, "the greatest theory in biology." It has failed in that respect, as the fossil record is spotty, disorganized, makes little sense, and has even been the subject of fraudulent "finds" and unsupported interpretations. You know what I'm talking about and I needn't name names.

Aloimeh
10-02-2011, 09:32 PM
In general as I like derailing threads;) I can't advise you- you have to go practice and see what fits for you. My only advise and wish for the new docs I have dealt with is learn how to think out of the box. Do what's best for the patient. Important to not lose sight of that- at least in my field.

I hope you don't mind my saying this, and know that I generally respect what you've said here and elsewhere, but the pointed way in which it is said in the context of my assertions seems to suggest that you think me close-minded in the scientific/medical context. I can't see why, because I'm arguing here (and on many other issues) against mainstream perspectives. It takes more courage and even free thought to argue against a theory that is being avidly propagated here by a slew of scientists, scientists-in-training, pseudoscientists, and non-scientists, than it takes to docilely affirm "the faith." If you read my arguments here you will see that they are generally more closely addressing a particular question and trying to wrestle with it it in good faith, as contrasted with the ad hominems, appealing to authority, and abuse hurled at me by other members of the forum who don't know an iota of biology.

Har-Tru
10-02-2011, 09:36 PM
You can believe whatever you want. You can trust whomever you want. You trust biology authorities. I trust God.

Biology is based on reason and evidence. God is based on blind faith.

Resorting to a supernatural being as an explanation for an uncrossable canyon in scientific understanding is not rational. I agree with that. However, it is no more unreasonable than having faith that a scientific explanation even exists or, if it does, is attainable. You have limitless faith in the scientific method, I have doubts as to its powers and suspect that it is far more circumscribed than we are lead to believe.

Plenty of what is now accepted scientific fact used to be mysterious territory usually attributed to the hand of God. Science keeps piling on the knowledge and the evidence, year after year, century after century. Trusting that it will go on doing so is quite a bit a more rational approach than resorting to a supernatural being.

cobalt60
10-02-2011, 09:58 PM
I hope you don't mind my saying this, and know that I generally respect what you've said here and elsewhere, but the pointed way in which it is said in the context of my assertions seems to suggest that you think me close-minded in the scientific/medical context. I can't see why, because I'm arguing here (and on many other issues) against mainstream perspectives. It takes more courage and even free thought to argue against a theory that is being avidly propagated here by a slew of scientists, scientists-in-training, pseudoscientists, and non-scientists, than it takes to docilely affirm "the faith." If you read my arguments here you will see that they are generally more closely addressing a particular question and trying to wrestle with it it in good faith, as contrasted with the ad hominems, appealing to authority, and abuse hurled at me by other members of the forum who don't know an iota of biology.
Actually I wasn't comparing your posts here to my suggestion at all; I have been teaching med students and residents off and on for 25 years and one thing I have noticed over those years is that recently I find there are less and less MD's who have an ability to understand the art of medicine and not just the science of it. Your posts on this thread are your belief and unlike others here I don't see the need to challenge it at all. Faith is good to have.

BigJohn
10-02-2011, 10:11 PM
You've proved nothing so far. I can't see why I should be held to a higher standard. I presented counterarguments to the evolutionary narrative, you chose to pose a question about reconciling the fact that the science points to an older female MRCA than the male MRCA. I answered that, explaining how my own foundation, Biblical exegesis, would predict a generational discrepancy in the female MRCA and the male MRCA.

Don't mind me borrowing from Wiki:

In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate centred on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Nowadays, the modern evolutionary synthesis is accepted by a vast majority of scientists.[14] However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.


That is what you are: some theist, still defending beliefs that have been debunked in the 19th century.


No, I'm sure I don't understand what you mean by "primitive religion" when you discuss Christianity. In the spectrum of religion (as a human phenomenon, not talking about it's validity), Christianity is among the most complex, developed, and richest religions. What's a sophisticated religion? Evolution?

I don't debate the fact the Christianity is an organized religion. What I am saying is that you use your version of a Christian faith religion regarding evolution the same way a shaman in a tribe would use to explain why a volcano has erupted: I have no explanation: God is responsible.

Evolution is based on facts, religions are based on faith. Facts can be observed, measured, analyzed, verified. Faith cannot, it is something that you think you now in your head.


Please tell me how those M-eve/Y-adam dates were obtained. The only legitimate clock, to my thinking, is one based on calculating mutation rates within living human populations, then extrapolating from there. That's exactly what the authors of the study I posted did.

This method:

New ‘molecular clock’ aids dating of human migration history

Published Wednesday 3rd June 09

Researchers at the University of Leeds have devised a more accurate method of dating ancient human migration – even when no corroborating archaeological evidence exists.

Estimating the chronology of population migrations throughout mankind's early history has always been problematic. The most widely used genetic method works back to find the last common ancestor of any particular set of lineages using samples of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), but this method has recently been shown to be unreliable, throwing 20 years of research into doubt.

The new method refines the mtDNA calculation by taking into account the process of natural selection - which researchers realised was skewing their results - and has been tested successfully against known colonisation dates confirmed by archaeological evidence, such as in Polynesia in the Pacific (approximately 3,000 years ago), and the Canary Islands (approximately 2,500 years ago).
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/245/new_molecular_clock_aids_dating_of_human_migration _history




Of course.


Do you know the difference between myth and reality? If you don't, then you are excused for saying ridiculous claims like that. If you do, then you are a hypocrite.


I am sorry, that was a demonstration of natural selection, not of the TOE narrative. You may feel comfortable with extrapolating lizard leg length to the origins and diversity of all life, but I do not.

Natural selection is part of evolution... It is evolution.

Furthermore, the demonstration above tells us nothing about the mechanism of the effect. Did they demonstrate a mutated gene in the population that leads to the behavior? Did they demonstrate that the behavior/leg length are passed down to future generations? I am not a fan of Lamarckian theories, but as you well know (or perhaps you don't), behavior and environment affect gene expression and phenotype. For all I know, the frog behavior itself (and we don't know whether this is something sporadic going on in the nervous system or genetically-encoded) stimulates secretion of growth hormone, which drives a modest change in leg morphology.

I understand what you are doing right there

http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/485282-17423-28.jpg

Gagsquet
10-02-2011, 10:33 PM
This guy thinks God created us?

AhAhAh

BigJohn
10-02-2011, 10:41 PM
This guy thinks God created us?

AhAhAh

From what I understand, it is worse than that: thinks that the Bible is a reliable historical document as far as dates are concerned...

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 10:58 PM
To my thinking paleontology lies within the same sphere in which taxonomy, zoology, and botany reside. It's job is to describe and even systematize our understanding of ancient life much in the same way that modern botany, protistology, microbiology, zoology, and mycology do. Objectively, the job of a mycologist is to describe the life cycle, biochemistry, genetics, physiology, anatomy and microanatomy, etc. of fungi. His job is not to describe what direction a fungus was "heading" or "where it came from." Likewise, paleontology should be devoted exclusively to describing the morphologic structures and as much else (such as can be obtained from fossils) can be known about ancient life.

Your field is obscenely, egregiously even, devoted to gaining respectability by setting itself up as the handmaiden of TOE, "the greatest theory in biology." It has failed in that respect, as the fossil record is spotty, disorganized, makes little sense, and has even been the subject of fraudulent "finds" and unsupported interpretations. You know what I'm talking about and I needn't name names.

You just continue to run screaming from paleontology because, as I suspect you already know, the fossil record sets out a nearly complete documentation of evolution. If there was no evolution, then yes, it would be descriptive. But the place you desperately don't want to go is that not only is it descriptive but when the fossils are put in chronological order then evolution is the only possible explanation

Above, you really do give yourself away when you say paleontology lacks respectability (it is, of course, perfectly respectable in the real scientific world) and ''paleontology should be devoted exclusively to describing the morphologic structures......'
You might as well have just followed that by saying, ''but if anyone ever tries to demonstrate how these morphologic structures clearly show gradual change over geologic time I will immediately cry ''FOUL''. I can't condone descriptive paleontologists stepping beyond the bounds of their describing things and actually having insights as to why they are what they are.

Paelontology didn't set itself up as the handmaiden of TOE. The record of evolution was already there in the ground just waiting for an explanation.
In exactly the same way that marine geophysicists don't try to gain respectability by setting themselves up as the handmaidens of Plate Tectonic Theory. When the theory came along it was suddenly clear that all those previously documented magnetic stripes on the ocean floor had a simple and elegant explanation.

Yes, I am afraid the words you use above, such as obscene, egregious, lacking respectability are just your way of running away from what you don't want to hear.
You say you know nothing about paleontology - but are certain it is spotty, disorganised and makes little sense. You prefer to focus onPiltdown Man and a few other frauds to evidence. What science doesn't have equal or more frauds attempted by fame-seekers?
Shall I claim that physics is a fraud because someone claimed to have performed cold fusion in the lab? No, that would be irresponsible of me.

So to sum up, your position seems to be:
I won't look at paleontology. My belief tells me it can't have evidence of evolution because the bible does not allow evolution, so there is no reason to discuss the evidence. I will just say it is nonsense, even though I can at the same time say I know nothing about it.
I will not even touch the evidence from earth and fossil chronology.

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 11:03 PM
I'm arguing here (and on many other issues) against mainstream perspectives. It takes more courage and even free thought to argue against a theory that is being avidly propagated here by a slew of scientists, scientists-in-training, pseudoscientists, and non-scientists, than it takes to docilely affirm "the faith." If you read my arguments here you will see that they are generally more closely addressing a particular question and trying to wrestle with it it in good faith, as contrasted with the ad hominems, appealing to authority, and abuse hurled at me by other members of the forum who don't know an iota of biology.

I don't think you are ''arguing'' against the theory. You are rejecting the theory on biblical grounds, even saying that you see no need to look at paleontological evidence because paleontology is a useless discipline other than describing fossils.
That is not an argument.

MaxPower
10-02-2011, 11:12 PM
Seems this thread finally got some action in it. Dunno why people often lock themselves up with humans or animals to debate evolution when in reality it's proven in a more easily explained way by the simplest of organisms. Can look at banana flies or even better: bacteria, viruses and alike. When the life-cycle is shortened the mechanisms of evolution becomes so much clearer that even the most skeptical person can't deny it. Even in the relative short life time of humans we have seen how certain diseases unique to animals "evolved" to attack humans as a direct result of us starting to use domestic animals. That is the whole point of evolution that changes in the environment or climate or anything creates new opportunities that by random chance something can take advantage of. It's not rocket science and it's very logical. Everything wants to live and multiply whether it's the most advanced free-thinking human or just a very simple disgusting little parasite.

The funny thing is that most people forget about the "dead ends". There are more dead species than alive species. Even the very oil we so glady burn today is just dead plants and animals. Thing is that evolution hits dead ends all the time because it's essentially a trial and error process without any ability to know what the future brings. Survival of the fittest over time but the process itself has more to do with random chance and probability.

When we look at the origin of humans and millions of years of evolution most people aren't "openminded" (read intelligent) enough to grasp it. The time frame in itself and the multiple "links" you have to draw becomes so hard for the average mind that they rather want something easy that you could tell a child as a bedtime story, just like the bible.

The story that some creator just pieced humans together in a few days and made this planet for them makes sense TO HUMANS. It makes us special and cool. Looking at the bigger picture it's not a very satisfying idea.

All the proof of our very own previous versions. Why do we have the completely useless appendix in our intestines from when we ate a heavy vegetarian diet? it even kills some of us today...Why is so much of our DNA identical with other mammals showing we are not special at all but rather that all life shares a common origin? This is just further proved by all the garbage-DNA that is still left in us but not used. Essentially we are more like a program where we are the new version but we can still backtrack and no-one cleaned it up either.

If you made something from scratch creator-style it makes no sense including faults or limitations that holds us back. That is a sign "God" or whatever would be incompetent much like a bad programmer that includes very serious bugs and also doesn't clean up his code for the final version. Not very logical being all-knowing

In short: It makes no sense

Johnny Groove
10-02-2011, 11:16 PM
Aloimeh :spit:

I believe in Evolution, and religiously, I'd describe myself as an agnostic theist. I believe that it is not possible really to know 100% for sure whether God exists or does not exist, I think it all comes down to faith, and I believe.

As for Christianity and the Bible, well, I believe it is a collection of stories used to tell people how to live their lives, but some of it I 100% disagree with, and I especially disagree with how the Bible has been used to justify countless atrocities over human history the last 2000 years in the name of "religion". :o

The Bible as factual evidence of history, well, all I can do at that is laugh. The Bible was written mostly by people well after the fact, and yet people take it as the 100% truthful word of God himself :facepalm:

To me, Evolution is fact. God, a Creator Deity, an overall higher power energy force or something of that nature I also believe exists. Yes, it is possible to believe in both. I just disagree with how people use religion to disprove scientific evidence such as Evolution and use religion as justification for wars.

God is weeping in heaven I think, it must be tough runnin' the whole universe these days.

peribsen
10-02-2011, 11:17 PM
First of all, I'll show my own colours: I'm a post-catholic agnostic. I'm an agnostic because I really don't know what to make of the issue of God. I live very much aside from any religion. And yet I refrain from declaring myself an atheist, because there is something in the mere presence of the idea of divinity in the mind of an evolved ape that somehow baffles me (yes, it could be just an illusion perfectly explicable through anthropology... but yet...). That, and that doing my best to keep abreast of what the vanguard of physics keeps telling us fills me not with a growing confidence, but with a growing awe.

Oh, and I find evolution to be a quite convincing theory; though there may still be aspects to settle, evidence for is I think incomparably greater than evidence against.

Having said that, I find that, as almost always happens when discussing these sort of topics, it may be useful to remind people from both sides of the argument of a few facts that are often left aside:

1 - To all those suggesting that the theory of evolution is incompatible with religion, I would remind you that the Bible Belt is not synonymous with Christendom: In fact, a majority of Christian denominations don't have a major argument with TOE. That doesn't merely refer to Anglicans and trendy, liberal churches, but to the rather older and far stricter Roman Catholic Church, Lutherans and other mainstream European proptestants and (as far as I can ascertain), at least some of the Orthodox churches. While some clergy within all these bodies may still find issue with TOE, such a staunchly conservative leader as John Paul II is on record saying that both a common origin for all life forms and the evolution of the human body from earlier primate forms are not only plausible, but likely. It is worth mentioning that the Pope didn't affirm nor negate TOE, since it belongs to the sphere of science, and therefore is not an issue to be solved by the church.

Religion is ultimately about the existence or absence of a meaning to life. It has nothing to do with Science. Science will never disprove Religion, nor the latter restrict the former. Thinking along those lines belongs to the XIXth century.

2 - To those who defend a radical view on the inerrancy of the Bible, I would remind them that the Bible is a text on discovery of God and morality, and not a text-book on the natural sciences. It is sad to see otherwise intelligent people trying to stick to their guns on concepts such as the 6000 yr old earth -against all rational evidence-, when that figure isn't even mentioned in the Bible but was deducted by a Medieval monk. It is utterly ridiculous to try to figure out precise info on the nature of fish, for example, from a few lines whose purpose clearly is to say that God is the origin of everything, and not at all to dwelve into the details of the process of creation.

3 - To those stating that religion only survives due to fear of the unknown, and that scientific progress will eventually leave no ground for it, I would beg them to take a closer look at what modern physics is telling us: that there are limits to our capacity of answering everything. Something almost surely existed before Big-Bang, but it is absolutely, intrinsically, by necessity, beyond our grasp, now and forever. Likewise, there are good arguments for the existence of multiverses (the issue is far from closed), but, while human reason may take us as far as to see a 'need' for their being there (er..., here?), we can and never will be able to say absolutely anything about them.

The idea that a purely biological phenomenon such as human reason has a boundless capacity to answer everything belongs in the past century, and in the far simpler understanding of fundamental physics and of the Universe we had back then. There is a more than subtle irony in the same people who argue for a purely biological brain to also want it capable of everything.

4 - To people arguing that there is a correlation between religious ideas and lesser degrees of intelligence or culture, I would suggest they tell us whether they consider themselves more intelligent or aware than the likes of Dostoyevski, Kierkegaard or the long list of great thinkers who were deeply religious.

Maybe we should take some time out from despising others and take a long look at where our culture is going: In the past, we had some of our bigger brains toiling for a lifetime trying to solve the riddle of whether human existence has any ultimate meaning: atheists like Nietzsche can be accused of anything but not taking the problem of god seriously. Today we have teenagers that don't know right from left contemptuously doing away with the whole issue of meaning... and feeling superior because of it! It would seem that evolution is not our only problem, or rather that our own, ongoing, evolution may be taking us places that perhaps we shouldn't really be looking forward to...

buddyholly
10-02-2011, 11:49 PM
2 - To those who defend a radical view on the inerrancy of the Bible, I would remind them that the Bible is a text on discovery of God and morality, and not a text-book on the natural sciences. It is sad to see otherwise intelligent people trying to stick to their guns on concepts such as the 6000 yr old earth -against all rational evidence-, when that figure isn't even mentioned in the Bible but was deducted by a Medieval monk.

