# Intelligent Design



## The Lorax (Feb 12, 2006)

Does anyone here support it?  I'm interested in what it is they want to teach, from what I've heard it's just another version of creationism, but I could be wrong.  I'm a student at a science school so there is absolutely no argument for it here and I know very little about it.  I do however have a very strong belief in evolution, but i will do my best to be unbiased.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 12, 2006)

Honestly, it's been several years since I was in school (non-martial arts school anyway), so I really don't know about the "official" theory being over-viewed in some educational systems, but from what I "THINK" I know of it, I do support it. 
PM me if you want to know why or what I think about it. 
Only reason I don't post it here, it's my own personal belief and there are many that would Love to pounce on a subject like this, but if you'd really like to discuss it, we could send E-mails back and forth.

Your Brother
John


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 12, 2006)

I believe in organic selection, not intelligent design.

It has been pretty well-established that proponents of the intelligent design movement are just re-labeling creationism with a more "scientific" sounding platform in order to get it pushed into public schools. This was why the theory was recently shot down by a Republican judge in Kansas (I think?).

In any event, there is no scientific grounding for the theory. It is sheer speculative metaphysics.

Laterz.


----------



## Xequat (Feb 12, 2006)

This is the best theory of ID I've seen so far...

www.venganza.com

Actually, I don't really care that much.  I think that evolutionary theories should be taught in science classes and ID should be taught in philosophy or religion classes, but neither should be banned altogether, even though ID could conceivably be ignored, just like Swahili language classes...you can't teach everything.  Leave it up to local and state governments, but definitely not federal.  I do think that since empirical and factual evidence support evolution, that should be taught until it's no longer theory, but fact, or it is disproven altogether by the truth or more facts and then that should be taught.  Keep science classes scientific.  Let the family and/or church teach about ID, or the school if the locality prefers it that way, but do not only teach ID w/o teaching evolution.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

There was a federal court in Pennsylvania that recently ruled that Intelligent Design was relabeled Creationism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/


&#8220;breathtaking inanity&#8221;
&#8220;is a religious view"
"a mere re-labeling of creationism"
"not a scientific theory"
Legally, in Pennsylvania at least, Intelligent Design is a fairy tale.

More significantly, on the last election day in this little Pennsylvania town, *all* of the school committee members who voted to include ID in the curriculum were significantly defeated and replaced by people whose position was against ID in the classroom. It seems the majority of parents in Dover, PA want their children to learn science.

P.S. xequat, in science, theories do not move to fact, they move to law. There are many facts that support the theory of evolution. If, someday, we accumulate enough data to prove the theory, it would become the law of evolution. You are correct in assuming if a more viable hypothesis was to arise, the theory of evolution would fall out of favor. Incidently, I think, there is very little room in science for the term 'truth'; a term you used. 'Truth' is a human construct.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

Intelligent design has nothing to do with science.  It's about the 'why' of the universe, science is about the how.  'Why' is a philosophical and religious question, and intelligent design is better reserved for highschool classes on philosophy and religion.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There was a federal court in Pennsylvania that recently ruled that Intelligent Design was relabeled Creationism.


 
Ah. It was Pennsylvania, not Kansas. My mistake.

On a somewhat related note, the Vatican recently published a statement pertaining to this subject. It seems that, according to the Roman Catholic Church (the largest body of Christians in the world), intelligent design ain't science:

Vatican Newspaper Denounces Intelligent Design

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ah. It was Pennsylvania, not Kansas. My mistake.


 
Well, Kansas has its own issues. The Dover ruling will probably have a big effect on what happens in Kansas.

The Kansas State Board of Education controversy is about changing the definition of science. 



> 2001 Definition: &#8220;Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us.&#8221;
> 
> 2005 Definition:​​_&#8220;Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.&#8221; [The definition continues for two more paragraphs that increase, rather than decrease the scientific rigor of this concept.]_​




The 2005 definition removes the word 'natural', opening the door to 'supernatural explanations' for what we observe around us. Obviously, if something is supernatural, it is not science. ​


----------



## still learning (Feb 13, 2006)

Hello, If it was really true?  Wouldn't the rest of the world be teaching it too?  

Man need to believe in a GOD....it helps guide us...

NO one has proof Jesus is real.   But the belief can be.........

Almost every group of people has some kind of belief/god or gods. They feel is real!  From small amazon tribes to whole  world religions.

Religions are design to rule people...guide them..help them in there lives...

Is there a RIGHT ONE?  ...and the rest got it wrong?......Aloha


----------



## Ray (Feb 13, 2006)

I sure wished my own carepentry (and other) projects exhibited Intelligent Design.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 13, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> I sure wished my own carepentry (and other) projects exhibited Intelligent Design.


 

ROTFLMAO!


----------



## The Lorax (Feb 13, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Honestly, it's been several years since I was in school (non-martial arts school anyway), so I really don't know about the "official" theory being over-viewed in some educational systems, but from what I "THINK" I know of it, I do support it.
> PM me if you want to know why or what I think about it.
> Only reason I don't post it here, it's my own personal belief and there are many that would Love to pounce on a subject like this, but if you'd really like to discuss it, we could send E-mails back and forth.
> 
> ...



I tried to PM you but it said you couldnt except anymore.  I understand your not wanting to post it here.  I dont want to start an arguement, I just wanted to here the other side of the debate.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

The New York Times has an article today on the State of Ohio, and its endeavors into the world of Intelligent Design.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/education/14evolution.html

Several years ago, Ohio added to its curriculum the idea of "critical analysis", whereby the ideas of Intelligent Design (homology, embosymbiosis) were introduced into a written lesson plan. 

There is growing pressure in the state to remove the 'critical analysis' component of the lesson plan, as it is viewed as 'Intelligent Design', relabeled.


----------



## tradrockrat (Feb 15, 2006)

Well, as a teacher, I'm pretty talked out about this, so I'll just post this.  Intellegent design does not meet _*one single criterion*_ for inclusion in a science class / course.  Not one.  Call it whatever you want, it is not science.


----------



## michaeledward (May 20, 2006)

One of the arguments among the ID folks is there are no transitory fossil records. 

Well, they just found one .... alive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12875772/



> PARIS - French scientists who explored the Coral Sea said Friday they discovered a new species of crustacean that was thought to have become extinct 60 million years ago.
> The "living fossil," a female designated Neoglyphea neocaledonica, was discovered 1,312 feet (400 meters) under water during an expedition in the Chesterfield Islands, northwest of New Caledonia, the National Museum of Natural History and the Research Institute for Development said in a statement.


 
Too Cool


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 20, 2006)

Science is the study of the natural world.  Intelligent design presumes the supernatural.  It isn't science, and ought not be taught in science class. It posits no testable hypothesis.

If someone wants to teach that God created the universe (and that's all this is, thinly veiled creationism), then they ought to feel free to do so in their churches.

However; if schools want to teach creation theories in a comparative mythology/religion class, why not?  PROVIDED they give equal time to every religion and myth.  No special pleading, no favoritism.

I say that in spite of my bias.  

For in the beginning, thawing ice water grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir... and from the sweat of his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres.

The thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir.

The cow licked salty ice blocks. After one day of licking, she freed a man's hair from the ice. After two days, his head appeared. On the third day the whole man was there. His name was Buri, and he was tall, strong, and handsome.

The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson says it, I believe it, and that settles it!


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Kacey (May 21, 2006)

I agree with Steve (hardheadjarhead) - if it's a science class, teach science concepts, not religious ones; likewise, in a religion or mythology class, teach religion or mythology - not science.  

I have my own opinion on this issue, which does not change the concern I have with religious groups dictating curriculum to the public school system; there are other times and places in which similar issues arise, especially around the health curriculum (sex ed being the primary problem topic).  If you don't want your child exposed to a certain curriculum, then inform the school and alternate work will provided while that section of the curriculum is being covered - but that, of course, would require that the parents attend to the daily work being given to their children, rather than attempting to control the information being provided to the entire student body... which is a discussion for a different thread, I think.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 18, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> One of the arguments among the ID folks is there are no transitory fossil records.
> 
> Well, they just found one .... alive.
> 
> ...


 
I wonder if they taste good broiled?
That was obviously a plant from satan.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 18, 2006)

_ It posits no testable hypothesis._

For the sake of argument (dare I say, "Devil's Advocate"?), neither does evolution.  : )


----------



## Dionysianexile (Jun 21, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _ It posits no testable hypothesis._
> 
> For the sake of argument (dare I say, "Devil's Advocate"?), neither does evolution.  : )



Except, you know, it does.

