I'm not gonna lie

[GhostAnime 50]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...nceptions_faq.php#b6

 

Here's a few examples of how it's tested.

 

http://www.biology.ccsu.edu/do...ne%20and%20Polio.htm

 

Here is how evolution can be applied to medicine.

 

I still don't see what your point is yet. You can't just spout the same crap and ignore what I've offered you.

[chaney445 0]

Evolution relies on reproduction. We have a very slow rate of reproduction, thus making evolution of humans a very slow and gradual process. We look to less complex organisms with very fast rates of reproduction to witness changes.

[Mr.Dwight Howard 0]

This discussion turned into Religion versus Evolution. I think Ghost is gonna believe what he believes and everyone else has their beliefs. You don't except Christianity( or even the Bible) as real. And I don't believe in Evolution. That's what it is. Any amount of back and forth is probably not gonna change that

[chaney445 0]

It worries me that so many Americans are willfully ignorant when it comes to science. Science is the the foundation of our society. When you go to the hospital, you are relying on scientific advancements to save your life.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by Jackie Treehorn:

quote:

Originally posted by Darthmagic:

quote:

Originally posted by chaney445:

Should we teach every creation myth in human history. A science class is for teaching science, not religion. Just go take a class on religion.

 

My point is teach science. Both sides. not all people who believe in intelligent design are Christians or even religious.

 

So you're saying intelligent design is science?

 

This hasn't been answered yet, so I'm just going to take it to the next step.

 

If intelligent design is science, should it not be subject to the same scrutiny that evolution receives? Is there evidence supporting intelligent design? Are its hypotheses testable?

[GhostAnime 50]

People are turning this into an Evolution vs Christianity debate however. I am merely arguing for the validation of Evolution, and giving out answers for what may be a misconception.

 

I never originally argued against the Bible or against God. I was merely arguing in support of something. Darth was very respectable and asked honest questions. He read what I said took and whatever he could from it and went about his ways. Others have followed his lead.

 

Nobody is going to change their minds about these topics unless they were never fully committed, but I would at least try to clear up things.

[chaney445 0]

Is there any peer reviewed papers backing intelligent design?

[chaney445 0]

You can be an atheist and not believe in evolution, and there are many Christians who believe in evolution.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Um, wow. Ok, I guess I should address this monstrosity.

 

First of all, to both sides: If you're an atheist, that doesn't give you the right to act like a ******bag towards people of faith.

 

If you're a person of faith, that doesn't give you the right to act like a sanctimonious asshat.

 

If we're ever going to have rationality and tolerance, it should start with each side policing their own.

 

Second: One of the most fundamental falsehoods about Darwin is the notion that his theories relate, even tangentially, with Cosmogenesis(the origin of universal existence) or biogenesis(the origin of life). He proposed an answer to neither, and was himself a believer in God. The theory of evolution merely explains how life spread out and diversified in the time after life began. To suggest otherwise is fallacious.

 

Third, on the topic of agnosticism v. atheism: If I live to be a 1000 and the only good I ever do is rid the world of the stupidity that states that for someone to be atheist, they must believe they can definitively disprove God, I'll have lived a better life than most. I am an atheist, and I do not believe I can concretely prove no God exists. I also don't believe I can concretely prove that werewolves don't exist. What I can say, however, is that I have seen no conclusive evidence which would lead me to support the notion of a higher power. That's all being an atheist is.

 

Fourth, there is a prevalent belief that Darwin's theories are a) unchanged since he first proposed them, B) completely unproven, and c) untestable. Of those 3 points, only the latter two are even vaguely true, and both are largely based on misconceptions.

 

First of all, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is constantly, pardon me, evolving. Just as Newton's theories on calculus and astronomy, which can still provide extremely accurate predictions of stellar movements hundreds of years in advance, gave way to Einsteinian physics theories as the latter proved better suited for exploration and study of atomic particles.

 

Similarly, it isn't out of the question that one day a proposal will be made that is better suited to explain bio-diversification than Darwin's, and it will become the norm in scientific circles. Darwin's theory, or at least the more specified version of his overall theory that people refer to as "Darwinism" is merely the most logical, most thorough representation of how species(as in, multiple species) spread and diversified across the globe.