4 - To people arguing that there is a correlation between religious ideas and lesser degrees of intelligence or culture, I would suggest they tell us whether they consider themselves more intelligent or aware than the likes of Dostoyevski, Kierkegaard or the long list of great thinkers who were deeply religious.



Point 2. It was Bishop Ussher in Northern Ireland who calculated the age of the earth from Bible study. The Irish never get credit due. Yeah, there was Bede, so let's just say Bishop Ussher made the first "scientific'' Biblical calculation.

Point 4. I do not like this approach. That correlation exists, I think, but you are comparing the intelligence of an average atheist to ''......the long list of great thinkers.''
A proper riposte to your argument is that I will put Hawkin up against your Dostoyevski, Einstein up against your Kierkegaard, me up against the fourth adult person on the left of the aisle in the first church you pass tomorrow. (OK, but two out of three is still a win for my side.)

I don't see that there should be any conflict between religion and science. It seems perfectly rational to me that someone should think that God created the universe and then let it roll. It is fundamentalist religions that claim that scientific evidence should first pass the literal interpretation of the Bible test before being considered as plausible evidence.

peribsen
10-02-2011, 11:51 PM
(..)I will address the question of why Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam do not match up.

The Bible predicts exactly this finding. Please carefully follow my reasoning:

i.) The last common male ancestor of all living men (and women) is Noah. That is your Y-chromosomal "Adam." It would be better to call him Y-chromosomal Noah.

ii.) The last common female ancestor of all living women (and men) is not Noah's wife, because Noah's sons were married to women outside of the family, and we are all (mitochondrially-speaking) descended from those women. Therefore, the last common female ancestor of all living humans is the last common ancestor of Noah's daughters-in-law. Whether this is Eve or some other unidentified woman, we do not know.

iii.) It is likely that she lived at least several generations before Noah (it is unlikely that Noah's daughters-in-law were all biological sisters). That explains why Mitochondrial "Eve" is dated as having lived before Y-chromosomal Noah.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam are terms used for describing the last common female and male ancestors of a given population. They do not, at all, imply that all members of the species (past and present)descend from a single woman nor man. The ultimate M-Eve and Y-Adam could have dozens of brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles... And the very first M-Eve and Y-Adam (if they ever existed) don't even need to have met, they could be generations and whole populations apart from each other...

BigJohn
10-02-2011, 11:55 PM
I do not think that facts will be able to convince such a devout Christian
What can I say? My prophetic vision penetrated many moons further than I had originally thought. So what? Back in 2008 you and your coterie of Fraudereresians were mocking Djokovic because you lack faith. All you have is what you see before your eyes. I saw what Novak had 3 years ago when you were blind as a bat and worshipping the Swiss bitch.

See you next year this time, me gloating in his golden CYGS and you weeping and gnashing your teeth. :devil:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NHJT11ixdNU/SjgeRSvSWaI/AAAAAAAABPM/oP_YE8i0WUA/s400/golden-calf.jpg

peribsen
10-03-2011, 12:02 AM
Point 4. I do not like this approach. That correlation exists, I think, but you are comparing the intelligence of an average atheist to ''......the long list of great thinkers.''
A proper riposte to your argument is that I will put Hawkin up against your Dostoyevski, Einstein up against your Kierkegaard, me up against the fourth adult person on the left of the aisle in the first church you pass tomorrow. (OK, but two out of three is still a win for my side.)

My point was not to compare both groups (I myself believe that more intellectuals today are non-believers), but just to remind some people that have been and are highly intelligent and cultured brains on the other side, enough to keep anybody from feeling smug and superior to those who think otherwise.

Nidhogg
10-03-2011, 12:10 AM
It's funny how such a basic concept as evolution still is this big discussion point which gets people going. There's nothing more to it than adaptation. The life we see all around us is as dynamic as the world it inhibits.

Doctrine is a spawning pool for hiccups.

Aloimeh
10-03-2011, 12:15 AM
You just continue to run screaming from paleontology because, as I suspect you already know, the fossil record sets out a nearly complete documentation of evolution. If there was no evolution, then yes, it would be descriptive. But the place you desperately don't want to go is that not only is it descriptive but when the fossils are put in chronological order then evolution is the only possible explanation

Above, you really do give yourself away when you say paleontology lacks respectability (it is, of course, perfectly respectable in the real scientific world) and ''paleontology should be devoted exclusively to describing the morphologic structures......'
You might as well have just followed that by saying, ''but if anyone ever tries to demonstrate how these morphologic structures clearly show gradual change over geologic time I will immediately cry ''FOUL''. I can't condone descriptive paleontologists stepping beyond the bounds of their describing things and actually having insights as to why they are what they are.

Paelontology didn't set itself up as the handmaiden of TOE. The record of evolution was already there in the ground just waiting for an explanation.
In exactly the same way that marine geophysicists don't try to gain respectability by setting themselves up as the handmaidens of Plate Tectonic Theory. When the theory came along it was suddenly clear that all those previously documented magnetic stripes on the ocean floor had a simple and elegant explanation.

Yes, I am afraid the words you use above, such as obscene, egregious, lacking respectability are just your way of running away from what you don't want to hear.
You say you know nothing about paleontology - but are certain it is spotty, disorganised and makes little sense. You prefer to focus onPiltdown Man and a few other frauds to evidence. What science doesn't have equal or more frauds attempted by fame-seekers?
Shall I claim that physics is a fraud because someone claimed to have performed cold fusion in the lab? No, that would be irresponsible of me.

So to sum up, your position seems to be:
I won't look at paleontology. My belief tells me it can't have evidence of evolution because the bible does not allow evolution, so there is no reason to discuss the evidence. I will just say it is nonsense, even though I can at the same time say I know nothing about it.
I will not even touch the evidence from earth and fossil chronology.

OK, now I know you are disingenuous. For you to claim that the fossil record demonstrates series of gradual evolution as a rule is a preposterous claim. It is well known that most of the record is "missing," which is why missing links were such a problem for a long time until the evolution frauds used a sleight of hand and relabeled the fossil record as supporting evolution through an absurd mechanism called punctuated equilibrium.

How about you answer the questions from physics, chemistry, and biology for a change? You keep proffering up this absurd field of paleontology which is so thoroughly permeated by the evolutionist worldview that it is incapable of describing the findings for what they are. Instead, it plays storyteller and pretends that there are fossils the demonstrate whales evolving from wolf-like creatures. There's no such thing. The level of absurd extrapolation you guys take - where a jawbone + a pelvis + a femur = evidence of a non-human > human transition species is why no real scientist can take you seriously.

Care to explain the recent find they made of intact T. rex blood cells in a bone fossil, cells that were still binding to antibodies raised against chicken protein? Do proteins have half-lives in the range of 65,000,000 years?

Aloimeh
10-03-2011, 12:16 AM
I don't think you are ''arguing'' against the theory. You are rejecting the theory on biblical grounds, even saying that you see no need to look at paleontological evidence because paleontology is a useless discipline other than describing fossils.
That is not an argument.

Did you not read my post where I made scientific arguments against TOE? I listed several weaknesses. The fact that my motivation is a different worldview is irrelevant. Lots of evolutionary arguments are predicated on the supposed fact that the world is imperfect and God would never have made it that way, ergo God doesn't exist. S.J. Gould used that as an actual positive argument when he talked about the panda's thumb.

Snowwy
10-03-2011, 12:17 AM
I do not think that facts will be able to convince such a devout Christian

You seem pretty sure you are right, you probably also would have believed the world was flat and Earth was the centre of the universe back in the day. I have no idea if he is right or wrong, and neither do you. It's all about what is more likely and while I 100% agree that your case is more likely, I think it's very unfair to put it the way you have put it here.

Nidhogg
10-03-2011, 12:22 AM
inhibits.

Heh.

buddyholly
10-03-2011, 12:53 AM
OK, now I know you are disingenuous. For you to claim that the fossil record demonstrates series of gradual evolution as a rule is a preposterous claim. It is well known that most of the record is "missing," which is why missing links were such a problem for a long time until the evolution frauds used a sleight of hand and relabeled the fossil record as supporting evolution through an absurd mechanism called punctuated equilibrium.

How about you answer the questions from physics, chemistry, and biology for a change? You keep proffering up this absurd field of paleontology which is so thoroughly permeated by the evolutionist worldview that it is incapable of describing the findings for what they are. Instead, it plays storyteller and pretends that there are fossils the demonstrate whales evolving from wolf-like creatures. There's no such thing. The level of absurd extrapolation you guys take - where a jawbone + a pelvis + a femur = evidence of a non-human > human transition species is why no real scientist can take you seriously.

Care to explain the recent find they made of intact T. rex blood cells in a bone fossil, cells that were still binding to antibodies raised against chicken protein? Do proteins have half-lives in the range of 65,000,000 years?

It is always easy to say that most of the fossil record is missing. Fossilization is not easy in most organisms. But in early geologic history, when life was almost exclusively marine exoskeletons, the fossil record is actually very complete and clearly shows the evolution of ammonites and other organisms. It is an easy piece of deduction to conclude that if evolution is clearly demonstrated in so many life forms, then it no doubt applies to other life forms where the record is less complete. But wait, ammonites and geochronology are to you like a crucifix to a vampire. Who are the ''they'' that found whatever was found in T Rex? Do you have a reference?

You can keep on calling paleontology absurd, if you wish, and something not to be considered by real scientists. I guess that would make you one of the very few real scientists alive today. Apart from your self, I should think it almost impossible to find a scientist of any kind with similar views.

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 01:19 AM
You seem pretty sure you are right, you probably also would have believed the world was flat and Earth was the centre of the universe back in the day. I have no idea if he is right or wrong, and neither do you. It's all about what is more likely and while I 100% agree that your case is more likely, I think it's very unfair to put it the way you have put it here.

Alright now, young man, that is quite enough.

Who the hell do you think you are coming here and telling me how I would think and behave back in the Dark Ages. What kind of a mod makes such statements in a public forum? Do you think being a Supermod allows you to appear into a thread and just make any kind of statement about anyone?

How the hell could you know? Do you even know me? How on earth is that allowed by a mod?

If anything is unfair, it is the sad little Ed Rooney number you are trying on me these days.

http://www.careercapitalist.com/.a/6a00d8345275cf69e20115710036c6970c-800wi

Snowwy
10-03-2011, 01:29 AM
Alright now, young man, that is quite enough.

Who the hell do you think you are coming here and telling me how I would think and behave back in the Dark Ages. What kind of a mod makes such statements in a public forum? Do you think being a Supermod allows you to appear into a thread and just make any kind of statement about anyone?

How the hell could you know? Do you even know me? How on earth is that allowed by a mod?

If anything is unfair, it is the sad little Ed Rooney number you are trying on me these days.

http://www.careercapitalist.com/.a/6a00d8345275cf69e20115710036c6970c-800wi

What does being a mod have to do with evolution or this thread? Any poster is welcome to post in any thread. :)

All I am saying is that just because one theory is popular, it isn't necessarily right. Until last week, the majority of the world thought that light was the fastest moving 'object' in the universe. Everyone who thought that was shown to be incorrect.

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 01:40 AM
1- Nice to see you don't deny your blatant EdRooneyism, and


2- that is not a proper apology.

Nidhogg
10-03-2011, 01:50 AM
All I am saying is that just because one theory is popular, it isn't necessarily right. Until last week, the majority of the world thought that light was the fastest moving 'object' in the universe. Everyone who thought that was shown to be incorrect.

Sure, but there was never any harm in Einstein formulating his famous theory, as it always was just that, a theory, just like everything else which is scientifically conducted and doesn't let romantic irrationality override logic. Many theories start with a radical idea, but it must be given a certain nod of common sense.

Those sort of teories have their own evolution to deal with, and they happily step aside as soon as they are modified, enhanced, disproven or replaced with more sound descriptions of everything and nothing.

Snowwy
10-03-2011, 02:03 AM
Sure, but there was never any harm in Einstein formulating his famous theory, as it always was just that, a theory, just like everything else which is scientifically conducted and doesn't let romantic irrationality override logic. Many theories start with a radical idea, but it must be given a certain nod of common sense.

Those sort of teories have their own evolution to deal with, and they happily step aside as soon as they are modified, enhanced, disproven or replaced with more sound descriptions of everything and nothing.

Mmhmm, that's true, and I agree with you on this topic, but I just thought that since no one knows 100%, some people in this thread, just seem a little too smug about their beliefs.

Nidhogg
10-03-2011, 02:08 AM
Mmhmm, that's true, and I agree with you on this topic, but I just thought that since no one knows 100%, some people in this thread, just seem a little too smug about their beliefs.

One could say they have a reason to be if the core of their thinking is more sound. The theories/beliefs or whatever are merely consequences of what lies at the core.

Just about the only thing I don't like about religion is the "religious" part. Maybe it would be better if more people let something like the love for music, humanity or whatever play the role of keystone instead of hanging them selves up on Jesus or Mohammed being squeamish about bumsex and what not...

buddyholly
10-03-2011, 02:12 AM
Care to explain the recent find they made of intact T. rex blood cells in a bone fossil, cells that were still binding to antibodies raised against chicken protein? Do proteins have half-lives in the range of 65,000,000 years?

I am not sure what you are getting at here. All the links I found are excited that the discovery is powerful evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
I guess you are refusing to believe that protein was found preserved in dinosaur bones. Yes this has come as a surprise, but probably because not until recently have scientists had the technology to extract it from fossils, let alone even thought of the possibility. Yes, some reports have said that there is some hesitation about accepting the age of the protein, others hail it as a great discovery. As science, the results need to be duplicated, but there is no logical reason to reject the story now, just because it does not conform to the word of God.

I don't think protein has a half-life at all. That is for radioactive elements.

So all we need is to look for protein in other fossils and build up the scientific database. Apart from that, aren't you a little bit interested that the ''supposed'' protein shows a great similarity to protein in modern chickens? Or do you just brush it off as more paelontological fraud being perpetrated.

You know me, I think it is a truly significant milestone in the story of evolution. Thanks for alerting me to the story.

Nidhogg
10-03-2011, 02:20 AM
The core of Aloimeh's thinking is that he selectively seeks out what supports what has become important for him, not willing to first and foremost question his beliefs and see if they alone hold up against a bit of rationality.

If you cut to the core it's harder to deploy fumes. Often those who hide behind fumes can blind them selves as well as others...

buddyholly
10-03-2011, 02:23 AM
You seem pretty sure you are right, you probably also would have believed the world was flat and Earth was the centre of the universe back in the day. I have no idea if he is right or wrong, and neither do you. It's all about what is more likely and while I 100% agree that your case is more likely, I think it's very unfair to put it the way you have put it here.

The flaw I see with this post is that Aloimeh, today, in 2011, is basing his argument on information from ''back in the day.''

The majority of us are using information from today.

And in any case, people believed the world was flat because they imagined it was flat in the lack of scientific evidence one way or the other. And they believed the earth was the centre of the universe based on religion, not on scientific evidence. Actually, scientific progress was probably significantly held back until man freed himself from making all observations of nature conform to a biblical interpretation.

Aloimeh
10-03-2011, 02:25 AM
I am not sure what you are getting at here. All the links I found are excited that the discovery is powerful evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
I guess you are refusing to believe that protein was found preserved in dinosaur bones. Yes this has come as a surprise, but probably because not until recently have scientists had the technology to extract it from fossils, let alone even thought of the possibility. Yes, some reports have said that there is some hesitation about accepting the age of the protein, others hail it as a great discovery.

I don't think protein has a half-life at all. That is for radioactive elements.

So all we need is to look for protein in other fossils and build up the scientific database. Apart from that, aren't you a little bit interested that the ''supposed'' protein shows a great similarity to protein in modern chickens? Or do you just brush it off as more paelontological fraud being perpetrated.

You know me, I think it is a truly significant milestone in the story of evolution. Thanks for alerting me.

Proteins have half-lives just like anything else. In the presence of proteases, released after cell death, they are often rapidly degraded.

Are you arguing that T. rex hemoglobin survived largely intact through 65 million years? OK, as long as you can provide evidence that hemoglobin has ever been found to have a half life that would permit an appreciable quantity to be detected so many years later.

As for the bird link, certainly interesting but no evidence of evolution. It's merely evidence that there's cross-epitopic recognition. Bird proteins are similar to reptile proteins. Whoopty-doo, mammal proteins are also similar to reptile proteins. It all depends on the specifications and quality of polyclonal antibody. And it stands to reason that a molecule like hemoglobin which serves the same function across multiple classes of organisms would bear many identical epitopes.

Again, you've failed here.

Aloimeh
10-03-2011, 02:27 AM
The flaw I see with this post is that Aloimeh, today, in 2011, is basing his argument on information from ''back in the day.''

The majority of us are using information from today.

What information of today?