Traits are passed on to future generations.  A mechanism (either sexual, environmental, etc...) selects for particular traits, which will inevitably cause those who have said traits to be more likely to create offspring.  After several generations, evolution begins to take shape with those traits that were selected for showing up in larger proportion in future generations.

This is completely testable.  Take something with a short lifespan, be it bug or plant, and then start selecting for a trait.  Watch as you force evolution.  The same thing has been done for centuries with dog breeding.


----------



## Phadrus00 (Jun 21, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _ It posits no testable hypothesis._
> 
> For the sake of argument (dare I say, "Devil's Advocate"?), neither does evolution. : )


 
May I counter to say that it does..Absolutely.

We can see evolution in action among insect populations that devlop resistance to pesticides over generations.  We see it in bactieria and viruses that develop new strains.  We are on the edge of our collective seats over the Bird Flu because we know that the forces of evolution are pushing that virus in many random directions and some of them will be very hazardous to us.  

Evolution works at a lot of different speeds, some very slow, some very fast but it clearly DOES WORK and the hypotheses of Natural Selection are testable and verifyable.  As a matter of fac they have spawned whole new branches of Computer Science where programs are developed using "Genetic Algorythms".  Small sequences of code are allowed to mingle and exchange sequences and then each generation is culled, selecting favorable traits towards a larger goal (sorting efficientcy for example).  Over many generations programs emerge that perform the task better than any current heurtistic or algorythm.  

Do we understand how we can get entropy to seemingly work in reverse and move from a lower cohesive state to a higher one..  Not yet, but we can certainly show that it happens.

Rob


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2006)

First off, _for the time being_, Intelligent Design, is not a theory. 

Unfortunately, its touted as such, and I think thats too bad-its lent impetus to all sorts of crazy stuff like museums that espouse the idea of a young earth and depict man coexisting with dinosaurs by way of explanation. 

What it is-or could be-and here I am explaining things in the same way that I do for my mom the shrink-is a _postulate_. A postulate, for those of you who dont know, is an assumed truth, or a claim-in mathematics and science, its an initial basis for a theory, not the theory itself-which must, after all, be disprovable.  

The word *I* like to use to define a postulate, when speaking to my mom, or most of you, is _suggestion_. 

At any rate, somehow the idea has come up-that there is an inherent contradiction between faith and science-that the religious are not scientific, and that scientists are not religious. Both, of course, are simply not true. Many religious people know that the theory of evolution is probably true and trust science in general, and, as I also pointed elsewhere, many scientists are religious. 

The contradiction is when, as in the case of how ID is _used_-you try to mix the two. 

It is not, and, _for the time being_ cannot be the place of any science to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, god, Creator, giant foot from another dimension, or even little pink bunnies on the *moon*. 

There was, of course, once a time when there was no DNA testing, and we didnt even know what DNA was-and, just as those things came to be, there may come a time when science can prove or disprove, once and for all, the existence of such a being.  

_For the time being,_ however all anyone-scientist, person of faith, or Bible-thumping whack-job-can do is _suggest_ the notion-its not disprovable (or, for that matter, in any way _provable_), so its not a theory, and pretty clearly has no place in a science class.  

So whats it good for? 

Well, thats sort of like asking why the sky is blue. Really. 

Now, the short, religious answer is because God wants it that way. 

And the scientific answer is Rayleigh scattering- look it up, Im not going to bother explaining;trust me, or look here ; its Rayleigh scattering. 

If Rayleigh had left it, as people of his time were wont to do, at because God ..whatever, well, it would be called something or other else scattering, because someone would have figured it out, but thats not the point. The point is that for the religious person, evolution, Rayleigh scattering, X-rays, gravity _ad infinitum, ad nauseum_ can be thought of (suggested to be, _postulated_) the mechanisms by which the (equally _postulated_) creator/God/giant foot/supreme being fostered and fosters the creation-part of his grand design. 

"Grand design," some of you might say-what about the end of life of the sun, what about the human bodies faults, what about sex-what (and this one is one of my favorite pet peeves) about *goddamn knees?* 

(As a side note, at times Im certain that knees were an afterthought-or a cruel joke on His part.) 

As an engineer, I have to say that all of those things are often part of a good design-design life, inherent instabilities for various purposes, etc. 
And many of us, myself included, are living a bit past our functional design life, which, for an organism is the time it takes to rear offspring-for humans, maybe 40 years.  

If the sun burning out bugs you, or your knees bug you-let it go, or blame god-or evolution, I dont care, and it doesn't prove or disprove the Master Architect to be competent or incompetent-if there is such a being, we only can begin to comprehend his/her/its thoughts when we completely comprehend his creation-*and we've got a loong way to go*. 

If there was a _plan_ to all of this-its beyond our pea brains, and we have to make our own plans and trust-on *faith*-that theyre part of the design. 

At any rate-these are things that make an excellent metaphysical conversation, or theological debate, but they do nothing to serve science, and _for the time being_ science cannot serve them. 

Incidentally, some serious scientists are making up amino soup combinations and exposing them to various stimuli right now-they'll create life (that everyone can agree is life) sooner or later-doesn't make _them_ god, and doesn't prove there isn't one-just will prove that god isn't necessarily necessary-and, misuse of Ockham's Razor notwithstanding, that doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist. 

As far as statistics go-Im no statistician, and dont really care-having had to take the same damn courses in statistics nearly a half-dozen times (what is *up* with that? Had to take it for the baccalaureates, had to take it for the masters, had to take it for the Ph.D. and its the same damn stuff every time-sometimes (twice) even the same damn book. Screw statistics.) I can say that theyre a useful tool, and, like any tool, completely manipulable. And, while statistics is a tool it is also a science, and, as Ive said before-and elsewhere-it is not, and cannot be (_for the time being_) the place of science to prove or disprove the existence of-well, you get the picture...............


----------



## jazkiljok (Jun 21, 2006)

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,

That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see are moving at a million miles a day

In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour, Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars. It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.

It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick, But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point. We go 'round every two hundred million years, 

And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions in this amazing and expanding universe

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whiz

As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 

'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.



               Eric Idle, "the galaxy song"


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 21, 2006)

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.  It is also impossible to prove and it actually defies science.
Biological Science tells us that life can only come from pre-exisiting life.
But the same science tries to tell us that at one time there was nothing.  That nothing exploded and created a universe and the first life which in turn evolved into other living creatures, then into the first man and then evolution stopped.
To me, it takes a lot more faith to believe that than to believe God designed and created all life.

If you look at the complexity of the human body and how inteligently and efficient it works, it is hard for me to imagine that it was just a random accident.

If it were not for an inteligent design, the first life form would have died before it lived long enough to evolve into anything else.

I read an article that was written by a Pastor who was a Dentist and had a degree in Biology.  In the article he addresses inteligent design and used the example of the giraffe.

The giraffe has a very long neck to be able to reach up into the trees to get the leaves he eats.  When he puts his head down to drink water a lot of blood rushes down his neck towards his head.  If all that blood made it to his head, he would die.  To avoid dying while getting a drink of water, there's a little valve in his neck that prevents the blood from just rushig to his head.  Then when he lifts his head up, the valve releases again. 
This is inteligent design.  Without the valve, the first giraffe would have died and there would be no more.

So either the first giraffe knew he needed the valve and conciously grew it, or the creator of the giraffe knew he would need the valve and put it in there.  This is inteligent design - giving different creatures different forms and building into them the features that they would need to survive.

The word of God tells us that God created Man and Woman, Adam and Eve.  We also know from reading that they were never children.  They were created as adults.  We also know from reading that there were plants and animals there for them to eat.  The only safe assumption is that these plants and animals were also mature.  If not, there would have been nothing for them to eat.  They could not go hungry waiting for plants and animals to mature.  

God created the earth in a mature form.  He then created all the plants, animals and man, making sure that each had what it needed to survive.

He created the human body with a heart, a ciculatory system, lungs, stomache, kidneys, brain, nervous system, etc.  And they all worked flawlessly together from the start.  Again, if not, the first humans would have died and there would be no more.  There was an obvious inteligence behind the creation of the first man and woman.


----------



## John Brewer (Jun 21, 2006)

Science and the laws of thermodynamics claim that the universe is in a constant state of decay. Yet we are incrementally becoming better through the process of evolution? If we are becoming better why do we still have the same problems that have plagued mankind forever? If we have been evolving for the millions or billions of years claimed (incrementally) where are the millions and billions of fossil records that would be required? I think that man has the same problems as he did in the beginning, Sin. 