 

However, to say that no evidence of Darwin's theories exists is inaccurate. While it's true that no one holds a universe in a bauble in which macro evolution could be studied, to say no evidence exists is simply untrue. Darwin's theories lie largely in two fields: biology and archaeology, and the latter field will always rely at least somewhat on speculation, albeit speculation that must survive rigorous peer review to gain any traction at all. Indeed, calling such an idea a "theory" in scientific terms is actually the highest compliment: it means the idea has gained near-universal acceptance within the scientific community.

 

In a similar vein, that macro-evolution cannot be observed in a lab doesn't mean there is no evidence to suggest macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is based on theories of speciation, and despite what many believe and have claimed, speciation has been observed and documented scientifically: Rice and Hostert proved that by environmentally isolating 3 groups of fruit flies and forcing them to breed only with similarly environmentally isolated partners, after 35 generations those different groups of fruit flies would no longer interbreed, even if the environmental isolation was removed.

 

Another interesting(particularly because of how stupid Ray Comfort was in choosing it as his so-called "atheist's nightmare) is the well-documented evolution of the yellow banana.

 

Fifth, "survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification of what natural selection actually means. In essence, natural selection means that the individual whose characteristics lend best towards survival is most likely to pass those characteristics on to future generations. Given that we have completely accepted that this notion is true in terms of breeding of animals like race-horses, I find it remarkable that people would assume that the same logic couldn't apply to animals in the wild.

 

If a bird of paradise suffers as a species in that mating aged females are rare, then it stands to reason that a male with the most plumage, who has the highest chance to mate as a result of said plumage, has a greater chance of successfully mating, and thereby passing on his characteristics, than a male with lesser plumage.

 

Similarly, if a new predator were to emerge in that bird's environment that created a sudden need for quickness for the bird's survival, natural selection suggests that slower birds will be killed by these new predators, and the surviving birds, which will have tended to have been the fastest of the birds in the environment, will pass on THAT characteristic to their species.

 

Speciation states then that if two variations of those birds, one group that had to deal with the new predator and one who didn't, would begin passing on different characteristics to their offspring, and that, should these two groups become environmentally isolated for a long enough period of time, the combination of emphasis of different characteristics being passed on across many generations, environmental isolation, and genetic drift will cause speciation to occur, at which point interbreeding between the two groups will no longer produce offspring capable of reproducing.

 

Sixth, I'm weary of the argument regarding transitional fossils and missing links, largely because there is ample evidence of the former, and the latter is a term that has no clear definition, and as such no new piece of evidence could ever satisfy it. There are however, huge numbers of fossils that demonstrate characteristics of dislike species, with archaeopteryx being probably the most famous(for those of you who don't know, it's a bird with teeth and claws that are reminiscent of the reptiles of its day). Similarly, asking if the fossil record is complete is silly; the fossil record of the iron age isn't complete; that certainly doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from the records from that age that we have to study, and the iron age was far, far closer to modern times than most of the older fossils of extinct species.

 

Seventh, the idea of morality as disproving evolution is actually fundamentally inaccurate: evolution justifies the notion of moral assistance as being a by-product of early human evolution in which people, faced with the overwhelming challenges of a hostile, untamed planet, found that survival chances were increased by traveling in groups; as such, a person who refused to help out another member of the group who needed assistance was more likely to find themselves alone, and thereby more likely to be killed by predators or by the environment they faced. Similarly, individuals who did not possess what social abilities were necessary to interact and maintain relations with a group were summarily cast out, and found themselves in a similar situation of facing a hostile environment alone. In either case, the individual who is ill-suited for entering and supporting the group is more likely to die, and thereby not pass on his characteristics to the next generation, than the individual who can maintain a presence in such a group.

 

That those same tendencies and abilities no longer serve the same function doesn't mean they would automatically disappear, provided that those abilities were still beneficial. In this case, they are beneficial not only because they better the people around them, but because such characteristics are desirable amongst the species because they are beneficial in both the raising and protecting of young children, making them ideal traits for parents.

 

I'm sure I left out other things. Oh well.