I hope you realize that the speed of light as nature's speed limit has just been challenged.

Do you realize that findings at CERN have also basically ruled out supersymmetry?

What about the fact that they've failed to find all that dark matter they've told us exists?

Theories are being overthrown all the time. Now we are seeing many cherished theories of physics being overturned or challenged by experiments.

Evolution will never be overturned or challenged because it's not falsifiable. It merely incorporates new evidence into the theory and renames it so it appears the theory had predicted it all along.

Aloimeh
10-03-2011, 02:32 AM
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam are terms used for describing the last common female and male ancestors of a given population. They do not, at all, imply that all members of the species (past and present)descend from a single woman nor man. The ultimate M-Eve and Y-Adam could have dozens of brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles... And the very first M-Eve and Y-Adam (if they ever existed) don't even need to have met, they could be generations and whole populations apart from each other...

Incorrect. Mitochondrial Eve is the last common ancestor of all living human beings (all 6+ billion of them) and Y-chromosomal Adam is the last common ancestor of all living men.

All of those brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, etc. that you postulate have left no living progeny.

It is correct that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam could have been generations apart, as I argued based on Genesis. In fact, Genesis would suggest that they were generations apart.

Genesis suggests a separate LCA in both the male and female lines and predicts that these two LCAs likely were parts of different human generations. Evolution predicts nothing like this.

Snowwy
10-03-2011, 02:34 AM
What information of today?

I hope you realize that the speed of light as nature's speed limit has just been challenged.

Do you realize that findings at CERN have also basically ruled out supersymmetry?

What about the fact that they've failed to find all that dark matter they've told us exists?

Theories are being overthrown all the time. Now we are seeing many cherished theories of physics being overturned or challenged by experiments.

Good post, exactly what I was saying.

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 02:45 AM
Aloi, how old is the Earth?

Nidhogg
10-03-2011, 02:46 AM
Evolution will never be overturned or challenged because it's not falsifiable. It merely incorporates new evidence into the theory and renames it so it appears the theory had predicted it all along.

Your phrasing aside, the problem with this is...?

buddyholly
10-03-2011, 03:02 AM
Proteins have half-lives just like anything else. In the presence of proteases, released after cell death, they are often rapidly degraded.

Are you arguing that T. rex hemoglobin survived largely intact through 65 million years? OK, as long as you can provide evidence that hemoglobin has ever been found to have a half life that would permit an appreciable quantity to be detected so many years later.

As for the bird link, certainly interesting but no evidence of evolution. It's merely evidence that there's cross-epitopic recognition. Bird proteins are similar to reptile proteins. Whoopty-doo, mammal proteins are also similar to reptile proteins. It all depends on the specifications and quality of polyclonal antibody. And it stands to reason that a molecule like hemoglobin which serves the same function across multiple classes of organisms would bear many identical epitopes.

Again, you've failed here.

I don't think degredation and radioactive half lives are the same thing. There is no need to use the term interchangeably.

And why talk of hemoglobin now? The dinosaur specimens analysed were of collagen. Without detailed internet search, Wikipedia quickly tells me that the evidence for collagen being preserved in dinosaur fossils up to 80 million years old is mounting, but not yet proved beyond a doubt.

So I think the fail is yours.

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 03:12 AM
What information of today?

I hope you realize that the speed of light as nature's speed limit has just been challenged.

Do you realize that findings at CERN have also basically ruled out supersymmetry?

What about the fact that they've failed to find all that dark matter they've told us exists?

Theories are being overthrown all the time. Now we are seeing many cherished theories of physics being overturned or challenged by experiments.

Evolution will never be overturned or challenged because it's not falsifiable. It merely incorporates new evidence into the theory and renames it so it appears the theory had predicted it all along.

Good post, exactly what I was saying.

Great minds come together.

I think you are both equally brilliant.

Aloimeh
10-03-2011, 03:12 AM
I don't think degredation and radioactive half lives are the same thing. There is no need to use the term interchangeably.

And why talk of hemoglobin now? The dinosaur specimens analysed were of collagen. Without detailed internet search, Wikipedia quickly tells me that the evidence for collagen being preserved in dinosaur fossils up to 80 million years old is mounting, but not yet proved beyond a doubt.

So I think the fail is yours.

http://www.clcbio.com/index.php?id=44

Estimated half-life
The half life of a protein is the time it takes before only half of the protein pool for that particular protein is left. The half life of proteins is highly dependent on the presence of the N-terminal amino acid, thus overall protein stability [,,]. Importance of the N-terminal residues is generally know as the 'N-end rule'. Simply, the N-end rule, thus the N-terminal amino acid, determines the half-life of proteins. The estimated half-life of proteins have been investigated in mammals, yeast and E. coli (see Table 5.1.8). If leucine is found N-terminally in mammalian proteins the estimated half-life is 5.5 hours.
Amino acid Mammalian Yeast E. coli
Ala (A) 4.4 hour >20 hour >10 hour
Cys (C) 1.2 hour >20 hour >10 hour
Asp (D) 1.1 hour 3 min >10 hour
Glu (E) 1 hour 30 min >10 hour
Phe (F) 1.1 hour 3 min 2 min
Gly (G) 30 hour >20 hour >10 hour
His (H) 3.5 hour 10 min >10 hour
Ile (I) 20 hour 30 min >10 hour
Lys (K) 1.3 hour 3 min 2 min
Leu (L) 5.5 hour 3 min 2 min
Met (M) 30 hour >20 hour >10 hour
Asn (N) 1.4 hour 3 min >10 hour
Pro (P) >20 hour >20 hour ?
Gln (Q) 0.8 hour 10 min >10 hour
Arg (R) 1 hour 2 min 2 min
Ser (S) 1.9 hour >20 hour >10 hour
Thr (T) 7.2 hour >20 hour >10 hour
Val (V) 100 hour >20 hour >10 hour
Trp (W) 2.8 hour 3 min 2 min
Tyr (Y) 2.8 hour 10 min 2 min

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 03:22 AM
Age-defying dinosaur collagen

Hadrosaur, dead 80 million years, yields oldest protein yet sequenced.


Scientists have isolated and detailed the sequences of eight fragments of a protein from the fossilized thigh bone of a duck-billed dinosaur. The protein — the bone connective tissue collagen — was isolated from an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur fossil, making it the oldest ever to be sequenced1.

1.Schweitzer, M.H. et al. Science 324, 626-631 (1 May 2009).
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090430/full/news.2009.422.html?s=news_rss#B1

How about that...

Snowwy
10-03-2011, 03:25 AM
Great minds come together.

I think you are both equally brilliant.

Ahh but I was not saying agreeing with the last part of his post, good job manipulating the quotes though. ;)

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 03:39 AM
Ahh but I was not saying agreeing with the last part of his post, good job manipulating the quotes though. ;)

What did I manipulate?

Snowwy
10-03-2011, 03:43 AM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=11404854&postcount=97

I never said I agreed about his thoughts on evolution, I don't. Yet they way you have presented them, it is very clear that you are trying to make it look like I did. This is the second time today you actually haven't read or haven't understood what I have written, the other being the first post I made in this thread today, I was actually agreeing with you in that post, but I guess some posters just like to argue and insult?

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 03:53 AM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=11404854&postcount=97

I never said I agreed about his thoughts on evolution, I don't. Yet they way you have presented them, it is very clear that you are trying to make it look like I did. This is the second time today you actually haven't read or haven't understood what I have written, the other being the first post I made in this thread today, I was actually agreeing with you in that post, but I guess some posters just like to argue and insult?

I quoted the post without altering it, I did not notice you had left out the last part.

I am starting to understand what you meant by "we all know..." in that PM the other day. It is called prejudice.

buddyholly
10-03-2011, 03:58 AM
http://www.clcbio.com/index.php?id=44

You refuse to even consider paleontological evidence, yet think I should become an expert in biology before accepting any evolutionary theory. You know I can't do that, but what I think I can conclude from your post is that the 'protein half lives'' you present refer to proteins in living organisms where constant chemical changes in the organism are taking place and proteins are continually renewing themselves - as long as the organism is alive.

This does not seem to have any relation to the preservation of protein in dead organisms, once the organism stops being a miniature chemical laboratory, so to speak. So I repeat, half lives of living proteins are not relevant to the preservation of fossil collagen.

A quick search of ''fossil collagen'' shows that collagen is preserved particularly well in fossil bones. The dinosaur discoveries certainly push back the estimated time of possible preservation, but there is nothing odd in that, just increased technological technique. In the scientific community fossilization of collagen is accepted as fact and is well documented. It is perfectly logical to conclude that the older the collagen the more difficult it will be to extract and so older and older examples will naturally be found as time goes on and extraction methods are refined.

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 11:35 AM
Aloi, I am still curious about your estimated age of planet earth. Would you be so kind as to provide a number?

Many thanks.

Aloimeh
10-03-2011, 11:52 AM
Aloi, I am still curious about your estimated age of planet earth. Would you be so kind as to provide a number?

Many thanks.

You know what? I have no interest in wasting my life on mockers like you or buddyholly. I have better things to do with my time - work, growing in my knowledge of the scriptures, reading up on biology to learn how to debunk evolution nonsense - than writing into empty space, only to have my comments mocked and disrespected before they are even produced. You are not a good-faith interlocutor, you do not respond to argument and present counterargument, you choose instead to use tactics of ridicule, rhetorical (to your thinking) questions, and ad hominem attacks.

I have no interest in communicating with you on this thread or any other thread, for that matter.

Aloimeh
10-03-2011, 11:59 AM
You refuse to even consider paleontological evidence, yet think I should become an expert in biology before accepting any evolutionary theory. You know I can't do that, but what I think I can conclude from your post is that the 'protein half lives'' you present refer to proteins in living organisms where constant chemical changes in the organism are taking place and proteins are continually renewing themselves - as long as the organism is alive.

This does not seem to have any relation to the preservation of protein in dead organisms, once the organism stops being a miniature chemical laboratory, so to speak. So I repeat, half lives of living proteins are not relevant to the preservation of fossil collagen.

A quick search of ''fossil collagen'' shows that collagen is preserved particularly well in fossil bones. The dinosaur discoveries certainly push back the estimated time of possible preservation, but there is nothing odd in that, just increased technological technique. In the scientific community fossilization of collagen is accepted as fact and is well documented. It is perfectly logical to conclude that the older the collagen the more difficult it will be to extract and so older and older examples will naturally be found as time goes on and extraction methods are refined.

While you are right that those figures are for living bodies in steady-state, you ignore the fact that while generative mechanisms are gone once respiration is terminated at death, proteolytic and chemical degradation can continue, which are the same mechanisms involved in protein breakdown in living organisms. So the half-life table is not entirely application in this context.

I posted the link more so to illustrate the fact that half life is something defined for many processes other than radioactive decay: protein state half-life, protein half-life, chemical species half-life, pharmacokinetic half-life, etc.

I would generally agree with you that collagen is a structural protein that is likely to last for a very long time. I do find a protein intact after 65,000,000 years of exposure to a slew of biological, chemical, and electromagnetic radiation insults to be something hard to swallow. It would make me question the dating and it should make you do the same.

buddyholly
10-03-2011, 01:50 PM
While you are right that those figures are for living bodies in steady-state, you ignore the fact that while generative mechanisms are gone once respiration is terminated at death, proteolytic and chemical degradation can continue, which are the same mechanisms involved in protein breakdown in living organisms. So the half-life table is not entirely application in this context.

I posted the link more so to illustrate the fact that half life is something defined for many processes other than radioactive decay: protein state half-life, protein half-life, chemical species half-life, pharmacokinetic half-life, etc.

I would generally agree with you that collagen is a structural protein that is likely to last for a very long time. I do find a protein intact after 65,000,000 years of exposure to a slew of biological, chemical, and electromagnetic radiation insults to be something hard to swallow. It would make me question the dating and it should make you do the same.

Well, I would say that you first brought up this matter with the intent of introducing something misleading. Everyone is waiting for confirmation that collagen has survived 65 million years. But almost no-one is questioning the very long preservation times already recorded. Times that make your half-life arguments irrelevant. This is now a matter of discovering for how long, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that as technology improves extraction of older and older fossil collagen will become easier.

And I think you have missed the point of the dating. The dating was no doubt obtained from the age of the rock the fossil was found in. This would mean that the age of a particular sedimentary layer is known from hundreds or thousands of measurements and, within a few million years, is......well let's say ''rock solid.''
So the question becomes ''is the sample in question really preserved dinosaur collagen?'' If that can be confirmed, the age is no question. From your argument it seems you are less sceptical about the existence or not of collagen in the bone than you are about the age of the dinosaur bone. We could take the collagen out of the debate altogether and from previous threads you would presumably say that you are still not going to accept the 65my age of the bone. And reason that age dating discussion is not relevant because biblical writings have already proven that published ages are not possible and it logically follows that the entire age-dating process is flawed.

buddyholly
10-03-2011, 02:13 PM
You know what? I have no interest in wasting my life on mockers like you or buddyholly. I have better things to do with my time - work, growing in my knowledge of the scriptures, reading up on biology to learn how to debunk evolution nonsense - than writing into empty space, only to have my comments mocked and disrespected before they are even produced. You are not a good-faith interlocutor, you do not respond to argument and present counterargument, you choose instead to use tactics of ridicule, rhetorical (to your thinking) questions, and ad hominem attacks.

I have no interest in communicating with you on this thread or any other thread, for that matter.

Nobody is mocking you. We are simply questioning your arguments and you are not replying. Instead you revert to repeating that a counterargument that goes against a literal translation of the scriptures is not a counterargument, but mockery. This is what leads you to call probably over 99% of scientists ''not real scientists.''

I have not mentioned the age of the earth because I knew from previous posts that you have no scientific argument in support of your belief, just an unquestioning belief in the infallibility of biblical calculations.
And even you probably know that this has no place in a scientific discussion.
But now that the matter has been brought up and you maybe find your belief too embarrassing to discuss in open debate, you predictably declare yourself above the imagined mockery and depart.
I see in the above quote that you apparently are studying biology principally to learn how to debunk evolution nonsense. Wouldn't a more direct approach be to read up on some paleontology and isotopic dating so that you could attack the heart of the issue? Or even get to know what it actually is that you wish to debunk. It does not appear rational to me that someone who announces that his time is to be spent trying to debunk evolution, also declares that he will not look at any ''pro-evolution nonsense''. In other words, you don't even know what it is that you are trying to debunk.

Filo V.
10-03-2011, 03:39 PM
46% of Americans don't believe in evolution (and over 50% are wary/critical of the theory) because roughly 80% of Americans are religious and America is a conservative country overall. They will not believe evolution because they feel it discredits their religious beliefs, and they will choose religion over science 100 out of 100 times.

Filo V.
10-03-2011, 03:43 PM
There is no point in arguing with fundies. They don't listen to anyone or anything that isn't religious-based. Everything they see in the world is tinted with their rose-colored religious glasses they wear. And then when you question them or call them out on their beliefs or criticism of anything non-religious, they take it as a personal affront. They cannot handle any dissent.

Just ignore and walk away. If someone is going out of their way to deny obvious facts, it's clear they aren't worth a discussion.

peribsen
10-03-2011, 04:41 PM
Incorrect. Mitochondrial Eve is the last common ancestor of all living human beings (all 6+ billion of them) and Y-chromosomal Adam is the last common ancestor of all living men.

All of those brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, etc. that you postulate have left no living progeny.

I think you are falling into a very common error, one I didn't expect from someone with serious biological background like you. Surely you are mistaking ME for the "first woman"?

ME is not the common ancestor of the entire human species, not even our common genetic ancestor. ME is the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today with respect to matrilineal descent. That's not at all the same thing. When ME was alive, she belonged to a whole population with their own ME. Nobody becomes an ME for many thousands of years after their own death, until all descendants of other potential MEs have gone extinct. Even then, she is far from our common female genetic ancestor, since the DNA of countless other females reaches us through both our paternal and maternal sides. Tracing mitochondrial DNA is not at all the same as tracing nuclear DNA.

ME is very much a moving target, since the extinction of a group of present day humans would make the title of ME change from one ancient female individual to another (the former, older, one would still be our common ancestor, but hardly our most-recent common ancestor, which is what ME is about.

If you ask me, the co-existence of a mitochondrial Eve with such a wildly varied human DNA would suggest evolution is right, rather than the contrary. Since it proves that chance events may cause an entire population at a given time to be descended from a single given individual, due to the dying out of other lines in that population. To put it in other words, an individual with a given favourable mutation could end up becoming our ME or YA, while his/her nuclear DNA (that carries the favourable mutation) would keep evolving over time.

It is correct that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam could have been generations apart, as I argued based on Genesis. In fact, Genesis would suggest that they were generations apart.

Genesis suggests a separate LCA in both the male and female lines and predicts that these two LCAs likely were parts of different human generations. Evolution predicts nothing like this.