Jesus:
Lunatic
Liar
LORD

You Choose


----------



## pstarr (Jun 21, 2006)

Thermodynamics tells us that any system put in motion will begin to decay.  The same science tells us that we're actually getting better with time...?

No, I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in intelligent design.  Dr. Leaky was asked about this and he agreed that evolution, per se, is actually a form of religion itself.  However, he stated that he would not believe in a supreme being because he just couldn't stand the thought of the existence of such a being...he preferred to believe in that which he admitted is unprovable and unlikely...


----------



## Adept (Jun 22, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.  It is also impossible to prove and it actually defies science.
> Biological Science tells us that life can only come from pre-exisiting life.
> But the same science tries to tell us that at one time there was nothing. That nothing exploded and created a universe and the first life which in turn evolved into other living creatures, then into the first man and then evolution stopped.



Please seek out your educational institute. They have a lot to answer for.


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 22, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> Please seek out your educational institute. They have a lot to answer for.


 
I'm not sure what you are attempting to say.  
I'm assuming you are a product of the same failed public education system that pushes the "theory" of evolution as though it were fact.  If it were fact it would surely be proven by now.  The problem is that they get further and further from proving it as time goes by.

These "scientists" are so hell-bent on "proving" evolution they even have to fake things to support thier ideas. Here's just 1 example.  And there are many more.

There was another time out in Nebraska where a group of people claiming to be researchers found a tooth durig a dig.  They claimed that tooth was from an early human and from that tooth they drew pictures of what this man, his wife and even children looked like.  The built a model of the the village they lived in and described what kind of diet they ate.  They said this proved eveolution.  Then it was discovered that the tooth was from a wild pig.

These "researchers" go around digging things up.  They find an old bone somewhere and later on find another bone 5 miles away.  They then claim that they found skelatal remains that "prove evolution".  But seprate bones are not proof of anything, other than the desperate need for people to "prove evolution" at any cost.

If they ever turn up a skeleton of an animal that's 1/2 fish and 1/2 money then find another skeleton that's 1/2 monkey and 1/2 man, then I might look further into this. 

There is a reason why even Darwin himself abandoned the theory.  He understood that it could never be proven.

If it can't be proven it should not be taught in schools as though it has been.  That is just academic fraud.

It takes a lot of faith to believe in God and that he created man.
But in looking at the scientific evidence, it takes more faith to believe in evolution.  At that, it is a misplaced faith in people who use "evolution" as a means to persue personal and political agendas, which historically include a specific anti-Christian agenda.  I see very few articles on evolution that do not devote a few sentences to spewing anti-Christian hatred.  When the agenda is so blatant, it casts great doubt on the validity of thier "research".

In looking at the science, Creationism is a far more rational thought than evolution.  Yet, people cling to the very same science that defies that defies "the big bang theory" and evolution and say that it is proof.  That is insanity.


----------



## Dionysianexile (Jun 22, 2006)

Evolution is not just a theory, it is a law, just like gravity is a law of physics, evolution is a law of biology.  It has been shown, demonstrated, and proven time and time again.

Evolution is not something that occurs "randomly" or "accidentally".  Evolution occurs purposefully, with direction.  Evolution works by selecting for traits that lead to successful survival and reproduction.  

As for the giraffe, the little flap that blocks the blood most likely didnt evolve overnight, because thats not how it works.  Same with the length of the neck, these were things that were probably starting to evolve along with the ancestors of the giraffe. More than likely, earlier giraffe's had shorter necks, and when they bent down to drink, blood did rush to their heads.  But some giraffe's had a small peice of flesh that slowed this flow, and they were allowed to drink longer because of this, making them "better" giraffes.  This peice of flesh was "selected" for, and over time the more it was selected for, the more it grew in future generations, as did the length of the neck, until you have what we see now as the modern giraffe.

This is basic evolution, traits are selected for and passed onto future generations, it happens with man as well.  Evolution did not stop with man, it continued on, that is how we have the different skin tones. Evolution is not a process that stopped with man, man is still evolving, as is every other animal.  

The beliefe of a higher being, especially in the christian sense does not require one to exclude evolution, just as evolution does not require one to dismiss the notion of a higher being.  What evolution and science does require s that one takes certain biblical stories and understand them to be religious myth, and not factual accounts of what has happened.

Science as a whole has not dismissed the notion of a higher being, it merely has not uncovered evidence thereof.

--------------


I have never heard of this pigs tooth story, and i wouldnt call it proof of evolution either.

Evolution is something that acts on all living organisms, man included.  It seems that ID places man above the animals, a _scala natirae _of modern sorts.

Your tooth story, however, does not debunk evolution, but does show a bad researcher making poor choices.  It is true that the complete evolutionary history of man is unknown.  This is because the fossil record is highly incomplete, for every several hundreds of thousands of a member of species, we may have one fossil.  this doesnt mean that evolution doesnt occur, just that the fossil record is incomplete.

You say that darwin abandoned his own theory, where does he do this?  Darwin aknowledged the repercussions that his theory would have, but at the same time, he whole heartedly believed in evolution.  He knew it occured, but when he first postulated it, he didnt know by what mechanism it acted.  Darwin knew evolution happed, and had seen its consequences first hand when he observed the now famous finches in the galapagos.

You say that much of the research published on evolution bashes christianity.  Much of what Ive read makes little if no comment about religion, unless that is one of the subjects at hand.  Most scholarly journals would reject a paper that showed such a blatent "anti-christian agenda."

Where is science defying evolution?  I wont touch on big bang, because frankly, that is not an area that I study.

My personal belief?  I cannot say what is out there, I will claim agnosticism.  I believe it is illogical to choose a side at this time, a time in which i have not seen any good, solid, empirical data to sway me in either direction.


----------



## Adept (Jun 22, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you are attempting to say.
> I'm assuming you are a product of the same failed public education system that pushes the "theory" of evolution as though it were fact. If it were fact it would surely be proven by now.



It is, and it has been. Hell, I caused a group of flies to evolve during the course of my senior year at high school, as part of my biology class. It isn't rocket science.

Ever heard of penicillin resistant bacteria? The product of evolution. Chocolate labradors? Evolution. Brightly goloured guppies? Evolution. Evolution occurs, full stop.

The only question is, is evolution responsible for the biological diversity we see today?

When literal creationism, or even intelligent design is offered up as the alternative, one has to give the balance of probabilities to evolution.

For the sake of argument, lets try a little experiment. Without referring to the bible, or drawing any arguments from the bible, can you provide me with some evidence for creationism?

As a seperate issue, could you explain how you resolve the Great Flood conundrum within your own mind?



> people cling to the very same science that defies that defies "the big bang theory" and evolution and say that it is proof. That is insanity.



The scientific method is simply the process of designing the theory to best fit the evidence to hand. If you can provide some evidence that indicates the most likely cause of the universe was an old man with a beard sitting in the sky, then I'm sure the scientific community would be eager to hear from you. Of course, the bible doesn't count as proof any more than newspaper tabloids count as proof of Bigfoot or alien abductions.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 22, 2006)

Bear in mind that MICROevolution and MACROevolution are two separate and very distinct things.  Microevolution (evolution within a species) is fact and provable.  Macroevolution (amoeba to ape to man and so forth) is nothing more than a theory and has never been proven.

The leading evolutionists admit - to a man - that (macro)evolution is a_ theory_.  It is NOT, according to them, scientific fact (although they'd like it to be and they keep working at it).

It has never been proven and violates the so-called scientific method which requires that one be able to observe the process and reproduce it.

Many years ago various bones were brought in - something like a piece of a jaw, a piece of a cranium, a femur, and one other bone - and "Lucy" was born.  She was supposed to be part of the so-called evolutionary process between apes and homo sapiens.

    What is generally not known is that Lucy's bones _were found spread over a five mile radius!_ 

     Somebody's trying to make a monkey out of you...


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

With regards to Lucy, recently it's been shown that she is not part of that. Another, older, different form was found. The Eureka was in the teeth and jaw bone. Pitted next to a modern human's, you couldn't tell the difference. Same size and shape. Lucy's were larger. To keep Lucy in the same family means evolution would have had to change sizes a few times and quickly. Something not done according to scientists. So, I guess she's out of the mix, considered a dead end. It was on the discovery channel awhile back.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 22, 2006)

Yes, but for many years Lucy was touted as THE find...and now it's something different.

The fact is that macroevolution is, as admitted by the world's foremost authorities on the subject, a theory.