[GhostAnime 50]

Um.. thanks.. I guess.

[Darthmagic 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

Um, wow. Ok, I guess I should address this monstrosity.

 

First of all, to both sides: If you're an atheist, that doesn't give you the right to act like a ******bag towards people of faith.

 

If you're a person of faith, that doesn't give you the right to act like a sanctimonious asshat.

 

If we're ever going to have rationality and tolerance, it should start with each side policing their own.

 

Second: One of the most fundamental falsehoods about Darwin is the notion that his theories relate, even tangentially, with Cosmogenesis(the origin of universal existence) or biogenesis(the origin of life). He proposed an answer to neither, and was himself a believer in God. The theory of evolution merely explains how life spread out and diversified in the time after life began. To suggest otherwise is fallacious.

 

Third, on the topic of agnosticism v. atheism: If I live to be a 1000 and the only good I ever do is rid the world of the stupidity that states that for someone to be atheist, they must believe they can definitively disprove God, I'll have lived a better life than most. I am an atheist, and I do not believe I can concretely prove no God exists. I also don't believe I can concretely prove that werewolves don't exist. What I can say, however, is that I have seen no conclusive evidence which would lead me to support the notion of a higher power. That's all being an atheist is.

 

Fourth, there is a prevalent belief that Darwin's theories are a) unchanged since he first proposed them, B) completely unproven, and c) untestable. Of those 3 points, only the latter two are even vaguely true, and both are largely based on misconceptions.

 

First of all, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is constantly, pardon me, evolving. Just as Newton's theories on calculus and astronomy, which can still provide extremely accurate predictions of stellar movements hundreds of years in advance, gave way to Einsteinian physics theories as the latter proved better suited for exploration and study of atomic particles.

 

Similarly, it isn't out of the question that one day a proposal will be made that is better suited to explain bio-diversification than Darwin's, and it will become the norm in scientific circles. Darwin's theory, or at least the more specified version of his overall theory that people refer to as "Darwinism" is merely the most logical, most thorough representation of how species(as in, multiple species) spread and diversified across the globe.

 

However, to say that no evidence of Darwin's theories exists is inaccurate. While it's true that no one holds a universe in a bauble in which macro evolution could be studied, to say no evidence exists is simply untrue. Darwin's theories lie largely in two fields: biology and archaeology, and the latter field will always rely at least somewhat on speculation, albeit speculation that must survive rigorous peer review to gain any traction at all. Indeed, calling such an idea a "theory" in scientific terms is actually the highest compliment: it means the idea has gained near-universal acceptance within the scientific community.

 

In a similar vein, that macro-evolution cannot be observed in a lab doesn't mean there is no evidence to suggest macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is based on theories of speciation, and despite what many believe and have claimed, speciation has been observed and documented scientifically: Rice and Hostert proved that by environmentally isolating 3 groups of fruit flies and forcing them to breed only with similarly environmentally isolated partners, after 35 generations those different groups of fruit flies would no longer interbreed, even if the environmental isolation was removed.

 

Another interesting(particularly because of how stupid Ray Comfort was in choosing it as his so-called "atheist's nightmare) is the well-documented evolution of the yellow banana.

 

Fifth, "survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification of what natural selection actually means. In essence, natural selection means that the individual whose characteristics lend best towards survival is most likely to pass those characteristics on to future generations. Given that we have completely accepted that this notion is true in terms of breeding of animals like race-horses, I find it remarkable that people would assume that the same logic couldn't apply to animals in the wild.

 

If a bird of paradise suffers as a species in that mating aged females are rare, then it stands to reason that a male with the most plumage, who has the highest chance to mate as a result of said plumage, has a greater chance of successfully mating, and thereby passing on his characteristics, than a male with lesser plumage.

 

Similarly, if a new predator were to emerge in that bird's environment that created a sudden need for quickness for the bird's survival, natural selection suggests that slower birds will be killed by these new predators, and the surviving birds, which will have tended to have been the fastest of the birds in the environment, will pass on THAT characteristic to their species.