I see you still pretend to force Genesis into saying what you would like to read in it. Sorry, but isn't that a bit like forcing the hand of it's writer? If He chose to omit so many things, why can't you just leave it be?

Which reminds me that you chose not to answer the other issues I brought up, like the fact that so many Christians (probably a big majority of them) find little trouble in believing both TOE and the Bible?

BigJohn
10-03-2011, 11:06 PM
You know what? I have no interest in wasting my life on mockers like you or buddyholly. I have better things to do with my time - work, growing in my knowledge of the scriptures, reading up on biology to learn how to debunk evolution nonsense - than writing into empty space, only to have my comments mocked and disrespected before they are even produced. You are not a good-faith interlocutor, you do not respond to argument and present counterargument, you choose instead to use tactics of ridicule, rhetorical (to your thinking) questions, and ad hominem attacks.

I have no interest in communicating with you on this thread or any other thread, for that matter.

:angel: I just asked for a number... Why would you be so defensive about a number? Are you ashamed to believe in that number?

That number would allow other people to make their own mind about the validity of your "position".

PS: the better things you have to do -- debunking the evolution nonsense -- means you will waste your scientific life attacking knowledge with obsolete mythology to achieve nothing but ridicule. Hope you find it as fulfilling as you expect.

- What do you want to do when you grow up kid?

- I wanna fight science and progress with yesterday's ideas!

- You go, girl!

Have fun! All the best.

Live long and prosper.


NB: Since were discussing mysticism: you idolize Nole the same way the Golden Calf was idolized. How did it turn out for the worshipers in that story? Did the Golden Calf win the Calendar Year Golden Grand Slam?

Gagsquet
10-03-2011, 11:35 PM
Believes in GOD and NOLE : poor boy..

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-03-2011, 11:37 PM
It's a scientific theory with valid pros and lots of answers to many questions like diseases.

But it is not a scientific fact as to the real origin or the whole theory of the world. Searching for an explanation to this world, and our rule in it, is more of a philosophical question, no one should say this scientific theory relies completely on scientific facts, when it's not, just to challenge another philosophy in this world.

It's of great importance not to forget the relativity of some of the new scientific theories that aren't 100% proved in terms of the classic way of proving. Because, we need faith in science, and we don't need this faith to fall when another theory appears with more more convincing pros.

We need balance when we discuss this theory, just like any thing else in the world.

buddyholly
10-04-2011, 01:53 AM
It's a scientific theory with valid cons and lots of answers to many questions like diseases.

But it is not a scientific fact as to the real origin or the whole theory of the world. Searching for an explanation to this world, and our rule in it, is more of a philosophical question, no one should say this scientific theory relies completely on scientific facts, when it's not, just to challenge another philosophy in this world.

It's of great importance not to forget the relativity of some of the new scientific theories that aren't 100% proved in terms of the classic way of proving. Because, we need faith in science, and we don't need this faith to fall when another theory appears with more more convincing cons.

We need balance when we discuss this theory, just like any thing else in the world.

What are the cons? What part of TOE relies on non-science?

cobalt60
10-04-2011, 02:00 AM
46% of Americans don't believe in evolution (and over 50% are wary/critical of the theory) because roughly 80% of Americans are religious and America is a conservative country overall. They will not believe evolution because they feel it discredits their religious beliefs, and they will choose religion over science 100 out of 100 times.

Source?

BigJohn
10-04-2011, 02:21 AM
Source?

Seems legit.

My dad comes up with similar broad statistics and sub statistics just like that in the middle of conversations, precisely to validate his point.

He knows so much.

buddyholly
10-04-2011, 02:25 AM
National Geographic in 2006 reported that about ''a third'' of US citizens firmly reject evolution.

Even scarier, USA Today reported that two thirds believe, or think probable, that God created plants and animals within the last 10,000 years. Ouch!

BigJohn
10-04-2011, 02:26 AM
God Bless America...

cobalt60
10-04-2011, 02:32 AM
National Geographic in 2006 reported that about ''a third'' of US citizens firmly reject evolution.

That's less that Flyboy stated. You know in my 54 years I have never met anyone who does not believe in evolution. I guess I don't get out much :p

Snowwy
10-04-2011, 02:45 AM
Source?

Interesting stats here, not overly valid in my opinion, but more valid than 46%..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

buddyholly
10-04-2011, 02:45 AM
That's less that Flyboy stated. You know in my 54 years I have never met anyone who does not believe in evolution. I guess I don't get out much :p

There really are two Americas. But without trying to sound elitist, we never get to the point of conversing with these people about things like evolution. I mean to say, you have probably met thousands of them, such as the cashier in the supermarket, but at checkout you didn't say, ''by the way, do you believe in evolution?''

However, that does not change the fact that more US cashiers reject evolution than cashiers in any other developed country. Ouch again.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-04-2011, 03:33 AM
What are the cons? What part of TOE relies on non-science?

It was a typo. I meant pros.

I didn't say part of the theory relied on non-science. I said it's a scientific theory, we should be happy we reached that level of knowledge about genetics, but we should also acknowledge that we yet to know many stuff, we are still in the beginning of a great scientific journey that was started just decades ago, we need to be careful not to distract ourselves from its main goal, because we need faith in science to solve many problems.

BTW, You can be religious and believe in evolution, non-religious and don't believe in it. It's a scientific theory and not a philosophical theory to answer the question of why we exist in this life.

Using of science in such debates is dangerous and mostly done by people who are not scientists. Hitler, for example, used craniofacial measurements and analysis to justify his hate agenda. He was going to be a racist whether he read about this theory or not.

Scientists shouldn't engage themselves in pseudo-science behavior, they should tell things like it is, and evolution is still a theory in its first steps, we should encourage scientists to work on all science projects without trying to use it for solving community debates.

BigJohn
10-04-2011, 03:56 AM
The scientific evidence supporting biological evolution continues to grow at a rapid pace.

For more than a century and a half, scientists have been gathering evidence that expands our understanding of both the fact and the processes of biological evolution. They are investigating how evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.

(...)


As with all active areas of science, there remain questions about evolution. There are always new questions to ask, new situations to consider, and new ways to study known phenomena. But evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Similarly, biologists no longer debate many of the mechanisms responsible for evolution. As with any other field of science, scientists continue to study the mechanisms of how the process of evolution operates. As new technologies make possible previously unimaginable observations and allow for new kinds of experiments, scientists continue to propose and examine the strength of evidence regarding the mechanisms for evolutionary change. But the existence of such questions neither reduces nor undermines the fact that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.

(...)



Science and technology are so pervasive in modern society that students increasingly need a sound education in the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. Because evolution has and will continue to serve as a critical foundation of the biomedical and life sciences, helping students learn about and understand the scientific evidence, mechanisms, and implications of evolution are fundamental to a high-quality science education.

Science and religion are different ways of understanding. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of both to contribute to a better future.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=1


I have better things to do with my time - work, growing in my knowledge of the scriptures, reading up on biology to learn how to debunk evolution nonsense - than writing into empty space, only to have my comments mocked and disrespected before they are even produced.

Aloimeh vs 150 years of science.

Who Will Win?

abraxas21
10-04-2011, 04:28 AM
Denying evolution is like denying the earth rotates around the sun.


:facepalm:

evolution isn't a fact, it's just a theory. having so much faith in scientific theories will only get you so far

BigJohn
10-04-2011, 04:56 AM
:facepalm:

evolution isn't a fact, it's just a theory. having so much faith in scientific theories will only get you so far

:facepalm: :facepalm:

Gagsquet
10-04-2011, 09:46 AM
Evolution just a theory :lol:
Speed of light= speed max limit IS a theory
Evolution= Fact

GOAT = Fed
10-04-2011, 10:03 AM
:facepalm:

evolution isn't a fact, it's just a theory. having so much faith in scientific theories will only get you so far

Do you even know what theory means in scientific terms???

peribsen
10-04-2011, 10:15 AM
There really are two Americas. But without trying to sound elitist, we never get to the point of conversing with these people about things like evolution. I mean to say, you have probably met thousands of them, such as the cashier in the supermarket, but at checkout you didn't say, ''by the way, do you believe in evolution?''

However, that does not change the fact that more US cashiers reject evolution than cashiers in any other developed country. Ouch again.

Why limit ourselves to cashiers? (I can't figure out whether the last sentence is hilarious or terrifying).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjR7AWSmI6o

buddyholly
10-04-2011, 12:46 PM
:facepalm:

evolution isn't a fact, it's just a theory. having so much faith in scientific theories will only get you so far

With you as a specimen, I could understand such a conclusion.

buddyholly
10-04-2011, 12:47 PM
It was a typo. I meant pros.

I didn't say part of the theory relied on non-science. I said it's a scientific theory, we should be happy we reached that level of knowledge about genetics, but we should also acknowledge that we yet to know many stuff, we are still in the beginning of a great scientific journey that was started just decades ago, we need to be careful not to distract ourselves from its main goal, because we need faith in science to solve many problems.

BTW, You can be religious and believe in evolution, non-religious and don't believe in it. It's a scientific theory and not a philosophical theory to answer the question of why we exist in this life.

Using of science in such debates is dangerous and mostly done by people who are not scientists. Hitler, for example, used craniofacial measurements and analysis to justify his hate agenda. He was going to be a racist whether he read about this theory or not.

Scientists shouldn't engage themselves in pseudo-science behavior, they should tell things like it is, and evolution is still a theory in its first steps, we should encourage scientists to work on all science projects without trying to use it for solving community debates.

OK. Yes, I was confused by your apparent complete turnaround.

But I will disagree that evolution is still a theory in its first steps. I would argue that since Darwin formulated the theory, scientific discoveries have over and over again shown it to be correct. Particularly the advances in DNA.

buddyholly
10-04-2011, 12:58 PM
Why limit ourselves to cashiers? (I can't figure out whether the last sentence is hilarious or terrifying).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjR7AWSmI6o
I never said I limited anything to cashiers. I was giving just one example of a group of people of which Sue has no doubt met many members. And I went on to say that I am fairly certain that she never once asked a cashier if he/she believed in evolution. I would be much less certain as to whether she has ever met a senator, so that would not have been a good choice for my argument.

I didn't watch the video. Religulous is already in my library.

I don't think it is goes to the extreme of either hilarious or terrifying. However I did make a conscious effort to not use hamburger flippers or lavatory attendants as my example. They have been picked on enough.

But I think your attempt at political correctness is a bit too over-reactive.

peribsen
10-04-2011, 04:10 PM
But I think your attempt at political correctness is a bit too over-reactive.

Political correctness? Since when is making fun of a senator a case of political correctness?

What I've said is that it's all much, much worse than what you imply: this is not about semi-literate cleaning ladies showing off their ignorance, this is about people reaching the Senate (and above) with a very poor understanding of science and other complex issues.

D0n't know why, but you are often far too jumpy. In this case, you completely failed to tell humor apart from criticism. Pros call it projection.

Relax, for heaven's sake!

JolánGagó
10-04-2011, 10:08 PM
Judging by, for instance, this site it'd be outrageous to even imply humans "evolved" from anything.

abraxas21
10-04-2011, 10:46 PM
:facepalm: :facepalm:

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

do i win?

cobalt60
10-04-2011, 10:50 PM
Interesting stats here, not overly valid in my opinion, but more valid than 46%..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

funny that a third don't have an opinion; now that is the America I know and love :lol:

cobalt60
10-04-2011, 10:51 PM
Judging by, for instance, this site it'd be outrageous to even imply humans "evolved" from anything.

:haha:

abraxas21
10-04-2011, 10:58 PM
Evolution just a theory :lol:
Speed of light= speed max limit IS a theory
Evolution= Fact

there are virtually no facts in science. we just build paradigms formed by theories that best explain the universe we're living in and then when there's another theory that works better when it comes to explain different phenomena, we ditch the old one and embrace the new one. that's how our known scientific "progress" (if we can even use that term) has worked thus far and that's how it will keep working. it wouldn't be that surprising if in a time frame of 100 or 1000 or 10000 a better theory appears and we end up ditching evolution as we know it.

then again, as things stand now, evolution is the most credible theory we can think of to explain the origin of the modern species. would i call it a fact? by all means, no.

buddyholly
10-05-2011, 12:52 AM
then again, as things stand now, evolution is the most credible theory we can think of to explain the origin of the modern species. would i call it a fact? by all means, no.

It is not just something in the mind. There is a mountain of facts to support it.

habibko
10-05-2011, 12:53 AM
I can't believe people are still seriously debating Aloimeh and giving credit to his pseudoscientific utterings, for those who don't already know, the man views most contemporary scientists as...

I believe in a young earth. I believe in God and you believe in foolish and lying men. You made your choice and I made mine.

ladies and gentlemen: Earth is only a few thousand years old, now proceed to learn more such proper science from this marvelous scientist and stop listening to foolish lying men!

buddyholly
10-05-2011, 01:03 AM
Political correctness? Since when is making fun of a senator a case of political correctness?

What I've said is that it's all much, much worse than what you imply: this is not about semi-literate cleaning ladies showing off their ignorance, this is about people reaching the Senate (and above) with a very poor understanding of science and other complex issues.

D0n't know why, but you are often far too jumpy. In this case, you completely failed to tell humor apart from criticism. Pros call it projection.

Relax, for heaven's sake!

I wasn't implying that making fun of a senator was a case of political correctness. I thought you were taking me to task for my neocon fascist politically incorrect slurs of honest, hard-working cashiers instead of more correctly picking on a group of white trash right wing senators.
And yes, I did pause to ponder why you would add that video if you were seriously suggesting I was showing my prejudices.
In penance I will tell the next cashier I see how pretty she looks today....................no wait, I'll tell her that her Sarah Palin glasses make her look particularly intellectual today.

The thing is I could not use a group that Sue is likely to converse with on a regular basis, because she said she has never met anyone who did not believe in evolution. Thus I had to eliminate doctors, rabbis, school teachers, drug dealers, authors etc.

buddyholly
10-05-2011, 01:12 AM
ladies and gentlemen: Earth is only a few thousand years old, now proceed to learn more such proper science from this marvelous scientist and stop listening to foolish lying men!

I suppose that in your school textbooks the earth only dates back to the establishment of the House of Saud.


In the beginning............................

habibko
10-05-2011, 01:19 AM
I suppose that in your school textbooks the earth only dates back to the establishment of the House of Saud.


In the beginning............................

I don't see how this is relevant to anything here, if you don't know already not all religions hold the young Earth view, actually more intelligent Christians have stopped taking that literally/seriously

problem is, they aren't intelligent (or brave enough to admit) that there are more things they should stop taking in such way


oh and digs regarding what my country believes or teaches mean nothing to me as I thankfully have my own mind to decide what I should believe in or not

BigJohn
10-05-2011, 03:10 AM
I can't believe people are still seriously debating Aloimeh and giving credit to his pseudoscientific utterings, for those who don't already know, the man views most contemporary scientists as...



ladies and gentlemen: Earth is only a few thousand years old, now proceed to learn more such proper science from this marvelous scientist and stop listening to foolish lying men!

Thank you sir for pointing me to this priceless post:



I believe in a young earth. I believe in God and you believe in foolish and lying men. You made your choice and I made mine.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go :haha:

buddyholly
10-05-2011, 04:23 AM
I don't see how this is relevant to anything here, if you don't know already not all religions hold the young Earth view, actually more intelligent Christians have stopped taking that literally/seriously



That is because it was a joke.
I would not in 1,000,000 years have expected anyone to think that my suggesting that Saudi schoolchildren are taught that the earth began with the establishment of the House of Saud was to be taken seriously.
EPIC FAIL on my part, I guess.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-05-2011, 04:26 AM
Please don't forget that we are in a forum, and, every poster has the right to state his opinion, without other posters making fun of him!

buddyholly
10-05-2011, 04:28 AM
oh and digs regarding what my country believes or teaches mean nothing to me as I thankfully have my own mind to decide what I should believe in or not

Did you ever consider practising any other religion than the one you were randomly born into?

Or in other words, if you had been born into a Jewish family, do you think you would have converted to Islam? (I think Jews are allowed to switch.)

buddyholly
10-05-2011, 04:33 AM
Please don't forget that we are in a forum, and, every poster has the right to state his opinion, without other posters making fun of him!

I think we have the reciprocal right to make fun of other's opinions. When Aloimeh states that scientists who believe in evolution are not real scientists, we have no other option, really. I would not expect anyone to try to counter that with a serious reply.

BigJohn
10-05-2011, 04:37 AM
Please don't forget that we are in a forum, and, every poster has the right to state his opinion, without other posters making fun of him!

I think it is OK to laugh when someone suggests that evolution does not exist and that the truth about the creation of the Universe can be found in the Bible.

And I believe I a natural reaction to lol when the one saying these things claims to be a scientist.

habibko
10-05-2011, 05:03 AM
That is because it was a joke.
I would not in 1,000,000 years have expected anyone to think that my suggesting that Saudi schoolchildren are taught that the earth began with the establishment of the House of Saud was to be taken seriously.
EPIC FAIL on my part, I guess.