The problem that I have is that it is taught to schoolchildren as undeniable, scientifically-proven fact.  And that simply isn't true.

Top-notch evolutionists have agreed that believing in evolution requires a great deal of faith.

So does belief in intelligent design.

Just as intelligent design cannot be scientifically proven, neither has evolution.

So if we're going to present one theory that is faith-based in schools, why not also present the other?

It's because someone has an agenda.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing any point, just passing on an update from the Lucy thing.


----------



## Kane (Jun 22, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Yes, but for many years Lucy was touted as THE find...and now it's something different.
> 
> The fact is that macroevolution is, as admitted by the world's foremost authorities on the subject, a theory.
> 
> ...



Are you Christian? If not what is your religious beliefs?


----------



## Kane (Jun 22, 2006)

For pstarr and anyone else that doesn't know (or in denial), ALL of science accepts and supports evolution. Show me one top notch scientist that claims evolution is faith? I believe you are confusing things. Evolution is a scientific theory/fact. Intelligent Design is a philosophy (motivated by Christian fundamentalists) that cannot accept evolution.

The Creation vs Evolution debate really in the religious community only. The scientific community and academia oppose evolution (As reported in Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...".

Furthermore and overwhelming majority of the scientific community regard evolution as pseudoscience and junk science. Here is a list of scientific societies that reject intelligent design;

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



> Over 70 scientific societies, institutions and other professional groups have issued statements supporting evolution education and opposing intelligent design.
> 
> *American Association for the Advancement of Science* AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals "[T]he lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."[1]
> 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution: "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific alternatives to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."[2]
> ...


----------



## pstarr (Jun 22, 2006)

The statement that the scientific community and leading evolutionists accept macroevolution as scientific fact is...wrong.

You state that it's a theory/fact.  It has to be one or the other.  Can't be both.

And the fact is that it's pure theory.  It has never been proven.  It has never been observed nor has it ever been duplicated/repeated.

Many scientists may prefer the evolution theory over intelligent design, but that doesn't make it fact.

Remember, leading scientists used to teach that the world was flat, too.  And that was accepted as undeniable fact.


----------



## Adept (Jun 22, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Bear in mind that MICROevolution and MACROevolution are two separate and very distinct things. Microevolution (evolution within a species) is fact and provable. Macroevolution (amoeba to ape to man and so forth) is nothing more than a theory and has never been proven.



You never get facts in science. Only theories, some of which are more solid than others.

Evolution fits the evidence to hand. Intelligent design does not.


----------



## qizmoduis (Jun 22, 2006)

Wow!  The amount of creationist misinformation in this thread is astounding, but sadly typical.  Let's take a apart just a small sampling of incorrect statements (hitting all of them will require more time than I'm willing to spend):

1.  Evolution is just a theory, not a fact.

There are two things wrong with this statement, not just one.  This is not an unusual situation with creationists, who labor mightily to include as many wrong things in a single statement as possible.  Maybe for the sake of brevity?  Anyway, let's take a look at each mistake in turn.

a. The first mistake is a common one, and is done deliberately.  The word "theory" has several definitions (as do many other words) which are selected from according to context.  The scientific definition of the word "theory" is this (more or less): 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

However, in common usage, the word "theory" has devolved to this definition:

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Context is important here.  Creationists want to make statements about scientific principles, but they refuse understand and use the tools of science to do so.  To put it simply:  a scientific theory IS NOT A GUESS.  It's an explanatory model that is falsifiable and makes testable predictions.

The above definition of scientific theory leads into the next mistake:

b. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

Creationists constantly (and again deliberately) conflate Evolution with the Theory of Evolution, as if they were the same thing.  They aren't.  Evolution is an observation.  A fact.  Scientists have observed it in both the fossil record and in the laboratory.  The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain how Evolution happens.


How about this little gem from pstarr:



> Remember, leading scientists used to teach that the world was flat, too.  And that was accepted as undeniable fact.



Well, no.  First, science didn't even exist as a discipline until the last couple of hundred years or so.  Educated folks have known about the shape of the earth for the last few thousand years at least.  There were certainly people who believed in the flatness of the earth, but they were simply ignorant of the facts (sounds familiar, doesn't it?), similar to modern day creationists regarding evolution.  

When Columbus sought to sail west in an attempt to find a way to India, nobody believed he would fall off the edge of the world.  Many people believed he was wrong about how far he would have to travel.

How about this one, again from pstarr:



> The statement that the scientific community and leading evolutionists accept macroevolution as scientific fact is...wrong.



Unlike the last two sections, this is easy.  You're wrong. Dead wrong.  Completely, utterly, flat-out, totally, off-your-rocker, blazingly wrong.  I can unequivocally state that the scientific community, with no credible exceptions, accepts the observations regarding speciation accumulated over the past two centuries.  There's plenty of scientific debate about the various mechanisms, but I'm not going to get into that.  See www.talkorigins.org for more information.  Note:  This requires actual reading and such, and not just sound bites, and requires use and understanding of actual scientific terminology and methodology.

That's enough for now.  This post illustrates one of the difficulties in dealing with creationist misinformation.  They pack as much wrongness as they can into small sound bites that sound pithy and full of common wisdom, but which require a certain amount of rigor, exposition, and explanation to refute.  They have the sound bite advantage, which is difficult to counter in the sphere of public opinion.  But like they say, nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.  If you want to throw out evolution, you've got a lot of explaining to do, and sound bites ain't gonna cut it.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It is also impossible to prove and it actually defies science.
> Biological Science tells us that life can only come from pre-exisiting life.
> But the same science tries to tell us that at one time there was nothing. That nothing exploded and created a universe and the first life which in turn evolved into other living creatures, then into the first man and then evolution stopped.


 
Whoo,boy. :erg: :lol: 



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> Incidentally, some serious scientists are making up amino soup combinations and exposing them to various stimuli right now-they'll create life (that everyone can agree is life) sooner or later-doesn't make _them_ god, and doesn't prove there isn't one-just will prove that god isn't necessarily necessary-and, misuse of Ockham's Razor notwithstanding, that doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist.


 
First off, Biological science-as I understand it-does not say that life can only come from life. The idea of life coming from something other than life is called abiogenesis, and is completely separate from evolution, which is about new life proceeding from life-nothing about its origins at all, really, and supported by a plethora of evidence around the world and in the laboratory and noted by numerous others already.

As to abiogenesis, though:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/262724.stm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i10n.htm

it won't be too long at all before a scientist creates life that is undeniably "life" from a soup of chemicals.


----------



## Kane (Jun 22, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> The statement that the scientific community and leading evolutionists accept macroevolution as scientific fact is...wrong.
> 
> You state that it's a theory/fact.  It has to be one or the other.  Can't be both.
> 
> ...



You don't know what the word "theory" means in scientific sense, do you? I'm not suprised.

Gravity is classified as a theory too. If you think this is due to lack of evidence then try jumping off a Skyscraper and let me know how it goes. Ever hear of Atomic Theory? Think they call it this because we dont understand exactly how it works? If that were the case we wouldnt be so worried about nutters in Iran enriching Uranium. None of these are called theories because we lack proof.

The reason Evolution is called a theory is  not - due to lack of evidence the reason is that the evidence is incomplete and what we have can be interpreted in many different ways. When youre trying to study a series of events that span millions or even billions of years it is nearly impossible to know  exactly  what happened from one moment to the next all the way from inorganic chemicals all the way to modern Man. For instance there are a couple dozen different chemical combinations that will result in inorganic chemicals forming amino acids but we have no idea which combination was seminal in early life on Earth. For all we know they all were. We have various theories as to what happened afterwards. Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium represent two of the most popular ways of thinking about how life transitions from early to modern life forms. I personally prefer a hybrid of the two. The question is not  if  Evolution happened it is a question of  how - it happened and thus why we call it a theory. In point of fact Evolution isnt about a single theory but an amalgam of several hundred that range from basic inorganic chemistry you could do in your garage to unraveling the mysteries of DNA to Geology to Botany and across the entire scientific spectrum. Every science there is supports Evolution.

So yes, macro-evolution is accepted fact. Now can you please read my last post carefull, as I provided evidence for claims while you have not. Most of the scientific community regards evolution as junk science or pseudoscience;

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



> The overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[5] or junk science. [6] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[7]



The proof is on the table, in this post and the last one. You have to accept. You may not, and I may know why. Can you answer one of my original questions though? Are you Christian (if not what are you)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#_note-6


----------



## pstarr (Jun 22, 2006)

Gosh, I didn't know that science was really a matter of semantics.  I mean, when someone tells me that something is a "fact" I figure that that's exactly what they mean.  And I'll bet every fifteen year-old high school student in the world does, too.