 

Speciation states then that if two variations of those birds, one group that had to deal with the new predator and one who didn't, would begin passing on different characteristics to their offspring, and that, should these two groups become environmentally isolated for a long enough period of time, the combination of emphasis of different characteristics being passed on across many generations, environmental isolation, and genetic drift will cause speciation to occur, at which point interbreeding between the two groups will no longer produce offspring capable of reproducing.

 

Sixth, I'm weary of the argument regarding transitional fossils and missing links, largely because there is ample evidence of the former, and the latter is a term that has no clear definition, and as such no new piece of evidence could ever satisfy it. There are however, huge numbers of fossils that demonstrate characteristics of dislike species, with archaeopteryx being probably the most famous(for those of you who don't know, it's a bird with teeth and claws that are reminiscent of the reptiles of its day). Similarly, asking if the fossil record is complete is silly; the fossil record of the iron age isn't complete; that certainly doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from the records from that age that we have to study, and the iron age was far, far closer to modern times than most of the older fossils of extinct species.

 

Seventh, the idea of morality as disproving evolution is actually fundamentally inaccurate: evolution justifies the notion of moral assistance as being a by-product of early human evolution in which people, faced with the overwhelming challenges of a hostile, untamed planet, found that survival chances were increased by traveling in groups; as such, a person who refused to help out another member of the group who needed assistance was more likely to find themselves alone, and thereby more likely to be killed by predators or by the environment they faced. Similarly, individuals who did not possess what social abilities were necessary to interact and maintain relations with a group were summarily cast out, and found themselves in a similar situation of facing a hostile environment alone. In either case, the individual who is ill-suited for entering and supporting the group is more likely to die, and thereby not pass on his characteristics to the next generation, than the individual who can maintain a presence in such a group.

 

That those same tendencies and abilities no longer serve the same function doesn't mean they would automatically disappear, provided that those abilities were still beneficial. In this case, they are beneficial not only because they better the people around them, but because such characteristics are desirable amongst the species because they are beneficial in both the raising and protecting of young children, making them ideal traits for parents.

 

I'm sure I left out other things. Oh well.

 

Wow, where do i begin to address this monstrosity

[Darthmagic 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Darthmagic:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

Um, wow. Ok, I guess I should address this monstrosity.

 

First of all, to both sides: If you're an atheist, that doesn't give you the right to act like a ******bag towards people of faith.

 

If you're a person of faith, that doesn't give you the right to act like a sanctimonious asshat.

 

If we're ever going to have rationality and tolerance, it should start with each side policing their own.

 

Second: One of the most fundamental falsehoods about Darwin is the notion that his theories relate, even tangentially, with Cosmogenesis(the origin of universal existence) or biogenesis(the origin of life). He proposed an answer to neither, and was himself a believer in God. The theory of evolution merely explains how life spread out and diversified in the time after life began. To suggest otherwise is fallacious.

 

Third, on the topic of agnosticism v. atheism: If I live to be a 1000 and the only good I ever do is rid the world of the stupidity that states that for someone to be atheist, they must believe they can definitively disprove God, I'll have lived a better life than most. I am an atheist, and I do not believe I can concretely prove no God exists. I also don't believe I can concretely prove that werewolves don't exist. What I can say, however, is that I have seen no conclusive evidence which would lead me to support the notion of a higher power. That's all being an atheist is.

 

Fourth, there is a prevalent belief that Darwin's theories are a) unchanged since he first proposed them, B) completely unproven, and c) untestable. Of those 3 points, only the latter two are even vaguely true, and both are largely based on misconceptions.

 

First of all, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is constantly, pardon me, evolving. Just as Newton's theories on calculus and astronomy, which can still provide extremely accurate predictions of stellar movements hundreds of years in advance, gave way to Einsteinian physics theories as the latter proved better suited for exploration and study of atomic particles.

 

Similarly, it isn't out of the question that one day a proposal will be made that is better suited to explain bio-diversification than Darwin's, and it will become the norm in scientific circles. Darwin's theory, or at least the more specified version of his overall theory that people refer to as "Darwinism" is merely the most logical, most thorough representation of how species(as in, multiple species) spread and diversified across the globe.