I knew it was a joke but given your track record, I thought it was still worth a reply

Did you ever consider practising any other religion than the one you were randomly born into?

Or in other words, if you had been born into a Jewish family, do you think you would have converted to Islam? (I think Jews are allowed to switch.)

I don't see why I should answer this question as you don't really know what religion (or lack thereof) I actually practice

if I was actually adhering to my religion it would solely be a conformity to my society and no other reason, being born into a certain religion doesn't give it any more truth than any other faith-based cult

habibko
10-05-2011, 05:10 AM
Please don't forget that we are in a forum, and, every poster has the right to state his opinion, without other posters making fun of him!

we have the right to "challenge" opinions around here with as much sarcasm as one wishes, as long as I'm not insulting him as a person, which I don't, I actually feel sorry for him more than anything, he appears to be a fairly bright person with his mind completely trapped, it happens with even more prolific and intelligent scientists such as Francis Collins and Ben Carson (apologies for the comparison..), it's a common fault of the human mind

buddyholly
10-05-2011, 05:27 AM
I knew it was a joke but given your track record, I thought it was still worth a reply



I don't see why I should answer this question as you don't really know what religion (or lack thereof) I actually practice

if I was actually adhering to my religion it would solely be a conformity to my society and no other reason, being born into a certain religion doesn't give it any more truth than any other faith-based cult

I don't have to know your religion, I would ask the question without specifying any religion. It is a question that fascinates me. And your answer was almost what I had hoped to hear.

But I am really looking for the person that says, "Yes, I practice my religion faithfully and am fully aware that the religion I practice is a function of my society. I only felt that my responsibility was to make a choice between religion and no religion, fully realising that the type of religion would be of no consequence to a god worthy of my allegiance.''

In other words, of course, I have not much respect for people that think their religion is the only one that the true god will recognise.

habibko
10-05-2011, 05:31 AM
But I am really looking for the person that says, "Yes, I practice my religion faithfully and am fully aware that the religion I practice is a function of my society. I only felt that my responsibility was to make a choice between religion and no religion, fully realising that the type of religion would be of no consequence to a god worthy of my allegiance.''

a lot of people I know do think that way, and I certainly did for a while, but now I know better than to be as "faithful" as I used to be as a teenager

Har-Tru
10-05-2011, 01:21 PM
In my view, the best stand-up comedian of our time:

0zdyJkKA5L4

BigJohn
10-12-2011, 06:02 AM
IguW9xHd2qo

SSxgnu3Hww8

Start da Game
10-14-2011, 03:46 PM
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/448/evolutiona.jpg

Seingeist
10-30-2011, 11:22 AM
What a tragic thread this is and a truly telling commentary on the "superior" intelligence of those arguing for evolution.

Aloimeh presented actual arguments and evidence in support of his case throughout this thread (and remained shockingly civil). The replies, unsurprisingly, failed not only to refute the points that he made, but generally did not even attempt to address them.

Instead, childish sneers, mockery, and red herrings were the preferred form of response, from posters who, frankly, demonstrated only their lack of capacity to engage with Aloimeh as intellectual peers.

Exceptions to this were shamefully few. Buddyholly was one of two posters that I counted that made any real attempt at all to offer other arguments (although these "arguments" consisted primarily of appeals to paleontological authority, for better or worse), but he spent a disappointing amount of his time aping the other trolls in here, evading Aloimeh's points with mockery and insults.

Peribsen threw in a couple thoughtful posts as well and showed an actual willingness to engage the topic with arguments. Well-done :yeah:

Given the "necessarily superior intellects" of irreligious minds, one might have expected this thread to turn out quite differently. One would have expected Aloimeh's biological objections to be met with swift and decisive "smackdowns" by the bevy of brilliant evolutionists who populate this board.

Alas, the objections themselves could not be met; in the stead of anything resembling a thoughtful reply, there were only the nauseating titters of a smug, bullying majority who haven't anywhere near the requisite education, understanding, or intelligence to actually engage with the objections.

But perhaps this is not so unusual? After all, it is far easier to laugh at one's intellectual antagonists than it is to refute them. It is far easier to ridicule them than to understand them. It is far easier to throw baseless jibes at their worldviews than it is to reflect upon and defend one's own.

That you have conducted yourself with admirable civility and intellectual integrity has not gone unnoticed and unappreciated by everyone in these forums, Aloimeh. :yeah: However, and unfortunately, it is indeed all-too clear from this thread that with interlocutors like these, no remotely fruitful discussion is possible.

habibko
10-30-2011, 11:34 AM
What a tragic thread this is and a truly telling commentary on the "superior" intelligence of those arguing for evolution.

Aloimeh presented actual arguments and evidence in support of his case throughout this thread (and remained shockingly civil). The replies, unsurprisingly, failed not only to refute the points that he made, but generally did not even attempt to address them.

Instead, childish sneers, mockery, and red herrings were the preferred form of response, from posters who, frankly, demonstrated only their lack of capacity to engage with Aloimeh as intellectual peers.

Exceptions to this were shamefully few. Buddyholly was one of two posters that I counted that made any real attempt at all to offer other arguments (although these "arguments" consisted primarily of appeals to paleontological authority, for better or worse), but he spent a disappointing amount of his time aping the other trolls in here, evading Aloimeh's points with mockery and insults.

Peribsen threw in a couple thoughtful posts as well and showed an actual willingness to engage the topic with arguments. Well-done :yeah:

Given the "necessarily superior intellects" of irreligious minds, one might have expected this thread to turn out quite differently. One would have expected Aloimeh's biological objections to be met with swift and decisive "smackdowns" by the bevy of brilliant evolutionists who populate this board.

Alas, the objections themselves could not be met; in the stead of anything resembling a thoughtful reply, there were only the nauseating titters of a smug, bullying majority who haven't anywhere near the requisite education, understanding, or intelligence to actually engage with the objections.

But perhaps this is not so unusual? After all, it is far easier to laugh at one's intellectual antagonists than it is to refute them. It is far easier to ridicule them than to understand them. It is far easier to throw baseless jibes at their worldviews than it is to reflect upon and defend one's own.

That you have conducted yourself with admirable civility and intellectual integrity has not gone unnoticed and unappreciated by everyone in these forums, Aloimeh. :yeah: However, and unfortunately, it is indeed all-too clear from this thread that with interlocutors like these, no remotely fruitful discussion is possible.

they have known him enough to realize it's pointless to use logic and science with him, someone who maintains blind faith against all evidence, what possible scientific arguments can you use to persuade someone who believes in a young Earth?

Gagsquet
10-30-2011, 11:49 AM
What a tragic thread this is and a truly telling commentary on the "superior" intelligence of those arguing for evolution.

Aloimeh presented actual arguments and evidence in support of his case throughout this thread (and remained shockingly civil). The replies, unsurprisingly, failed not only to refute the points that he made, but generally did not even attempt to address them.



I don't understand, you said in the other thread we can tell to other people when they are obviously wrong if we are talking about facts. Evolution is a fact, this guy denied it. No discussion possible. Would you accept to debate if MTF is an ice skating forum or not?

Seingeist
10-30-2011, 11:54 AM
they have known him enough to realize it's pointless to use logic and science with him

Indeed? Well then they might humor the rest of the forum audience by showing themselves capable of wielding either. As it is, the claim on both of those (in terms of the arguments offered in this thread) was staked almost exclusively by Aloimeh.

someone who maintains blind faith against all evidence

i.e. Someone who offers explicit evidence in the face of the blind-faith replies of his opponents.

Impressive show of doublespeak!

what possible scientific arguments can you use to persuade someone who believes in a young Earth?

I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I imagine that you would start with arguments relating to dating methods.

Of course, you could also just sling insults and see if that does the trick.

habibko
10-30-2011, 12:02 PM
Indeed? Well then they might humor the rest of the forum audience by showing themselves capable of wielding either. As it is, the claim on both of those (in terms of the arguments offered in this thread) was staked almost exclusively by Aloimeh.



i.e. Someone who offers explicit evidence in the face of the blind-faith replies of his opponents.

Impressive show of doublespeak!

you either have a really bad memory or you are simply ignoring the fact that this is not the only thread where posters like me have attempted to argue on this topic and others with him, remember the bible question thread?

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=154915

I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I imagine that you would start with arguments relating to dating methods.

Of course, you could also just sling insults and see if that does the trick.

and if he knows about the dating methods yet simply rejects them and accuses those scientists who use them of being lying foolish men, and still maintains his belief? what's the next step?

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 12:52 PM
I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I imagine that you would start with arguments relating to dating methods.

Of course, you could also just sling insults and see if that does the trick.

The problem I had with Aloimeh was that he argued with intricate biological details that I could not hope to analyse. However, if there were any biological facts that would refute evolution, I would have heard about them from scientific journals. They would be huge news. Aloimeh's argument seemed to be more that ''this biological evidence is so complex that evolution theory is too simple to explain it. Ergo God did it.''

However, the basics of dating methods can be understood by everyone and the dating is irrefutable. Therefore when Aloimeh just turned a blind eye to fact in favour of fiction, all his other arguments are moot.

From the above quote, it might appear that you too are forced to turn a blind eye to dating methods, but I can not imagine that you are.

Aloimeh would have been on surer footing to argue that evolution and age of the earth are different subjects, but chose the Christian fundamentalist position of a young earth. That is why so many people threw up their arms. An argument that the Bible says the earth is around 6000 years old, so age dating must be wrong, can not be treated seriously.

I am also surprised that you would vigourously defend the position of someone who kept repeating that almost all scientists are cheats that are not worthy of the name ''scientist.''

As for the actual, compelling evidence from fossils and the extremely detailed knowledge of the gradual evolution of many life forms, such as ammonites, that can be seen sedimentary layer by sedimentary layer, if I remember correctly, Aloimeh just dismissed all paeolontologists as false prophets spreading blasphemy. It is difficult to arge with a position like that. It would be like a discussion over whether the moon is made of cheese - and Aloimeh comes along and says there is no moon and anyone who says there is, is a liar.

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 02:21 PM
Those who advocate that the earth is hundreds of thousands of years old have the whole scientific community to back them up, the same for those who support evolution. The data is overwhelming, there is no debate anymore.

There is no support by the scientific community for those who think the earth is 6000 years old. Evolution is proven by science, it is not a theory anymore, it is fact.

So when men and women who have spent their live actually studying and advancing science using the scientific method say the earth is older than 6000 yo and that evolution is real, I'll take their opinions over the ones of some religious nutcases who base their beliefs on an edited and translated story book from an unknown number of authors, especially when you consider the fact that the church was as much, more during medieval times, a political entity than a spiritual one for most of history.

Har-Tru
10-30-2011, 02:32 PM
The problem I had with Aloimeh was that he argued with intricate biological details that I could not hope to analyse. However, if there were any biological facts that would refute evolution, I would have heard about them from scientific journals. They would be huge news. Aloimeh's argument seemed to be more that ''this biological evidence is so complex that evolution theory is too simple to explain it. Ergo God did it.''

However, the basics of dating methods can be understood by everyone and the dating is irrefutable. Therefore when Aloimeh just turned a blind eye to fact in favour of fiction, all his other arguments are moot.

From the above quote, it might appear that you too are forced to turn a blind eye to dating methods, but I can not imagine that you are.

Aloimeh would have been on surer footing to argue that evolution and age of the earth are different subjects, but chose the Christian fundamentalist position of a young earth. That is why so many people threw up their arms. An argument that the Bible says the earth is around 6000 years old, so age dating must be wrong, can not be treated seriously.

I am also surprised that you would vigourously defend the position of someone who kept repeating that almost all scientists are cheats that are not worthy of the name ''scientist.''

As for the actual, compelling evidence from fossils and the extremely detailed knowledge of the gradual evolution of many life forms, such as ammonites, that can be seen sedimentary layer by sedimentary layer, if I remember correctly, Aloimeh just dismissed all paeolontologists as false prophets spreading blasphemy. It is difficult to arge with a position like that. It would be like a discussion over whether the moon is made of cheese - and Aloimeh comes along and says there is no moon and anyone who says there is, is a liar.

Thank you for bothering.

Gagsquet
10-30-2011, 02:39 PM
Rejecting evolution is a proof of idiocy.

Btw, the post in Har-Tru's sig is the post of the year.

Lopez
10-30-2011, 03:45 PM
I don't understand, you said in the other thread we can tell to other people when they are obviously wrong if we are talking about facts. Evolution is a fact, this guy denied it. No discussion possible. Would you accept to debate if MTF is an ice skating forum or not?

This is a good point bacause that is what you seemed to say in the ACC thread Seingeist

Clydey
10-30-2011, 04:53 PM
You know what? I have no interest in wasting my life on mockers like you or buddyholly. I have better things to do with my time - work, growing in my knowledge of the scriptures, reading up on biology to learn how to debunk evolution nonsense - than writing into empty space, only to have my comments mocked and disrespected before they are even produced. You are not a good-faith interlocutor, you do not respond to argument and present counterargument, you choose instead to use tactics of ridicule, rhetorical (to your thinking) questions, and ad hominem attacks.

I have no interest in communicating with you on this thread or any other thread, for that matter.

That's your problem, Aloimeh. You even concede that you have an agenda, so how can anyone be expected to take you seriously? You have not approached your studies with an open mind, which is ultimately why you will go nowhere in your chosen field. The following cartoon sums you up perfectly.

http://breakingspells.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/science-religion.gif

fast_clay
10-30-2011, 05:34 PM
the iron hand of clydey plays a crushing volley

Start da Game
10-30-2011, 07:53 PM
"evolution" is a subjective term......it usually means gradual development of something into a better form......so it's all about what you consider better......the average lifespan keeps decreasing century by century......so who do you consider stronger and better? we or our ancestors? of course we are more clever(again subjective but somewhat safe to presume) but what would you pick? a 80 years life with moderate comforts or 40 years with some luxuries?

GOAT = Fed
10-30-2011, 08:07 PM
"evolution" is a subjective term......it usually means gradual development of something into a better form......so it's all about what you consider better......the average lifespan keeps decreasing century by century......so who do you consider stronger and better? we or our ancestors? of course we are more clever(again subjective but somewhat safe to presume) but what would you pick? a 80 years life with moderate comforts or 40 years with some luxuries?

lolwut u mad brah?

Maybe you should see the infant death rate a few centuries ago.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:19 PM
The problem I had with Aloimeh was that he argued with intricate biological details that I could not hope to analyse. However, if there were any biological facts that would refute evolution, I would have heard about them from scientific journals. They would be huge news. Aloimeh's argument seemed to be more that ''this biological evidence is so complex that evolution theory is too simple to explain it. Ergo God did it.''

However, the basics of dating methods can be understood by everyone and the dating is irrefutable. Therefore when Aloimeh just turned a blind eye to fact in favour of fiction, all his other arguments are moot.

From the above quote, it might appear that you too are forced to turn a blind eye to dating methods, but I can not imagine that you are.

Aloimeh would have been on surer footing to argue that evolution and age of the earth are different subjects, but chose the Christian fundamentalist position of a young earth. That is why so many people threw up their arms. An argument that the Bible says the earth is around 6000 years old, so age dating must be wrong, can not be treated seriously.

I am also surprised that you would vigourously defend the position of someone who kept repeating that almost all scientists are cheats that are not worthy of the name ''scientist.''

As for the actual, compelling evidence from fossils and the extremely detailed knowledge of the gradual evolution of many life forms, such as ammonites, that can be seen sedimentary layer by sedimentary layer, if I remember correctly, Aloimeh just dismissed all paeolontologists as false prophets spreading blasphemy. It is difficult to arge with a position like that. It would be like a discussion over whether the moon is made of cheese - and Aloimeh comes along and says there is no moon and anyone who says there is, is a liar.

If you refuse to address my arguments from biology or chemistry or physics, why do you think it's my job to deal with ammonites?

I see you've constructed your views on our existence, life, life's meaning, and God on....ammonites? That's really quite a sad commentary on the state of affairs.

Dating methods have their flaws and their assumptions, as does any experimental method. I'd rather believe that there's something badly wrong with these assumptions than that God is a liar.

There is not detailed knowledge of gradual evolution of many life forms. We have the equine series and, per you, ammonites. What about all the rest? Where's the evidence for gradual evolution?

Start da Game
10-30-2011, 08:21 PM
lolwut u mad brah?

Maybe you should see the infant death rate a few centuries ago.

that's why you are a stats obsessed fedtard......equate the field and compare......those were days without proper medicines......we are also not taking into account deaths due to accidents, floods, other losses, infant deaths......we are talking about who's genetically stronger and there are reasons enough in history to prove previous generations were much stronger than us......just that we have access to many medicines doesn't mean we are stronger......

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 08:23 PM
"evolution" is a subjective term......it usually means gradual development of something into a better form......so it's all about what you consider better......the average lifespan keeps decreasing century by century......so who do you consider stronger and better? we or our ancestors? of course we are more clever(again subjective but somewhat safe to presume) but what would you pick? a 80 years life with moderate comforts or 40 years with some luxuries?