     If they're told that macroevolution is a _theory_, that suggests one thing to them.  If they're told it's a _fact _(even though scientists don't mean that literally...) it suggests something entirely different.

But enough of semantics.  That's not the core of the arguement, anyway.

Clearly, part of the core of (your) interest lies in my religious affiliation.  To satisfy your curiosity - yes, I am a Christian.

     But that really has little to do with the fact that macroevolution has never been proved.  Creationism has likewise never been proved.  I'm asking why these two unproven theories can't both be taught in schools?  


     Or are you adhering to the suggestion made by the well-known physicist, Steven Weinberg who stated,

"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue.  One of the _great achievements_ of science has been, if not to make it impossible for an intelligent person to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious.  We should not retreat from this accomplishment." *1

     The list you provided regarding scientific instituitons that support evolution is impressive.  On the other hand, Dr. Larry Hatfield stated in the Science Digest*2:

"Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities....Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Indeed.  A meeting of over 100 biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, and other scientists who held doctorates from universities such as Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Purdue, Duke, and many others...and which includes profs from Yale Graduate School, MIT - and which includes the director for the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, scientists at the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton, the Nat'l Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian, Los Alamos Nat'l Lab, and Livermore Labs...was conducted because these scientists are skeptical about the validity of evolution and they no longer support it.

Of course, most scientific journals are not about to post news like this.  These weren't backwoods hicks or rabid bible-thumpers; they were/are world-class scientists.  Some are Christian, some not.  That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  

When PBS aired a program on evolution declaring that "all known scientific evidence supports (Darwinian) evolution," these professionals published a two-page advertisement in a national magazine entitled, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."

By the way, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium has been rejected by most evolutionists...it was a silly attempt to explain a quirk that is otherwise unexplainable.

Viewers of the PBS show weren't told about scientists who refuse to support this theory (oops...I mean fact) and a part of the scientific community published a detailed, 151 page critique claiming that the show "failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the evidence for evolution" and even systematically ignored "disagreements amongst evolutionary biologists themselves."  

As I said earlier, someone has an agenda.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Oops- almost forgot....
*1:Quoted in Scientific American, July 2000.

*2:Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin", Science Digest (Winter 1979)


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 23, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> First off, Biological science-as I understand it-does not say that life can only come from life. The idea of life coming from something other than life is called abiogenesis, and is completely separate from evolution.


 
Thank you for the vocabulary lecture, but the word abiogenesis is not new me.  I learned it in biology a long time ago.  And they said there was no such thing.

The idea of abiogenesis is not at all disconnected from evolution theory.  It is directly related.  

The theroy of evolution requires a "first life" for everything to evolve from.  Which means that "first life" was either created by God, or formed on it's own out of absolutely nothing.

You might want to try the useless old arrguement that the "first life" was formed by chemicals/amino acids, etc. during the "big bang".  But then you have to explain where the chemicals/amino acids, etc came from/  Which there is no rational explaination for.  In order to believe evolution you have to believe this:

There was an absolute state of nothingness.
From this nothing, various amino acids, chemicals and other elements formed. 
These self forming elements mixed together and exploded, creating the universe and a single cell organism.
That single cell organism gave birth to a different type creature, which in turn gave birth to a different type of creature, etc, etc, etc.  Until some fish crawled up onto the land and gave birth to a monkey that gave birth to a "monkey man" which later gave birth to a man.

And we are expected to accept this without question, because if we question it, then a bunch of Christian haters will call us "ignorant" and "un-educated" - even though, as already stated - there is no scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. 

It takes the same kind of faith to accept evolution as it does to accept creationism.

Evolution has in a sense become a religion itself and people come on lists like this restating the dogma they were fed in their "churches" and then sent out to "preach the gospel".  These mindless robots never once had the thought to say "excuse me professor, but what evidence do you have besides the fake skeletons and the totally disconnected bones that you found miles away from each other?".  They just beleive what they are told to beleive and anyone who does not believe are just not as smart as they are.  The eveolution zealots and bigots are far more arrogant and self rightoeous about the issue than any other religious people I know.


----------



## Carol (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> But that really has little to do with the fact that macroevolution has never been proved. Creationism has likewise never been proved. I'm asking why these two unproven theories can't both be taught in schools?


 
The Supreme Court voted down teaching the two side by side in a 7-2 decision in 1987, that Creationism is religion and not science and violated the seperation of church and state.

Personally I don't support teaching Creationism in school for a few reasons.  I believe in God very strongly.  But...I also stand in sharp disagreement with the way many schools teach different matters.  I don't have kids of my own, but I have a niece and nephew that were home-schooled through 8th grade.  They are now in high school.  I've been to their high school, and I would not want that school teaching my sister's kids anything to do with their faith.  I would like to see them learn they way they have....with their community and with thier parents.

I also believe in religious communities, and that it is the responsibility of those of faith to be active in their faith, to partake in their community, and to help one another with understanding their own beliefs.  I do not think the schools as a sort of backhauling to to make up for those that do not attend their house of worship regularly and do not make an attempt to further understand the scriptures of their choice.

I do respect your opinion Sifu Starr, just sharing my own as well 


In faith :asian:

Carol


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

I understand what you're saying but the problem arises when the schools present evolution as proven fact.  Then when the parents try to teach the children that that isn't necessarily the case, there's trouble.  I think that the religion of evolution has been directly responsible for many youngsters becoming atheists over the years-

When my daughter was in her high school science class as a senior, her teacher asked how many students did not believe in evolution.  About four kids raised their hands.  He told them that they were foolish not to believe in it and so on...

I had a talk with this intellectual colossus and presented him with some information of which he was unaware...

But I'm sure that his behavior towards students who refused to believe in evolution hasn't changed.  In fact, he threatened to fail any student who refused to accept the evolutionary dogma.  And that ain't right.

Schools needn't present any extensive theological rhetoric on the subject - I think that they should simply make students aware that there is another approach to the subject and provide them with some very basic information...


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 23, 2006)

excellent point re: teaching religion in school.
Do you really want some child molestor, homosexual or communist teaching your children about God?

The best thing you can do is keep your children out of publci schools altogether.  They are cesspools filled with all sorts of corrupt, agenda-driven people who have absoluyely no interest in your child's well-being, education or the future of the U.S.  There may be some good people who are school teachers, but the vast majority are not.

Ever since Jimmy Carter (easily the worst President we ever had) caved in to the left-wing teachers union and federalized the public schools - the goal of the schools shifted from educationg kids so they can be good, productive and self supporting citizens, to turning out zombies who can not think for themselves and unquestionably tow thier party line.

It took a long time, but now the only new teachers are those who are products of the left-wing establishment.  They only way to end it now and restore America is to end the public education system altogether or keep fighting until the majority of teachers were "home schooled kids" who will then take an interest in the lives of the individuals.


----------



## Carol (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> I understand what you're saying but the problem arises when the schools present evolution as proven fact. Then when the parents try to teach the children that that isn't necessarily the case, there's trouble. I think that the religion of evolution has been directly responsible for many youngsters becoming atheists over the years-
> 
> When my daughter was in her high school science class as a senior, her teacher asked how many students did not believe in evolution. About four kids raised their hands. He told them that they were foolish not to believe in it and so on...
> 
> ...


 
I can see your point there and I agree.  I don't take it as a proven fact, either, nor was I taught it was when I was in school.  That is not to say I think the theory is bunk, but I do not think it is fully complete.  I don't have a problem with it being taught as a theory though.  It is not a postulate (proven), but it is what science has to offer at the moment and that to me means something.

I don't really support the schools providing resources for other information becuase...I don't think the schools should have a say in which path a child should take when exploring their faith and what they believe.  I do however, have no issue with a program at a house of worship that discusses their faith's creation story at length at any time, including when the child is studying evolution at school.  

If a person attends their house of worship and studies their scripture on regular basis, he or she will have plenty of opportunities to study and discuss.    Faith is not a spectator sport.  

Personally, I think youngsters have become athiests because their parent do not take the efforts to practice their faith with responsibility and to show them the work and the rewards of following a spiritual path.  If one is truly active in one's faith, teaching creationism in the schools isn't necessary.  The schools will not, and should not, replace the efforts of studying one's scriptures or attending one's house of worship doing whatever one does to be more enlightened to the word of God and the path that one is on.