 

However, to say that no evidence of Darwin's theories exists is inaccurate. While it's true that no one holds a universe in a bauble in which macro evolution could be studied, to say no evidence exists is simply untrue. Darwin's theories lie largely in two fields: biology and archaeology, and the latter field will always rely at least somewhat on speculation, albeit speculation that must survive rigorous peer review to gain any traction at all. Indeed, calling such an idea a "theory" in scientific terms is actually the highest compliment: it means the idea has gained near-universal acceptance within the scientific community.

 

In a similar vein, that macro-evolution cannot be observed in a lab doesn't mean there is no evidence to suggest macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is based on theories of speciation, and despite what many believe and have claimed, speciation has been observed and documented scientifically: Rice and Hostert proved that by environmentally isolating 3 groups of fruit flies and forcing them to breed only with similarly environmentally isolated partners, after 35 generations those different groups of fruit flies would no longer interbreed, even if the environmental isolation was removed.

 

Another interesting(particularly because of how stupid Ray Comfort was in choosing it as his so-called "atheist's nightmare) is the well-documented evolution of the yellow banana.

 

Fifth, "survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification of what natural selection actually means. In essence, natural selection means that the individual whose characteristics lend best towards survival is most likely to pass those characteristics on to future generations. Given that we have completely accepted that this notion is true in terms of breeding of animals like race-horses, I find it remarkable that people would assume that the same logic couldn't apply to animals in the wild.

 

If a bird of paradise suffers as a species in that mating aged females are rare, then it stands to reason that a male with the most plumage, who has the highest chance to mate as a result of said plumage, has a greater chance of successfully mating, and thereby passing on his characteristics, than a male with lesser plumage.

 

Similarly, if a new predator were to emerge in that bird's environment that created a sudden need for quickness for the bird's survival, natural selection suggests that slower birds will be killed by these new predators, and the surviving birds, which will have tended to have been the fastest of the birds in the environment, will pass on THAT characteristic to their species.

 

Speciation states then that if two variations of those birds, one group that had to deal with the new predator and one who didn't, would begin passing on different characteristics to their offspring, and that, should these two groups become environmentally isolated for a long enough period of time, the combination of emphasis of different characteristics being passed on across many generations, environmental isolation, and genetic drift will cause speciation to occur, at which point interbreeding between the two groups will no longer produce offspring capable of reproducing.

 

Sixth, I'm weary of the argument regarding transitional fossils and missing links, largely because there is ample evidence of the former, and the latter is a term that has no clear definition, and as such no new piece of evidence could ever satisfy it. There are however, huge numbers of fossils that demonstrate characteristics of dislike species, with archaeopteryx being probably the most famous(for those of you who don't know, it's a bird with teeth and claws that are reminiscent of the reptiles of its day). Similarly, asking if the fossil record is complete is silly; the fossil record of the iron age isn't complete; that certainly doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from the records from that age that we have to study, and the iron age was far, far closer to modern times than most of the older fossils of extinct species.

 

Seventh, the idea of morality as disproving evolution is actually fundamentally inaccurate: evolution justifies the notion of moral assistance as being a by-product of early human evolution in which people, faced with the overwhelming challenges of a hostile, untamed planet, found that survival chances were increased by traveling in groups; as such, a person who refused to help out another member of the group who needed assistance was more likely to find themselves alone, and thereby more likely to be killed by predators or by the environment they faced. Similarly, individuals who did not possess what social abilities were necessary to interact and maintain relations with a group were summarily cast out, and found themselves in a similar situation of facing a hostile environment alone. In either case, the individual who is ill-suited for entering and supporting the group is more likely to die, and thereby not pass on his characteristics to the next generation, than the individual who can maintain a presence in such a group.

 

That those same tendencies and abilities no longer serve the same function doesn't mean they would automatically disappear, provided that those abilities were still beneficial. In this case, they are beneficial not only because they better the people around them, but because such characteristics are desirable amongst the species because they are beneficial in both the raising and protecting of young children, making them ideal traits for parents.

 

I'm sure I left out other things. Oh well.

 

Wow, where do i begin to address this monstrosity

 

 

After all you posted, which is a considerable amount; this is what i'd like to talk about. The issue facing evolution and how it impacts faith. After developing his theory Darwin had this to say.