I guess it does if you use biblical characters in your calculation. But Methuselah skews the result.

Personally, I prefer 80 years of total luxury.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:23 PM
That's your problem, Aloimeh. You even concede that you have an agenda, so how can anyone be expected to take you seriously? You have not approached your studies with an open mind, which is ultimately why you will go nowhere in your chosen field. The following cartoon sums you up perfectly.

http://breakingspells.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/science-religion.gif

And? Most evolutionists also have an agenda: most are atheists and agnostics. I am convinced that they were first atheist/agnostic and then found that evolution was a convenient way to sweep the problem of life under the rug.

The number of theistic evolutionists, i.e. those who really understand the mechanisms of evolution, is quite small. Most who say they are theistic evolutionists accept evolution because it is the co-religion passed down to them from on high by the authorities of biology.

God makes extreme moral demands on us. Most people don't like that. Some choose to believe in nonsensical theories that attempt to debunk God by denying that this marvelous world was created by Him. Whether it's Big Bang cosmology, multiple universe theories to explain away fine tuning, origin of life theories, or TOE, it's all there to erode away one of the greatest foundations human beings have for believing in God: the universe and all that is in it.

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 08:27 PM
Dating methods have their flaws and their assumptions, as does any experimental method. I'd rather believe that there's something badly wrong with these assumptions than that God is a liar.



They don't, actually. Unless, of course, you consider the margin of error in ''630 +/-10 million years'' a flaw.

God never said anything. It was the wacky Irish bishop.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:28 PM
They don't, actually. Unless, of course, you consider the margin of error in ''630 +/-10 million years'' a flaw.

Explain to me the dating methods that you are acquainted with. What's measured?

Gagsquet
10-30-2011, 08:28 PM
that's why you are a stats obsessed fedtard......equate the field and compare......those were days without proper medicines......we are also not taking into account deaths due to accidents, floods, other losses, infant deaths......we are talking about who's genetically stronger and there are reasons enough in history to prove previous generations were much stronger than us......just that we have access to many medicines doesn't mean we are stronger......

Ah? Could you explain?

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 08:30 PM
If you refuse to address my arguments from biology or chemistry or physics, why do you think it's my job to deal with ammonites?

I see you've constructed your views on our existence, life, life's meaning, and God on....ammonites? That's really quite a sad commentary on the state of affairs.

Dating methods have their flaws and their assumptions, as does any experimental method. I'd rather believe that there's something badly wrong with these assumptions than that God is a liar.

God did not write the Bible...


There is not detailed knowledge of gradual evolution of many life forms. We have the equine series and, per you, ammonites. What about all the rest? Where's the evidence for gradual evolution?


You'll find that in different fields related to biology where you can learn about the facts supporting evolution, not in your interpretation of a fiction book.

Lopez
10-30-2011, 08:32 PM
Strong campaigning here
*grabs popcorn*

Start da Game
10-30-2011, 08:33 PM
Ah? Could you explain?

next time.....i am going to bed.....for now i will just say one thing though......one should never go blindly by stats......they can be really misleading some times......

cristalmeister
10-30-2011, 08:33 PM
Evolution is a fact. Anyone who doesn't agree is blinded by their religion and the fictions written in their holy books.

true that

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:35 PM
Ah? Could you explain?

Most mutations are deleterious but failed to be selected against because they are slightly deleterious. This falls under the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearly_neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

If a mutation makes you 0.1 or 0.5% or 1% less genetically fit than your neighbor, it's unlikely to be selected against because there's so many other sporadic and catastrophic and environmental things that could render your neighbor less fit than you in the end. A mutation that makes you 10% or 50% less fit will be selected against fairly rapidly.

Most mutations are slightly bad. The slightly good ones are very rare and also will not be selected for because they make you just 0.1% "better" than your neighbor. Natural selection is not sensitive enough to "pick" you out over your neighbor.

Greatly beneficial mutations are practically nonexistent, but they, too, would be selected for rapidly.

Now, the problem is that since most mutations are slightly negative, and we all encounter them, the genome is in fact degrading over time. Ultimately this will lead to degeneration that is irreparable and extinction of the species.

If interested, see this book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51UxLfvZejL._SS500_.jpg

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:37 PM
God did not write the Bible...





You'll find that in different fields related to biology where you can learn about the facts supporting evolution, not in your interpretation of a fiction book.

I would think that if it was all over the place we would see these series. So far I only know of the horse. Buddyholly claims ammonites.

What else?

I mean, we are talking about nearly 1.5 million known species of plant, animal, fungal, protist, and bacterial life. Where are all the series that trace living forms to the past? Even 1% would be 15,000. 15 species series would be 0.001%. Do we have even 15 series?

Start da Game
10-30-2011, 08:40 PM
yep, only 1.5 out of roughly 4 million species are known to humans......the rest 2.5 million, almost all in water, is still unknown to man.....

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 08:41 PM
Explain to me the dating methods that you are acquainted with. What's measured?

Half lives. I don't believe you don't know that.

I just checked Wikipedia for horse evolution and it starts with ''Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's lineage than they have for any other animal...................''

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 08:46 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51UxLfvZejL._SS500_.jpg

Dr. JC Sanford id a creationist who thinks the earth is between 5000 to 100 000 yo.

Now about devolution:

According to Christian creationists, devolution is:

A theory of origins based on scripture which begins with the ultimate complexity of all living things at the time of creation. This was followed by degeneration and the break down of all living things on the genetic level beginning at the Curse (Genesis 3) and continuing to this day with increased momentum.

from wiki...

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:48 PM
Half lives. I don't believe you don't know that.

I just checked Wikipedia for horse evolution and it starts with ''Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's lineage than they have for any other animal...................''

Don't be silly, I know it's half lives. So the principle is always to look at a starting material and it's degradation product, right?

So, now, tell me:

1.) What is known about the various mutual interactions of the electroweak forces that dictate these decays? Do the ambient elements have any influence? What about temperature and pressure? Cosmic rays? Perhaps I'm stabbing in the dark, but these all need to be characterized before we assume that what holds in a solution or one kind of mineral holds in all contexts.

2.) Do we have evidence that the degradation product can only originate from the putative starting material?

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 08:49 PM
I would think that if it was all over the place we would see these series. So far I only know of the horse. Buddyholly claims ammonites.

What else?

I mean, we are talking about nearly 1.5 million known species of plant, animal, fungal, protist, and bacterial life. Where are all the series that trace living forms to the past? Even 1% would be 15,000. 15 species series would be 0.001%. Do we have even 15 series?

I don't understand this. What are the series you are talking about? You mean like man going back to apes?

Gagsquet
10-30-2011, 08:49 PM
This creationist Aloimeh is a frightening person.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:50 PM
Dr. JC Sanford id a creationist who thinks the earth is between 5000 to 100 000 yo.

Now about devolution:


from wiki...

John Sanford is also a scientist and professor at Cornell University who invented the gene gun and is one of the top plant geneticists of our day.

He was also formerly an atheist who became convinced in God's existence and creation through his work on genetics.

Formerly an atheist[6] since the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into Theistic Evolution (1985–late 1990s), Old Earth Creation (late 1990s), and Young Earth Creation (2000–present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered ... that we were created by a special creation, by God."

So much for your idiotic idea that all theistic scientists must start from the Bible.

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 08:51 PM
I would think that if it was all over the place we would see these series. So far I only know of the horse. Buddyholly claims ammonites.

What else?

I mean, we are talking about nearly 1.5 million known species of plant, animal, fungal, protist, and bacterial life. Where are all the series that trace living forms to the past? Even 1% would be 15,000. 15 species series would be 0.001%. Do we have even 15 series?

There are theories on how evolution occurs. Not that evolution exists.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:52 PM
I don't understand this. What are the series you are talking about? You mean like man going back to apes?

Any series. Spotted hyena. Iguana. Venus flytrap. Go through the fossil record and trace its ancestors. You can pick any 15 living organisms.

So far you've given me 2: horses and ammonites (well, ammonites are dead). So that's just 0.000067% of living species. And I'm supposed to construct my views on this world, life, God, morality, etc. based on this?

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 08:53 PM
So much for your idiotic idea that all theistic scientists must start from the Bible.

quote on that?

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:55 PM
quote on that?

It's the tone on this thread. I can't be bothered to find your inane posts. I am portrayed here as someone who is shoe-horning science into a Biblical perspective (see Clydey), not someone who reflects on nature and concludes that it must have been created. Perhaps I am motived by my religion, but not everyone is, and Sanford is someone who was motivated by the science. But according to you and others here, he's a creationist idiot.

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 08:55 PM
John Sanford is also a scientist and professor at Cornell University who invented the gene gun and is one of the top plant geneticists of our day.

He was also formerly an atheist who became convinced in God's existence and creation through his work on genetics.





Intelligent design is not based on facts.

:haha: :haha:

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 08:59 PM
It's the tone on this thread. I can't be bothered to find your inane posts. I am portrayed here as someone who is shoe-horning science into a Biblical perspective (see Clydey), not someone who reflects on nature and concludes that it must have been created. Perhaps I am motived by my religion, but not everyone is, and Sanford is someone who was motivated by the science. But according to you and others here, he's a creationist idiot.

Well he is in that field since intelligent design is not based on facts, so it is not science.

Clydey
10-30-2011, 09:00 PM
And? Most evolutionists also have an agenda: most are atheists and agnostics. I am convinced that they were first atheist/agnostic and then found that evolution was a convenient way to sweep the problem of life under the rug.

Quite the opposite. I've heard many scientists, such as Dawkins, say that evolutionary theory is responsible for their atheism.

How do you explain the almost universal acceptance of evolution within the scientific community of a prohibitively christian society? One would expect them to sweep evolution 'under the rug' in order to preserve the overwhelming religiosity of the United States.

The number of theistic evolutionists, i.e. those who really understand the mechanisms of evolution, is quite small. Most who say they are theistic evolutionists accept evolution because it is the co-religion passed down to them from on high by the authorities of biology.

Oh, the irony.

God makes extreme moral demands on us. Most people don't like that. Some choose to believe in nonsensical theories that attempt to debunk God by denying that this marvelous world was created by Him. Whether it's Big Bang cosmology, multiple universe theories to explain away fine tuning, origin of life theories, or TOE, it's all there to erode away one of the greatest foundations human beings have for believing in God: the universe and all that is in it.

How do you explain the disproportionately large number of christians in prison and the disproportionately small number of atheists in prison?

Roadmap
10-30-2011, 09:02 PM
This God fella cannot be that good of a guy if my lack of belief in him will ensure my forever damnation :rolleyes:

Roadmap
10-30-2011, 09:03 PM
I want the creationists to show me some proof.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 09:07 PM
Quite the opposite. I've heard many scientists, such as Dawkins, say that evolutionary theory is responsible for their atheism.

Dawkins said that Darwin enabled him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Even he acknowledges that evolution (supposedly) explains a world that appears to have been designed. Read his books (I've read Blind Watchmaker and it's trash) and you'll see that I'm right.

How do you explain the almost universal acceptance of evolution within the scientific community of a prohibitively christian society? One would expect them to sweep evolution 'under the rug' in order to preserve the overwhelming religiosity of the United States.

The US a prohibitively Christian society? Since when? As far as I know, there's rampant adultery, divorce, premarital sex in the US. Homosexuality is more and more accepted, and the religion of the day is money and success (falls under idolatry). Children throw their parents into nursing homes when they become useless. How is this a Christian society?

On the contrary, evolution makes no moral pronouncements other than to confirm that disgusting behavior is evolutionarily derived. That's the whole field of evolutionary psychology. So an adulterous man who has sex with five other women is just living out his evolutionarily-driven purpose of reproducing as many offspring as possible. And so on. A gay man is genetically driven to sleep with men because....oh wait, how does evolution explain that one again? ;)

Oh, the irony.

Why? Both evolution and Christianity are forms of religion. Both are derived from faith.

How do you explain the disproportionately large number of christians in prison and the disproportionately small number of atheists in prison?

1.) Evidence, please, for these statistics.
2.) Evidence that those who say they are Christian really are Christian. That's inferred from what they say AND what they practice.
3.) Ever thought that many criminals might grow reflective of their crime while incarcerated? That they might become Christian after they are behind bars? Perhaps they see that they need to repent and accept God's solution for their sin? I would think that would be distinctly more appealing than atheistic evolution, which basically claims that they're genetically driven to be criminals and/or those who accused/prosecuted/judged/sentenced them are genetically driven to do so as well. What moral redemption is there in that?

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 09:10 PM
Still waiting for my answer on did God write the Bible...

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 09:12 PM
Still waiting for my answer on did God write the Bible...

You know the answer to that question. And it has nothing to do with evolution.

Gagsquet
10-30-2011, 09:13 PM
Why? Both evolution and Christianity are forms of religion. Both are derived from faith.





You are ridiculous mate.

BigJohn
10-30-2011, 09:21 PM
Dating methods have their flaws and their assumptions, as does any experimental method. I'd rather believe that there's something badly wrong with these assumptions than that God is a liar.




You know the answer to that question. And it has nothing to do with evolution.

I think it does because you said that God would be a liar. Did he say anything on the subject? Do we have a quote from God?

Clydey
10-30-2011, 09:35 PM
Dawkins said that Darwin enabled him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Even he acknowledges that evolution (supposedly) explains a world that appears to have been designed. Read his books (I've read Blind Watchmaker and it's trash) and you'll see that I'm right.

I've read his books.

Read this interview with him and you'll see that I'm right.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx?p=2

My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

The US a prohibitively Christian society? Since when? As far as I know, there's rampant adultery, divorce, premarital sex in the US. Homosexuality is more and more accepted, and the religion of the day is money and success (falls under idolatry). Children throw their parents into nursing homes when they become useless. How is this a Christian society?

On the contrary, evolution makes no moral pronouncements other than to confirm that disgusting behavior is evolutionarily derived. That's the whole field of evolutionary psychology. So an adulterous man who has sex with five other women is just living out his evolutionarily-driven purpose of reproducing as many offspring as possible. And so on. A gay man is genetically driven to sleep with men because....oh wait, how does evolution explain that one again? ;)



Why? Both evolution and Christianity are forms of religion. Both are derived from faith.



1.) Evidence, please, for these statistics.
2.) Evidence that those who say they are Christian really are Christian. That's inferred from what they say AND what they practice.
3.) Ever thought that many criminals might grow reflective of their crime while incarcerated? That they might become Christian after they are behind bars? Perhaps they see that they need to repent and accept God's solution for their sin? I would think that would be distinctly more appealing than atheistic evolution, which basically claims that they're genetically driven to be criminals and/or those who accused/prosecuted/judged/sentenced them are genetically driven to do so as well. What moral redemption is there in that?

It would be pointless to respond to any of this. Apparently you are the judge of whether someone is a Christian. Therefore, if someone commits murder in cold blood and calls themselves a Christian, you would presumably argue that they are not really a Christian. My, isn't that convenient?

You seemingly believe that atheism necessarily leads to immorality. Would you then argue that a good atheist is not really an atheist? The problem with the gymnastics you perform in order to make your position appear tenable is that you really do dig a large hole for yourself at times.

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 10:05 PM
Any series. Spotted hyena. Iguana. Venus flytrap. Go through the fossil record and trace its ancestors. You can pick any 15 living organisms.

So far you've given me 2: horses and ammonites (well, ammonites are dead). So that's just 0.000067% of living species. And I'm supposed to construct my views on this world, life, God, morality, etc. based on this?

With the wonders of Google, I don't have to go as far as 15. Try it for whatever living organism you want.

I'll give an example of iguana (Nice choice given the Galapagos iguanas and their influence on Darwin):

Amniotes - sauropsids - eureptilla - romeriida - diapsids - reptiles.

Of course the best known example is homo sapiens. Understandable that we are most interested in our own evolution.

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 10:08 PM
Perhaps I am motived by my religion, but not everyone is, and Sanford is someone who was motivated by the science. But according to you and others here, he's a creationist idiot.

From the piece I read he formerly was an atheist, believing in evolution. Then he became a Christian and decided that he could not believe in evolution. Far from being motivated by science, he was motivated by religion to reject science.

Seingeist
10-30-2011, 10:11 PM
The problem I had with Aloimeh was that he argued with intricate biological details that I could not hope to analyse.

To be fair, his background is in biology. How is it in any way his problem that you did not feel qualified to address his concerns?

However, if there were any biological facts that would refute evolution, I would have heard about them from scientific journals.

This so clearly does not follow.

1. Any potential or apparent evidence against evolution, however small and perhaps even insignificant, tends to be at best ignored and at worst suppressed. The only way that some major objection to evolution would materialize in a general scientific journal would be that it gained enough traction in the scientific world to merit attention; and this is nearly impossible, since the political atmosphere of the scientific world is not dissimilar to that in this thread, i.e. it is extremely dangerous to one's professional scientific career to present anything, however innocently, that might serve as a difficult problem for the establishment ideology.