Appreciate the discussion very much.  God bless.   :asian:


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Thank you!  I'm concerned because schools appear to teach this theory as absolute fact and children generally believe whatever their teacher tells them.

That's why we send them to school - so they can learn, and we generally assume that what they're learning is valid...and we also tend to let our children know that we support their teacher(s) and school.

Then when the teacher teaches something that isn't necessarily true and we try to tell the kids that we believe something different - the kids are confused as to whether they should believe anything the teachers says.

If the teacher would simply make the students aware that there are other approaches to this subject (without going into any great detail) AND stop "preaching" evolution as though it is proven fact, I'd be satisfied.

But I don't think they're ever going to do that.


----------



## Carol (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Thank you! I'm concerned because schools appear to teach this theory as absolute fact and children generally believe whatever their teacher tells them.
> 
> That's why we send them to school - so they can learn, and we generally assume that what they're learning is valid...and we also tend to let our children know that we support their teacher(s) and school.
> 
> ...


 

I'd actually be OK with that to.   The way I was taught when I was a kid (In a public school in the Northeast) was that we were taught the theory of evolution and taught that some folks believe in a creationist theory....that Christian folks and Jewish folks believe that God created the world, that the Indians (dating myself) believed in stories of the Great Spirit.   I'm all for leaving the door open like that.

But, you are right, I don't think that will be acceptable, and I think there will be more folks like my sister's kids that will be home schooled as an alternative.

Interesting times we live in.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Truly.  Like I said, someone has an agenda.


----------



## Adept (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> macroevolution has never been proved. Creationism has likewise never been proved. I'm asking why these two unproven theories can't both be taught in schools?



Evolution fits all the available evidence. Creationism does not. In fact, leaving the bible aside, there is no evidence in support of creationism at all.


----------



## Adept (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Then when the teacher teaches something that isn't necessarily true...



The theory of evolution is the best theory we have to date. If you have evidence which indicates parts of it may be inaccurate, I suggest you approach your nearest university and have the theory ammended.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

The evidence already exists.  See my post regarding various scientists and professors who disagree with it - they don't seem to have had much luck in getting any educational institutions to amend it.

If there is solid evidence that (macro) evolution is a fact, please post it.  I am interested in the truth rather than speculation.


----------



## Kane (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Gosh, I didn't know that science was really a matter of semantics. I mean, when someone tells me that something is a "fact" I figure that that's exactly what they mean. And I'll bet every fifteen year-old high school student in the world does, too.
> 
> If they're told that macroevolution is a _theory_, that suggests one thing to them.  If they're told it's a _fact _(even though scientists don't mean that literally...) it suggests something entirely different.
> 
> ...



You don't understand do you? Evolution being a theory is very important. This is more than a semantics issue, it shows that evolution making the theory label is FACT. Gravity is a theory, and it is also scientific FACT. Making the theory label in the first place shows that evolution is passed the hypothesis and into the realm of accepted science.

I still think you need to read my post more carefully. I provided plenty of sources showing that most of the scientific community regards Intelligent Design as junk science and pseudo-science. And guess what? The only people that call intelligent design a "theory" is the Christian fundamentalists that back it up. Where as most of the scientific community doesn't regard evolution as even a "theory". Therefore it isn't a theory and rightfully so. Pseudo-science and junk science cannot be a theory.



> Clearly, part of the core of (your) interest lies in my religious affiliation. To satisfy your curiosity - yes, I am a Christian.
> 
> But that really has little to do with the fact that macroevolution has never been proved.



No my friend you are wrong. The fact that you are Christian is the most important information to know. It shows why you question evolution. Why do you question the theory of evolution and not, say, the theory of gravity? Because evolution contradicts your religious beliefs, while gravity doesn't. Let's imagine if evolution didn't contradict the literal genesis creation story. Will there be any debate? No. Will you have questioned it because of it? No.

And the reason why you question evolution or any scientific theory you question is one of the worst reasons to question it. What did you expect? The genesis story was written in the Bronze Age. It, like any other creation story of the time would definitely be no where near the truth. The ancients lived in a totally different world with totally different ways to make sense of the amazing yet complex world around them.

All cultures have their creation myths. There is a West African tribe that believes the world was created by ant dung. The ancient Greeks have their own account where the world was birthed through intercourse between gods (in some accounts). The Avesta or the Zoroastrians have an even more interesting explanation for the origin of the world but we all know that these creation stories were not based on the scientific method. The Bible is no exception and to say that is unique is foolish. Why this book compiled nearly thousands of years ago is any different than the thousands of other culture's creation myths?

If you want to question evolution because your holy book said so why not question the world being round, revolving around the sun, and rotating on an axis? There are many Biblical verses that suggest the world was flat, center of the universe, and does not move (on its axis or at all). If you want I can post dozens of verses that may suggest this but I think you see my point  (hopefully).


----------



## Kane (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> The evidence already exists. See my post regarding various scientists and professors who disagree with it - they don't seem to have had much luck in getting any educational institutions to amend it.
> 
> If there is solid evidence that (macro) evolution is a fact, please post it. I am interested in the truth rather than speculation.



  They have done tests with various bacteria species that have much faster generations than humans. After thousands of generation there was an isolated bacterium that did become a different species. It was very lucky though, as examining process which is a slow change over time is difficult. Don't think we can watch even the fastest bacteria evolve into a different genus in our life time.



 We also have the fossil record and carbon dating. With these tools we find that that many creatures date back and were physically different than some of the latter specimans (such as animals found today).


For more information visit these forums;

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/

http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php?

They can provide all the sources you are looking for, but I'll look for some of the info they gave me when I wondered more about the proof behind evolution. Just keep in mind that we understand evolution so much better than Darwin. We have such a better understanding of it now.

Also read the wiki article on evolution;

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

Most of the info there should clear everything up. Especially look at the "Evidence of evolution" and the "Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary design". Read them *carefully*.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> excellent point re: teaching religion in school.
> Do you really want some child molestor, homosexual or communist teaching your children about God?


 


			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> Ever since Jimmy Carter (easily the worst President we ever had) caved in to the left-wing teachers union and federalized the public schools - the goal of the schools shifted from educationg kids so they can be good, productive and self supporting citizens, to turning out zombies who can not think for themselves and unquestionably tow thier party line.


 


			
				KOROHO said:
			
		

> It took a long time, but now the only new teachers are those who are products of the left-wing establishment. They only way to end it now and restore America is to end the public education system altogether or keep fighting until the majority of teachers were "home schooled kids" who will then take an interest in the lives of the individuals.



These quotations explain perfectly why no rational adult should take anything you have to say about these matters with anything more than a grain of salt.

Un-friggin'-believable. . .


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> The evidence already exists. See my post regarding various scientists and professors who disagree with it - they don't seem to have had much luck in getting any educational institutions to amend it.



Ah, yes, the predictable "well, X scientist says this about Y" tactic!!

Opinions are like, well, you know. Everyone's got one. Not all of them are right, regardless of how many degrees or "authority" the person claiming them may have. 

The "proving ground" in science is found in peer-reviewed academic journals. You publish experiments or research articles that make an argument for your hypothesis or theory. This makes them open to critique from other peers in the appropriate field of study.

Guess how many articles in support of intelligent design have been published in such periodicals?? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "hero" and starts with a "z". 



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> If there is solid evidence that (macro) evolution is a fact, please post it. I am interested in the truth rather than speculation.



I would like to see solid evidence of the cell theory, as well. The germ theory, too. Since they're on equal footing with evolution. . .


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2006)

Evolution is not just a theory, it is the unifying principle of biology. Yet President Bush thinks that intelligent design should be presented as an alternative to evolution because both are sometimes called theories. Since he has sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States, he should be aware that in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that creation science is a religious, not a scientific, point of view and that teaching it in a public school is in violation of the First Amendment. 

Intelligent design is an updated attempt to force educators to teach a specific religious view by masquerading it as science. Faith should not require the scientific proof of God. But what concerns me the most is that this only serves to distract us from serious bioethical issues that require not a belief in, but an acceptance of, the law of biological evolution, which is simply change over time. 

Since this change is genetic in nature, the father of genetics, Austrian botanist Gregor Mendel, bears just as much responsibility for the formulation of the law of evolution as Charles Darwin. So why are Mendel and his work not the target of the intelligent design movement? Most likely because Mendel was a monk who rose to the level of abbot in his Augustinian order. It is ironic, but not surprising, that a man of the cloth had the patience and passion to perform the experiments that jump-started biological science in the beginning of the 20th century. 

The proof of change over time is all around. If it werent for evolution we wouldnt have to get flu shots every year, antibiotic resistance would not be a concern, we wouldnt get cancer, and we wouldnt have DNA testing as a tool in criminal cases. Stem cell research has the promise to find therapies for injury and disease because these cells retain their full evolutionary potential. We need to discuss issues such as how long we extend life using stem cells and not waste our time with arguments over what constitutes a scientific theory versus a religious belief. Here is a solution: Dont come into my classroom and preach intelligent design, and I wont come into your church and teach evolution. 

Darwins use of the term theory to describe his hypothesis of descent with modification was appropriate in 1859. Since then, the work of Mendel, Morgan, Mueller, McClintock, Watson, Crick, Wilkins, Franklin and numerous others provides overwhelming evidence to upgrade Darwins theory to a *law* of evolution: change over time.(and, to correct the earlier poster, it's no longer a "theory of gravity," it's the "law of gravity")The 200th anniversary of Darwins birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species occur in 2009, providing the perfect milestone to finalize the declaration of the biological law of evolution. Maybe then we can discuss the ethical application of evolution to improving the human condition.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> You don't understand do you? Evolution being a theory is very important. This is more than a semantics issue, it shows that evolution making the theory label is FACT. Gravity is a theory, and it is also scientific FACT. Making the theory label in the first place shows that evolution is passed the hypothesis and into the realm of accepted science.


 
Technically, there is a difference between the fact of evolution, which predates Darwin and Watson, and the theory of evolution via natural/sexual selection, which dates to those individuals.

Evolution is a fact, period. The exact explanatory framework (or theory) for how that fact operates, however, is still under debate.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I still think you need to read my post more carefully. I provided plenty of sources showing that most of the scientific community regards Intelligent Design as junk science and pseudo-science.



I believe one Republican judge from Pennsylvania holds a similar opinion. If I recall correctly, he judged that Intelligent Design is "creationism re-labeled".

I'm inclined to agree.

Laterz.


----------



## Adept (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> The evidence already exists. See my post regarding various scientists and professors who disagree with it - they don't seem to have had much luck in getting any educational institutions to amend it.



Thats because their theories don't fit the facts.



> If there is solid evidence that (macro) evolution is a fact, please post it. I am interested in the truth rather than speculation.



It's not a fact. It's a scientific theory which attempts to explain the biological diversity we have today, and have had in the past. Personally, I think the fact that the fossil record shows new species appearing at different points in history is, alone, an excellent indication that the current theory is very accurate.

To go further into this would require me to catalogue and present all relevant studies and discoveries for the last hundred years, and then explain why the current theory of evolution best explains them, but frankly that should have been the job of your school, and I don't have the time.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Part of the problem is that the fossil record does _not_ validate the theory/fact/whatever of macroevolution.  That's one of the main reasons for the dissent among so many scientists.


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 23, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> The proof of change over time is all around. If it weren&#8217;t for evolution we wouldn&#8217;t have to get flu shots every year, antibiotic resistance would not be a concern, we wouldn&#8217;t get cancer, and we wouldn&#8217;t have DNA testing as a tool in criminal cases.


 
Here's a creative way to "prove evolution", change the definition of the word to meet your needs at the moment.

"Change" is not evolution.  "Adaptation" is not evolution.

Viruses do adapt to antibiotics.  But they remain viruses.  There is no known case, where a virus, in the process of "adapting" to an antibiotic "evolved" into a fish, a monkey or any other type of creature.  They adapt to the antibiotic and remain a virus.  This "adaptation" in no way even suggests evolution.

When you have to change the meaning of words in order to "prove your point", even to yourself, it's a pretty good indicator that even you yourself have the idea that your story is full of holes and you understand that there is no support for your reasoning.

If you have evidence of a flu virus actually evolving in to something else, please share that with us.

Also, cancer is not "evolution" it's a disease.  If you have evidence of a "tumor" growing up, adapting to it's environment then growing legs and starting to walk, then you can say that this "cancer" proves evolution.


----------



## Adept (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is that the fossil record does _not_ validate the theory/fact/whatever of macroevolution.



You've still got it back to front. People, or at least credible scientists, don't try and fit the facts to the theory. They fit the theory to the facts, and the current theory fits the current facts better than any other theories.



> That's one of the main reasons for the dissent among so many scientists.



Not among credible scientists.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

I think I should point out that some people seem to be terribly confusing a few different concepts here. . .

First, there is evolution. Evolution is simply the idea that organisms and species change their forms over long stretches of biological history. It is really just a synonymn for "organic change" and, I'm terribly sorry if anybody is having problems but, is a _fact_. Period.

Next, there is Darwinism. That is, the theory of evolution via random variation, natural selection, and sexual selection. Now, this shouldn't be confused with the _fact_ of evolution, as Darwinism is simply an explanatory framework or paradigm for describing how this natural fact actually works. There are other frameworks (such as the largely discredited Lamarckism), as well as proposed "amendments" to the basic Darwinian skeleton (such as punctualism or Baldwinism), so this shouldn't be treated as equivalent with the process of evolution _per se_.

Lastly, there is evolutionism. This is a term that proponents of creatonism and intelligent design often bring to the discussion. It seems to be a convenient attempt to cast evolutionary theory as "just another -ism", but this owes in large part to ignorance. What these people haven't figured out yet that evolutionism _properly_ refers to a now discredited theory of sociohistorical development that was popular in Western anthropology in the late 1800's. The term has _nothing_ to do with biological evolution and anyone who tries to claim otherwise just shows they really don't know what they're talking about.

I hope that cleared some things up, folks. Seriously, stop conflating concepts here. It's annoying.

Laterz.


----------



## Adept (Jun 23, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Viruses do adapt to antibiotics. But they remain viruses. There is no known case, where a virus, in the process of "adapting" to an antibiotic "evolved" into a fish, a monkey or any other type of creature.



A level of evolution on that magnitude would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And you wonder why it hasn't been documented in the last hundred years?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 23, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> A level of evolution on that magnitude would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And you wonder why it hasn't been documented in the last hundred years?


 
So, why are human beings 7 inches tall than they were 400 years ago? Do you think we are evolving into girraffe's?


----------



## Dionysianexile (Jun 23, 2006)

A little more of a vocabulary lesson here:

Adaptation, along with By-products and noise are all producs of evolution.

Adaptation: inherited and reliably developing characeristics that came into existence through natural selection because they helped to solve problems of survival or reproduction better than alternative designs existing in the population during the period of theur evolution.

By-Products: Characteristics that do not solve adaptive problems and do not have functional design; they are "carried along" with characteristics that do have functional design because they happen to be coupled with those adaptations.

Noise: Random effects produced by forces such as chance mutations, sudden and unprecedented changes in the environment, or chance effects during development.

(Evolutionary Psychology; the new science of the mind, second edition. David M. Buss. 2004. p. 39)


----------



## Dionysianexile (Jun 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, why are human beings 7 inches tall than they were 400 years ago? Do you think we are evolving into girraffe's?



No, that is mainly due to better nutrition...


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

Dionysianexile said:
			
		

> (Evolutionary Psychology; the new science of the mind, second edition. David M. Buss. 2004. p. 39)


 
Heh. We used that same text for my evolutionary psychology class.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

Dionysianexile said:
			
		

> No, that is mainly due to better nutrition...


 
Perhaps so, but it is not inconceivable that after several hundred generations of a relatively stable nutritional niche that we would see relatively permanent changes in our species' genome. 

By the way, the theory that organisms can manipulate their environments to "guide" a population's evolution is known as _niche selection_, something of a hot issue in evolutionary theory today (along with epigenetic inheritance, punctuated equilibrium, self-organizing systems, and a few other ideas).

In fact, the Flynn Effect (the observation that average IQ scores in industrialized nations have progressively increased throughout the 1900's) is arguably a product of niche selection. 

Laterz.


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 23, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> A level of evolution on that magnitude would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. And you wonder why it hasn't been documented in the last hundred years?


 
Even if this turns out to be true, that the flu virus I got last year is going to be a fish a million years from now, that still puts "evolution" back into the category of being a "theory" today.

Even then, a miilion years from now, when some "scientist" finds a fish swimming around that he never saw before, he will have no way to "prove" that a million years prior, that fish was a flu virus.

If you want to put your faith in men and accept evolution, that is your choice.  I don't have a problem with it at all.  The problem is with the arrogance and self-righteousness of people who come here and claim that they are smarter and better than others because they choose to place thier faith in an un-supportable theory rather than in God.