2. Presumably, biological facts along these lines would be discussed in biological journals, which, also presumably ;), you don't make a habit of reading. Oh, and as you well know, they would hardly be touted as "facts that refute evolution"; they would be presented more as "interesting puzzles" for evolution to solve. And indeed, the latter is the appropriate way to represent them if, as a scientist in good faith, you see overwhelming evidence for evolution. That is, you would not be ready to throw the whole edifice out of the window because of a bump in the road.

3. Argumentatively speaking, it is extremely weak to answer your opponent, "look, if you actually had any kind of case here, however small, I would have heard about it." The case stands in front of you in plain sight. If Aloimeh is as much a clown as everyone likes to pretend, any fool with any limited biological education or research should be able to actually answer the objections that he has posed here.

Aloimeh's argument seemed to be more that ''this biological evidence is so complex that evolution theory is too simple to explain it. Ergo God did it.''

This is a misrepresentative oversimplification. Let's clean it up a bit.

1. "Ergo God did it" is jumping way ahead of things and, in a very strict sense, not part of the argument. For example, let's, for the sake of argument, say that Aloimeh successfully demonstrated that evolutionary theory is utterly bankrupt; it does not follow logically for one second that God did it; it would only follow that evolutionary theory is false.

2. His point was not that evolutionary theory is too simple; his argument was that the mechanisms of gradual change in evolution (as espoused by the scientific community at large) cannot account for certain biological phenomena, which he presented.

But I should not be having to do this, buddyholly. Aloimeh is one of the precious few posters here who actually takes the trouble to make himself clear.


However, the basics of dating methods can be understood by everyone and the dating is irrefutable.

Perfect! Then it should be a profoundly simple matter to lay out a few of these irrefutable basics and get a slam-dunk in any debate concerning the age of the earth!

Believe it or not, laying out data or arguments, however basic and elementary, carries a lot more intellectual heft than evading all argumentation in favor of childish insults and mockery.

Therefore when Aloimeh just turned a blind eye to fact in favour of fiction, all his other arguments are moot.

Oy, this shit just never ends, does it?

First of all, as far as this thread is concerned, Aloimeh is nearly the only one who turned his eye upon scientific fact as such (inasmuch as he actually presented and analyzed biological phenomena). Bizarrely enough, the incapable sneers of a smug majority does not serve to overturn that.


Your second mistake is far more important and far more revealing, and it actually reflects on the behavior of all of those here who can only offer insults in response to arguments.

Your statement above is actually textbook ad hominem fallacy. If Aloimeh were the most insane raving lunatic to have ever roamed the earth, still it would not follow that his arguments are moot.

Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, independently of the individual presenting the argument. But this is self-evident, surely!

If I make some terrible argument, e.g. "Snow melts because it is always softer than the surfaces it lands on," establishing myself as a "loon," and later make a sound argument, e.g. "We know that gravity exists because it can be experimentally verified," does it follow that my second argument is "moot"? Does gravity suddenly cease to exist? :lol:

This is why it is the arguments that must be engaged, not the people making them, since their character has nothing to do logically with the content of the argument. And hey, this actually means that the evolutionists are in luck, because terrible arguments are extremely easy to refute. :yeah:

When the posters here are unable to engage with Aloimeh's arguments, they irrationally attempt to discredit his arguments by slinging insults at him. Or, they throw out a red herring in an attempt to trap Aloimeh in an argument that they're more comfortable with in order to dismiss the earlier arguments that were no match for them.

This thread does not merely provide examples of this, it actually consists almost exclusively of this (with absurdly few exceptions).


From the above quote, it might appear that you too are forced to turn a blind eye to dating methods, but I can not imagine that you are.

No, I do not "turn a blind eye to dating methods," but my own position is not at all relevant to the point I was making anyway.


Aloimeh would have been on surer footing to argue that evolution and age of the earth are different subjects, but chose the Christian fundamentalist position of a young earth. That is why so many people threw up their arms.

To be fair, I don't believe that it was Aloimeh who merged the subjects in the first place. Trolls entered and attempted to bait him into another argument that they felt more comfortable ridiculing.

An argument that the Bible says the earth is around 6000 years old, so age dating must be wrong, can not be treated seriously.

Hrmm, that wasn't Aloimeh's argument either. Surprise!

I am also surprised that you would vigourously defend the position of someone who kept repeating that almost all scientists are cheats that are not worthy of the name ''scientist.''

And another intentional misrepresentation! Buddyholly is aiming for the record books!

Actually, he was criticizing the "scientific rigor" of paleontology as a discipline (= "almost all scientists are cheats"? :lol:). If you are at all acquainted with science in academia, you are well aware that scientists within the various branches not infrequently have disputes involving the relative merits of their own branch within the field as a whole.


As for the actual, compelling evidence from fossils and the extremely detailed knowledge of the gradual evolution of many life forms, such as ammonites, that can be seen sedimentary layer by sedimentary layer, if I remember correctly, Aloimeh just dismissed all paeolontologists as false prophets spreading blasphemy. It is difficult to arge with a position like that.

In what should by now come as a surprise to no one, you do not, in fact, "remember correctly" (but you also know this). See above. Aloimeh's charge was against the rigor of paleontology as a scientific discipline.

How does one argue with a position like that? Taking a wild stab at it, I'd say by making arguments in favor of the scientific rigor of paleontological study. :shrug:

It would be like a discussion over whether the moon is made of cheese - and Aloimeh comes along and says there is no moon and anyone who says there is, is a liar.

Is it like this? Discussions regarding the "rigor" of the various scientific disciplines relative to one another is not at all uncommon; do today's scientists frequently find themselves debating about the cheesiness of the moon?

This is a good point bacause that is what you seemed to say in the ACC thread Seingeist

I find this disturbing; I was going to ignore his comment precisely because I thought that it was evident to all how badly he missed the point. Sigh...

Our discussion was about haughtiness, and my point was simply that it is hardly haughty to take a stance on whether or not something is right or wrong (and indeed, leads to contradictions to refuse to take such stances). I also pointed out that his initial charge was "equivocal" because he dropped in the word "opinion" but did not sufficiently qualify his statement to make it clear that he was dealing exclusively with matters of opinion (and I then contrasted it with examples of "fact" to illustrate the difference). Of course, it would have been far more logically precise if I had cached it out in terms of subjective and objective claims rather than "opinion" and "fact," but I really do not feel like going into all that right now; I was merely attempting to use easy examples to make the point that was at hand clear.

Now, I utterly fail to see what any of that has to do with the portion that Grassquet quoted.

Setting aside all that might be ambiguous and swept under the rug in the bare statement "Evolution is a fact," where did I anywhere suggest that the posters in this thread erred merely by virtue of the fact that they said that Aloimeh was wrong? Likewise, where did I suggest anywhere in my previous replies to Gasquet that no reasons or argumentation are ever necessary to defend or attack any given assertion of "fact"?

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 10:14 PM
Why? Both evolution and Christianity are forms of religion. Both are derived from faith.





There is really little point to continue when you say things like that. Darwin reached his conclusions on evolution by scientific observation. He reached his conclusions in spite of his faith in Biblical teaching. He could not avoid the truth of what he observed.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 10:30 PM
With the wonders of Google, I don't have to go as far as 15. Try it for whatever living organism you want.

I'll give an example of iguana (Nice choice given the Galapagos iguanas and their influence on Darwin):

Amniotes - sauropsids - eureptilla - romeriida - diapsids - reptiles.

Of course the best known example is homo sapiens. Understandable that we are most interested in our own evolution.

That's not a series, it's merely taxonomy. I'm asking for you to name the fossils that take us from the ancestor of all reptiles to the modern Galapagos iguana. Name them and point out how their morphological features transition gradually from one fossil to the next.

Or do that for any other species (other than the horse).

habibko
10-30-2011, 10:33 PM
So, now, tell me:

1.) What is known about the various mutual interactions of the electroweak forces that dictate these decays? Do the ambient elements have any influence? What about temperature and pressure? Cosmic rays? Perhaps I'm stabbing in the dark, but these all need to be characterized before we assume that what holds in a solution or one kind of mineral holds in all contexts.

2.) Do we have evidence that the degradation product can only originate from the putative starting material?

what's the point of even answering those questions? will answering them properly make you finally believe that the Bible is wrong and reject the young Earth belief?

my problem (and I think many others here) with you isn't your beliefs, but your attempts to make us believe science is the source behind your beliefs, rather than already unshakable blind faith, as demonstrated by this quote:

I'd rather believe that there's something badly wrong with these assumptions than that God is a liar.

this is not how the scientific method goes

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 10:35 PM
1. Any potential or apparent evidence against evolution, however small and perhaps even insignificant, tends to be at best ignored and at worst suppressed. The only way that some major objection to evolution would materialize in a general scientific journal would be that it gained enough traction in the scientific world to merit attention; and this is nearly impossible, since the political atmosphere of the scientific world is not dissimilar to that in this thread, i.e. it is extremely dangerous to one's professional scientific career to present anything, however innocently, that might serve as a difficult problem for the establishment ideology.


First of all, as far as this thread is concerned, Aloimeh is nearly the only one who turned his eye upon scientific fact as such (inasmuch as he actually presented and analyzed biological phenomena). Bizarrely enough, the incapable sneers of a smug majority does not serve to overturn that.


No, I do not "turn a blind eye to dating methods," but my own position is not at all relevant to the point I was making anyway.

Ah, so evolution is a conspiracy, then?

As for the second paragraph, Aloimeh made it quite clear that he will turn his eyes away from all scientific fact that relates to the age of the earth. And I don't think this is a sidetrack from the evolution debate, they go hand in hand with a Christian fundamentalist's rejetion of a young earth and thus rejection of incontrovertible scientific fact.

Too bad you think your position on age dating is irrelevant. I would like to know it.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 10:35 PM
There is really little point to continue when you say things like that. Darwin reached his conclusions on evolution by scientific observation. He reached his conclusions in spite of his faith in Biblical teaching. He could not avoid the truth of what he observed.

Wrong. Darwin had his biases as much as I have mine. He was deeply under the influence of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who had proposed many of the same ideas Darwin regurgitated later. Darwin himself admitted that if you could not take a complex organ such as the eye and derive it through a gradual series of progressively more complex structures, his theory would utterly break down.

Using that last statement as a segue into my general argument, Darwinian gradualism fails at the level of the species, the genus, and all the other taxonomic categories, as well as the organ, tissue, cell, organelle, and elementary biomolecule. Not one of these structures can be derived by gradual means because they consist of multiple mutually-interacting parts (organisms in symbiotic relationships, organs in organisms, tissues in organs, cells in tissues, organelles in cells, and biomolecules in organelles and multimeric complexes) which are encoded separately and cannot exert their function in the absence of their complementary independently-encoded array of partners.

Gagsquet
10-30-2011, 10:37 PM
Now, I utterly fail to see what any of that has to do with the portion that Grassquet quoted.

Setting aside all that might be ambiguous and swept under the rug in the bare statement "Evolution is a fact," where did I anywhere suggest that the posters in this thread erred merely by virtue of the fact that they said that Aloimeh was wrong? Likewise, where did I suggest anywhere in my previous replies to Gasquet that no reasons or argumentation are ever necessary to defend or attack any given assertion of "fact"?

Clearly, your sophisticated English is a way to hide the empty content of your post.
"Evolution is a fact" is not a bare statement, it's just the truth. It's identical to "Earth rotates around the sun". There is not half-measure.

There is really little point to continue when you say things like that. Darwin reached his conclusions on evolution by scientific observation. He reached his conclusions in spite of his faith in Biblical teaching. He could not avoid the truth of what he observed.

This. We can't discuss with a guy who says that.

shiaben
10-30-2011, 10:37 PM
Religion and evolution lol sadly, are two things that can never go together for obvious reasons.

There's also no point in fighting for one or the other because I think these types of discussions can possibly go in circles.

habibko
10-30-2011, 10:37 PM
So far you've given me 2: horses and ammonites (well, ammonites are dead). So that's just 0.000067% of living species. And I'm supposed to construct my views on this world, life, God, morality, etc. based on this?

no, you are supposed to construct them on a book that your parents told you is the word of God

Clydey
10-30-2011, 10:41 PM
Wrong. Darwin had his biases as much as I have mine. He was deeply under the influence of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who had proposed many of the same ideas Darwin regurgitated later. Darwin himself admitted that if you could not take a complex organ such as the eye and derive it through a gradual series of progressively more complex structures, his theory would utterly break down.

Using that last statement as a segue into my general argument, Darwinian gradualism fails at the level of the species, the genus, and all the other taxonomic categories, as well as the organ, tissue, cell, organelle, and elementary biomolecule. Not one of these structures can be derived by gradual means because they consist of multiple mutually-interacting parts (organisms in symbiotic relationships, organs in organisms, tissues in organs, cells in tissues, organelles in cells, and biomolecules in organelles and multimeric complexes) which are encoded separately and cannot exert their function in the absence of their complementary independently-encoded array of partners.

PhDWCujcFEY

Also, you didn't answer my last post. I asked you a question.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 10:41 PM
Clearly, your sophisticated English is a way to hide the empty content of your post.
"Evolution is a fact" is not a bare statement, it's just the truth. It's identical to "Earth rotates around the sun". There is not half-measure.

The earth revolves around the sun. It rotates about its axis. Learn a little elementary terminology before spouting your nonsense.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 10:42 PM
no, you are supposed to construct them on a book that your parents told you is the word of God

My father is an atheist. So clearly I could have chosen to follow either parent's beliefs. I chose theism and Christianity because it's the only system that makes sense to me - from the scientific perspective and the moral perspective - both of which are deeply relevant to my life.

Clydey
10-30-2011, 10:44 PM
no, you are supposed to construct them on a book that your parents told you is the word of God

How times have changed. I remember we used to argue about religion. ;)

shiaben
10-30-2011, 10:44 PM
I'm kind of confused with this discussion, where is this going?

All I can say is evolution is like a mixed bag of chocolates, you're not sure what you're going to get next. It's very mysterious like its enemy religion.

The main problem with evolution is that its mostly theory based. There's no way we can really replicate evolution.

habibko
10-30-2011, 10:46 PM
My father is an atheist. So clearly I could have chosen to follow either parent's beliefs. I chose theism and Christianity because it's the only system that makes sense to me - from the scientific perspective and the moral perspective - both of which are deeply relevant to my life.

so will answering your dating inquiries make you finally believe that the Bible is wrong and reject the young Earth belief?

Gagsquet
10-30-2011, 10:47 PM
The earth revolves around the sun. It rotates about its axis. Learn a little elementary terminology before spouting your nonsense.

:lol: criticizing details when your own theory is crumbling. A classic.

habibko
10-30-2011, 10:47 PM
How times have changed. I remember we used to argue about religion. ;)

I didn't read Dawkins and Hitchens back then, now I know better :cool:

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 10:47 PM
That's not a series, it's merely taxonomy. I'm asking for you to name the fossils that take us from the ancestor of all reptiles to the modern Galapagos iguana. Name them and point out how their morphological features transition gradually from one fossil to the next.



No, I wont. You can do that yourself with the help of Google. And such is the mountain of knowledge that it will be time-consuming.

If you can't accept the fact that the ''series'' I gave you was derived precisely from the study of fossils and their relative ages, then I wont do the work for you.
Suffice it to say that the series I gave you is time dependent, therefore not merely taxonomy. Each group evolved from the preceding group. The fossil record, going back millions of years, shows it.

Asking me to list the entire history of iguanas species by species is asking me to do something that can be researched.

But if I asked you the date that the word of God was written down, who was the man who wrote it and what was the means of communicating the words from God to man, I doubt if there is a place I could read up on that.

Clydey
10-30-2011, 10:48 PM
My father is an atheist. So clearly I could have chosen to follow either parent's beliefs. I chose theism and Christianity because it's the only system that makes sense to me - from the scientific perspective and the moral perspective - both of which are deeply relevant to my life.

No, faith is relevant to your life. It clearly permeates every aspect of it.

By starting out with a conclusion, you are destined for intellectual dishonesty. You cannot investigate the subject honestly because your position demands that you ignore everything that does not support it. You have conceded this point already.

How can anyone be expected to take you seriously when you admit that you refuse to believe anything that contradicts your views?

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 10:50 PM
The main problem with evolution is that its mostly theory based. There's no way we can really replicate evolution.

No, the confirmation of evolution is observation based. And it can be observed today in lots of organisms.

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 10:54 PM
Religion and evolution lol sadly, are two things that can never go together for obvious reasons.

There's also no point in fighting for one or the other because I think these types of discussions can possibly go in circles.

Wrong again. It is quite possible to believe that a God created the universe and then let it evolve.

habibko
10-30-2011, 10:55 PM
The fossil record, going back millions of years, shows it.

how would he look at the fossil record seriously if he refuses to even acknowledge it's millions of years old?

buddyholly
10-30-2011, 11:05 PM
how would he look at the fossil record seriously if he refuses to even acknowledge it's millions of years old?

The fact that the fossil record is scrupulous in the arrangement of each fossil in the record, with no organism ever found in a sedimentary layer that is older than its evolutionary ancestor is something that Aloimeh would probably not care to confront.

I would say that such an arrangement is undeniable proof of evolution. There is no other scientific possibility.

Seingeist
10-30-2011, 11:17 PM
Ah, so evolution is a conspiracy, then?

Come again? I made absolutely no such claim or suggestion. :confused:

Any given reigning ideology, however true or false, is usually supported by a host of personal and political interests. These interests typically serve to "strongly discourage" any elements that may challenge the reigning ideology. This is not a commentary on how scientifically well-supported evolution is or is not, or on how "honest" scientists are; it is merely a statement of how establishment ideology functions.

Surely this is not such a novel or controversial notion?


As for the second paragraph, Aloimeh made it quite clear that he will turn his eyes away from all scientific fact that relates to the age of the earth.

Impressive feat given that he was actually explicitly discussing scientific data relating to MRCA, etc. Perhaps he was typing with a blindfold on.


And I don't think this is a sidetrack from the evolution debate, they go hand in hand with a Christian fundamentalist's rejetion of a young earth and thus rejection of incontrovertible scientific fact.

But it is a "sidetrack." The argument on the table involved specific biological phenomena that evolution cannot apparently account for. Aloimeh could concede for the sake of argument that the earth is as old as you like and it would fail to have any effect on the objection at hand.

That it might enter the scope of what is appropriate in a generalized discussion of evolution does not necessarily mean that it is relevant to the specific argument or issue at hand.

peribsen
10-30-2011, 11:30 PM
So far you've given me 2: horses and ammonites (well, ammonites are dead). So that's just 0.000067% of living species. And I'm supposed to construct my views on this world, life, God, morality, etc. based on this?

I think you give away the core of your problem with evolution in that last sentence. It's not really the path through which life forms came into being that bothers you, but the menace you perceive it implies for your sense of morality and your world view.

That's a very interesting point, and I'm not going to be the one to scoff at it. It's doubtless that quite a lot of people are interested in (ab)using science as an argument for bending broader issues to their own side. The proposition that, since we all come from random mutations, everything is relative and any pretension to define a meaning for existence is hogwash, is one of those gross simplifications that seem to be in vogue these days. So I can understand your interest in defending the idea that there may be another dimension to human reality.

But it would seem you choose a very convoluted way of defending that idea, and one that is very clearly prone to failure. Because it is a choice, you know. Religion tells us that, ultimately, everything comes from God. But it's your choice to stick to a very narrow understanding of that idea, one that pretends that the how's and why's of the generation of life forms were set in black and white +3,000 years ago, in a couple of lines that are too clearly bereft of anything resembling a scientific intention. Most Christians do not share your views, most have little trouble in differentiating between an existence that is due to God's will, and the way through which the diverse froms of life came into being.

I can understand your qualms about how we interpret the meaning of what exists. I can even relate to them, even being an agnostic, since I also have doubts about some modern tendencies to oversimplify and trivialize life in many ways. But I cannot follow you in your attempt to stall the search of human reason for a closer understanding of the natural world that surrounds us, including ourselves. Because that is really what you are doing, even if inadvertently. That attitude is always -thankfully- doomed to failure.

I don't want to sound rude or insulting in any way, but is it possible that you are demanding that scriptures say more than they actually say?

Why on earth should your views on this world, life, God, morality... be threatened by the mechanism through which some of the organisms of the eukaryotic crown group acquired mytochondria while others got chloroplasts? Or through which some went on to develop chordas while others didn't? Or through which chimps share a far larger share of DNA with us than godflies?

Doesn't it sound a bit like saying that God was a goner the day we accepted that Earth rotates around the Sun? Or when we discovered that injury to certain parts of the brain cortex could derail behaviour in even the most moral of men?

Lopez
10-30-2011, 11:48 PM
Sorry for misunderstanding your previous argument Seingeist.

However, what makes this "discussion" so frustrating that Aloimeh points out some minute details which according to him are against the theory of evolution. Some of these assertions are tough to verify and even if they were true right now, they may very well be proven later as has happened many times before.

Moreover, I don't think that any intelligent person can look at a mountain of evidence against a few grains of sand that are unaccounted for right now and come to the conclusion that the mountain is smaller. You seem to have a problem with the way Aloimeh is treated and I agree that it is sometimes quite rude, on the other hand it's difficult to discuss these matters when he focuses on some of these indifferent details.

What is your view on the actual topic? Surely you are intelligent and open-minded enough in your faith that you accept evolution?

Seingeist
10-30-2011, 11:54 PM
No, "faith" is relevant to everyone's life. It clearly permeates every aspect of it.

Corrected, Clydey.

The myth of the "unbiased observer" is supposed to have long fallen by the wayside as contemporary man marches ever onward towards enlightenment. :lol: So much for that.

Do I really need to point out to you that all scientists (and human beings) have various (metaphysical) predispositions, presuppositions, assumptions, worldviews? That all scientific data is "interpreted," and that scientists necessarily interpret scientific data in light of these aforementioned (metaphysical) beliefs? That there is no such thing as a "truly" blank slate? That intellectual or scientific integrity is not a function of the worldview that one starts with?

Sure, some scientists may go further than others in over-actively resisting or approving what the data seems to suggest, but that line is most certainly not drawn between "theists" and "non-theists."

Additionally, as far as it relates to evolution and debate, your entire post was just another variation on the ad hominem fallacy that I outlined above. It is not Aloimeh that you necessarily need to "take seriously," it is the arguments or evidence, which stand on their own merits. Arguments do not derive their potency from their articulator, but from their own evidence or support.

As a point of interest, your accusation "you refuse to believe anything that contradicts your views" might justly be charged to everyone else in this thread based on what I've seen here, including yourself.

The cacophony of jeering in this thread serves as a sufficient gauge of its participants' overall "scientific/intellectual integrity."

BigJohn
10-31-2011, 12:09 AM
Perhaps it would be because people who base their opinion on scientific proof expect people who would challenge with scientific proof, not with a dissenting opinion that is shared by a minuscule minority.

What is the percentage of scientists that say carbon dating is unreliable?
What is the percentage of biologists that claim evolution does not exist?
What percentage of geologists believe the earth is 6000 years old?
How many astronomers believe the universe is 6000 years old?

Aloimeh
10-31-2011, 12:14 AM
Perhaps it would be because people who base their opinion on scientific proof expect people who would challenge with scientific proof, not with a dissenting opinion that is shared by a minuscule minority.

What is the percentage of scientists that say carbon dating is unreliable?
What is the percentage of biologists that claim evolution does not exist?
What percentage of geologists believe the earth is 6000 years old?
How many astronomers believe the universe is 6000 years old?

1.) Carbon dating is not used for the kind of dating we are talking about. It becomes totally unreliable after 60,000 years. That's off by a factor of more than 1000 from the dating of the last dinosaurs.

2.) A certain non-zero percentage. Sanford and Behe are two such biologists.

3.) Probably 0. The Bible never said the earth was 6,000 years old. That's your misreading. In Genesis the creation of the earth is not something that occurs within the six days of creation. The creative acts described in Genesis begin with an earth covered with water.

4.) Probably 0. The Bible similarly never said that the universe was 6,000 years old. As the earth is contained within the universe and the six days of creation begins with the earth already in existence, the universe is also already in existence before the six days of creation begin.

Clydey
10-31-2011, 12:20 AM
Corrected, Clydey.

The myth of the "unbiased observer" is supposed to have long fallen by the wayside as contemporary man marches ever onward towards enlightenment. :lol: So much for that.

Do I really need to point out to you that all scientists (and human beings) have various (metaphysical) predispositions, presuppositions, assumptions, worldviews? That all scientific data is "interpreted," and that scientists necessarily interpret scientific data in light of these aforementioned (metaphysical) beliefs? That there is no such thing as a "truly" blank slate? That intellectual or scientific integrity is not a function of the worldview that one starts with?

You are playing word games here. 'Interpret' suggests that all data can be interpreted in countless ways. That simply isn't the case, but let's go with that for argument's sake. That is why we have peer review.

Sure, some scientists may go further than others in over-actively resisting or approving what the data seems to suggest, but that line is most certainly not drawn between "theists" and "non-theists."

Additionally, as far as it relates to evolution and debate, your entire post was just another variation on the ad hominem fallacy that I outlined above. It is not Aloimeh that you necessarily need to "take seriously," it is the arguments or evidence, which stand on their own merits. Arguments do not derive their potency from their articulator, but from their own evidence or support.

Again, semantics. I addressed what Alomeih said, so wilfully misinterpreting the phrasing of a single sentence is nothing more than a red herring.

As a point of interest, your accusation "you refuse to believe anything that contradicts your views" might justly be charged to everyone else in this thread based on what I've seen here, including yourself.

You misunderstand, once again. I did not say that based on his views. I said that because he has admitted it. Clear?

The cacophony of jeering in this thread serves as a sufficient gauge of its participants' overall "scientific/intellectual integrity."

The 'jeering' you see is a just response to wilful ignorance.

BigJohn
10-31-2011, 12:23 AM
1.) Carbon dating is not used for the kind of dating we are talking about. It becomes totally unreliable after 60,000 years. That's off by a factor of more than 1000 from the dating of the last dinosaurs.

Sorry, radiometric age dating. Is that not how we know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old?

2.) A certain non-zero percentage. Sanford and Behe are two such biologists.

Would these two represent a minority in the scientific community?

3) and 4)


How old is the earth then?

Aloimeh
10-31-2011, 12:35 AM
Sorry, radiometric age dating. Is that not how we know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old?



Would these two represent a minority in the scientific community?



How old is the earth then?

1.) I have no idea how they came up with that number. I suppose it is.

2.) Yes they would. Jews were a minority in Hitler's Germany. What's your point?

3.) Personally, I don't know. I haven't done the experiment or cared to look at the data. It's irrelevant to my perspective on the world since i.) I have little interest in geology and ii.) it has nothing to do with the Genesis account and its spiritual and moral implications.

BigJohn
10-31-2011, 12:42 AM
1.) I have no idea how they came up with that number. I suppose it is.

Let me direct you to this little known website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

2.) Yes they would. Jews were a minority in Hitler's Germany. What's your point?


Ohlala. Not a dishonest response whatsoever. And tasteless too!

The point being if 99.9% of biologist believe evolution, bringing up the names of two guys within the .1 % really doesn't grant your position any credibility.

3.) Personally, I don't know. I haven't done the experiment or cared to look at the data. It's irrelevant to my perspective on the world since i.) I have little interest in geology and ii.) it has nothing to do with the Genesis account and its spiritual and moral implications.

But you said you believed in a young earth... how young are we talking about?

habibko
10-31-2011, 12:44 AM
The fact that the fossil record is scrupulous in the arrangement of each fossil in the record, with no organism ever found in a sedimentary layer that is older than its evolutionary ancestor is something that Aloimeh would probably not care to confront.

I would say that such an arrangement is undeniable proof of evolution. There is no other scientific possibility.

as strong a proof that is, it's not even the strongest evidence we have for evolution, it's quite amazing how science has advanced so much that we can know and study this for sure right now, the genetic pool of all living things forms a very clear family tree, there is no other way to square the massive amount of data and evidence for evolution besides believing that a malevolent creator has set out to deceive us

which is true of the God of the Bible anyway, after all a God who thought it was wise and good to order humans to stone a couple for having sex at any part of history is an evil God (Deuteronomy 22)

Seingeist
10-31-2011, 01:24 AM
Sorry for misunderstanding your previous argument Seingeist.

Not at all! I'm sorry that it was not as clear or precise as it might have been (just look at all the bitching that people are doing about the length of my posts as it is).

However, what makes this "discussion" so frustrating that Aloimeh points out some minute details which according to him are against the theory of evolution.

But I do not see how this is frustrating; is it not the whole point of debate (and intellectual curiosity)--to pose problems, objections, complications, questions--however apparently "minute" they may be?

What is frustrating is all the mockery, diversion, evasion, etc. Surely Aloimeh should be permitted to "point out some minute details," as you put it, no matter how contrary they are to the establishment ideology.

And, as it happens, I would not exactly call them "minute details," at least not in terms of potential significance. If even one biological phenomenon exists that in fact cannot be explained by the mechanisms of gradual mutation, then those mechanisms necessarily fail (at least as they are currently understood), along with everything that is built upon those mechanisms (pretty much the whole of macroevolutionary theory).

Some of these assertions are tough to verify and even if they were true right now, they may very well be proven later as has happened many times before.

Given that we do not all have an extensive education in biology, the first part of this sentence is true (in a sense). However, I suspect that even a small bit of internet research would suffice to at least discover some biological discussion of the examples that Aloimeh is talking about.

As for "may be proven later," even if that is the case, it makes for a very weak argument (Aloimeh could just as well make a blind appeal towards the future advancement of his case).

Moreover, I don't think that any intelligent person can look at a mountain of evidence against a few grains of sand that are unaccounted for right now and come to the conclusion that the mountain is smaller. You seem to have a problem with the way Aloimeh is treated and I agree that it is sometimes quite rude, on the other hand it's difficult to discuss these matters when he focuses on some of these indifferent details.

These "details" are anything but "indifferent," and I think that you quite misconstrue Aloimeh's evidence if you think so. The mountain vs. the grains of sand is not a fitting analogy, because quantity does not trump quality in the construction of a scientific theory. In other words, let's say for the sake of argument that one did indeed have a "mountain" of various evidence that seemed to support macroevolutionary theory. If one suddenly discovers a biological phenomenon that is absolutely impossible to explain with the fundamental tenets of this theory (i.e. the mechanisms of mutation), then that whole "mountain" of evidence is not enough to rescue the theory, because this one phenomenon has destroyed its most important foundational principles. At best, the latter must be suspended until it is coherently amended to account for the otherwise unexplainable phenomenon.

As for "intelligent person," that's clearly not what is at stake here. Aloimeh is indisputably intelligent, and far moreso than the majority of his interlocutors here. Indeed, many of them attempt to mask their intellectual inferiority by throwing cheap jibes from their cozy, cowardly seats within the theater of the established bullying majority.

Of course, this does not mean (nor has it ever meant) that more intelligent entails more correct. Intelligence has startlingly little to do with any given individual's worldview, as should be plain for everyone to see.

There is much that determines what we do and do not accept, and intelligence is a much smaller factor in that regard than many self-flatterers would like to believe.


What is your view on the actual topic? Surely you are intelligent and open-minded enough in your faith that you accept evolution?

See above. I utterly reject the form of your "question" because it contains blatantly wrongheaded and unjust presuppositions.

Lopez, does Aloimeh truly appear less "intelligent" and more "close-minded" to you than the people that he has been talking with in this thread?

Does the MTF evolutionist suddenly demonstrate an "open mind" by blindly following the establishment ideology without even allowing himself for one moment to question it or entertain objections? Aloimeh's opponents in this thread do not even make a remotely sincere attempt to countenance his objections. Does that strike you as the hallmark of an open mind?

Likewise, is the mark of "intelligence" to evade your opponent's arguments and sling cheap barbs instead, as the "MTF evolution squad" has done here?

If that which is on display by the majority of laughing hyenas in this thread can be fairly characterized as "open-mindedness" and "intelligence," then may I never be cursed with either.

shiaben
10-31-2011, 01:54 AM
Tomorrow I will see a similar thread: "Which religion is better?". The day after tomorrow it will be: "Atheism or Agnosticism?". A week later: "Support gay marriage or advocate against it?". These types of topics are pointless, you can't convince the other side. Evolution still isn't a fact. There are people who support some levels of science, and those that disagree with other levels of science.

Take for example within Islam, there are millions of debates among scholars on what is "wrong" and what is "right. Some scholars argue "you can eat X,Y, and Z", while other scholars argue, "you can eat X and Y only". The only way to figure out who is wrong and who is right, is through scientific research. With evolution, I guess some things maybe we can prove, while other parts of it we can't.

So if there are people on this thread that disagree with 100% evolution, 50% evolution, or believe in evolution, it's their business.

shiaben
10-31-2011, 01:57 AM
Here is a great example, one of evolution's biggest failures:

Its inability to explain homosexuality. This was one of the central weaknesses of evolution.

Aloimeh
10-31-2011, 02:18 AM
Here is a great example, one of evolution's biggest failures:

Its inability to explain homosexuality. This was one of the central weaknesses of evolution.

Believe it or not, but evolutionary psychologists (now that's something, a hybrid of two pseudosciences) have come up with an explanation.

It goes along the lines that a gay man is more likely to demonstrate the feminine nurturing tendencies that would make him a good uncle to his brother's/sister's children, and thus increase the fitness of his own children, even if he himself doesn't end up having children due to his sexual proclivities.

:haha:

Unreal, huh?