Like I said before, it essentially takes the same kind of faith to believe in evolution - which is unseen and there is no evidence - as it does to believe in God.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Like I said before, it essentially takes the same kind of faith to believe in evolution - which is unseen and there is no evidence - as it does to believe in God.


 
Only if one is fairly clueless when it comes to biology.

There are numerous lines of evidence regarding evolution --- morphological, geographical, archeological, and genetic. To simply claim "there is no evidence" demonstrates one's own ignorance of the subject matter moreso than anything else.

As to those who claim evolution has no basis in reality, answer the following questions. . .

Why do human beings get goosebumps??

Why do upland geese have webbed feet??

I'll be waiting.


----------



## Dionysianexile (Jun 23, 2006)

Part of the problem is the great misunderstanding of how evolution works.  A flu virus would not evolve into a fish, because it is a virus, and a fish is a multicellular organism, most likely evolved from some smaller multicellular organism.  Virus are on a completely different branch.  A fish generally wont just evolve into a monkey overnight.  A fish might, however, evolve a set of lungs, the first step to coming out of the water.  And there are several species of fish on this planet now that have done this.  It happens slowly, it doesnt just jump kingdom or phylum lines. 

Unfortunately, many people still have the old image of evolution in which a fish turned to a small monkey, to a black caveman, and then to an ordinary white man.  there were several things wrong with that picture, aside from the racial one.  But that simply is not how it works...


----------



## Ray (Jun 23, 2006)

Dionysianexile said:
			
		

> A fish generally wont just evolve into a monkey overnight.


Good, cause I'm not staying up to watch it.


----------



## Ray (Jun 23, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Why do upland geese have webbed feet??
> 
> I'll be waiting.


I thought you'd never ask:  Geese have webbed, flat feet to stamp out burning forest fires.

Elephants have bigger flat feet to stamp out burning geese.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

As I stated earlier, MICROevolution, which is probably better put down as "adaptation" does exist and has been observed.  MACROevolution, the evolution of a microbe into a fish or a cow into a whale (which, by the way, is how evolutionists have determined that whales came to be...honestly), has NOT been shown to have occured.

Some scientists believe that it did but no "in between" fossils have as yet been found in the fossil record.  We are told that our modern birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs - but there is absolutely no physical evidence showing one of these huge reptiles with itty-bitty wings, and numerous scientists have speculated that IF such an event did occur (over X number of years) the half-grown/developed winglike structures would have posed a significant problem for these creatures.  Their mobility would have been severely hampered, among other things...and they would likely not have survived as either dinosaurs or birds...they'd have become slow-moving, awkward meals for other carnivores.

     As for Adept's remark that there is no dissent regarding evolution among "credible scientists", I guess that he regards the highly-educated, world-class scientists which I mentioned in a previous post as goobers because they don't know nearly as much about the subject as he pretends to.

It's not an issue of religion - it's an issue of bad science which has been touted for generations as good science.  And that's why numerous top-notch scientists are now walking away from it.  I don't know if they're turning towards creationism or not - doesn't matter - but they sure aren't buying into the evolution fairy story anymore.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> I thought you'd never ask: Geese have webbed, flat feet to stamp out burning forest fires.
> 
> Elephants have bigger flat feet to stamp out burning geese.


 
Oh, I can't wait to hear your explanation for human goosebumps!


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> As I stated earlier, MICROevolution, which is probably better put down as "adaptation" does exist and has been observed. MACROevolution, the evolution of a microbe into a fish or a cow into a whale (which, by the way, is how evolutionists have determined that whales came to be...honestly), has NOT been shown to have occured.


 
"Macroevolution" has not been observed in a controlled laboratory, if that's what you mean, but we still have ample evidence to believe it has happened and will continue to happen.

In any event, this dichotomy between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is, to be perfectly blunt, completely absurd and illogical. "Microevolution" are morphological adaptations in a species that result in a permanent change to the species' genome (which is why they can be passed on from generation to generation). Once enough "microevolutionary" changes accumulate within a given species' population, it will form its own species (or sub-species) and be unable reproduce naturally with the parent species (due to the genetic variance between the two).

Accepting "microevolution" but rejecting "macroevolution" is completely nonsensical because "macroevolution" is _accumulated_ "microevolution". You can't have your cake and eat it, too, as one cannot be separated from the other.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Some scientists believe that it did but no "in between" fossils have as yet been found in the fossil record. We are told that our modern birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs - but there is absolutely no physical evidence showing one of these huge reptiles with itty-bitty wings, and numerous scientists have speculated that IF such an event did occur (over X number of years) the half-grown/developed winglike structures would have posed a significant problem for these creatures. Their mobility would have been severely hampered, among other things...and they would likely not have survived as either dinosaurs or birds...they'd have become slow-moving, awkward meals for other carnivores.



Your scenario presumes gradualism. Rejecting gradualism does not reject natural selection.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> As for Adept's remark that there is no dissent regarding evolution among "credible scientists", I guess that he regards the highly-educated, world-class scientists which I mentioned in a previous post as goobers because they don't know nearly as much about the subject as he pretends to.



I don't recall Adept claiming there was no dissent among credible scientists. His point was simply that they cannot provide convincing _evidence_ for their claims, as evidenced by the notable lack of any published articles in peer-reviewed academic journals.




			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> It's not an issue of religion - it's an issue of bad science which has been touted for generations as good science. And that's why numerous top-notch scientists are now walking away from it. I don't know if they're turning towards creationism or not - doesn't matter - but they sure aren't buying into the evolution fairy story anymore.



I find it humorous that "bad science" is what's discussed in the peer-reviewed academic journals, but the purported "good science" is what's discussed in populist books that are almost universally sympathetic to religious fundamentalism.

Anyone that doesn't think this is a matter of religion is just being naive, in my opinion. I'm not the only one of this opinion, either, as the recent ruling of a Pennsylvania judge has demonstrated.

Laterz.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Viruses do adapt to antibiotics. But they remain viruses.


 
Viruses do not adapt to antibiotics.  First off, antibiotics are useless against viruses.  They only work against bacteria, which is completely different from a virus.

You can, however, get vaccinated against certain viruses such as flu.  Usually this is done by injecting a weakened or dead sample of the virus into your body.  Your body then develops antibodies against that particular virus, so if that particular virus enters your body again, it will be recognized as an enemy and destroyed before it can to any harm.  

The problem with flu is that it does mutate and change rapidly and often.  Once it mutates, the antibodies that your body has developed are no longer useful against this different strain of the virus.  Your body is not  able to recognize a different strain of the virus as an enemy, and act against it.  But the virus itself does not change as a response to the vaccination.  It does not react to the fact that you have been vaccinated, and actively try to do an end-run around the vaccination by mutating.  The mutation is random.  But the mutation gives the new disease variant the advantage of being able to survive in a body even tho the body has been vaccinated.  Thus, the new variant can become dominant since the old variant can no longer survive under these conditions.

With regard to antibiotics and bacterial infections:  when you have a bacterial infection, you are infected with millions of enemy bacteria that cause you to become ill.  The infection is great enough that your body cannot fight off the infection on its own, so you get some antibiotics.  The problem arises when you either don't take all of your medication because you start to feel better before your are done, or the medication itself isn't powerful enough to fully eliminate the bacterial infection.  Those last remaining bacteria are stronger than the ones that were killed off.  Something in their genetic makeup enabled them to survive the antibiotics.  Since they are the only ones left, they are the only ones reproducing.  When they multiply (which they do pretty much constantly) they will then pass along the genetic predisposition to be more resistant to the antibiotics that you were taking.  Now you get sick all over again, with the same disease, the same bacterial infection, but the same medication no longer works as well, or even not at all.  You have to find a different, more powerful antibiotic to kill off the infection.  This is a very active example of evolution.  The bacteria does not actively react to the medication and seek to change itself to defeat the medication.  It is thru random genetic mutations that a small percentage of the bacteria simply are more resistant to the antibiotics.  

This becomes a problem when people who are ill insist on being treated with antibiotics, even tho there is no evidence that they have a bacterial infection.  Needlessly introducing antibiotics into your body can kill off some harmless bacteria, but leave a small number of stronger bacteria to reproduce, which may become harmful.  Or if you fail to take all of your medication and fully eliminate the infection, the remaining bacteria will come back stronger overall.  Then we get Super Bacterial infections that don't respond to the normal antibiotics.  This is happening with some diseases, because of needless medications and people failing to complete their medications.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> If you want to put your faith in men and accept evolution, that is your choice. I don't have a problem with it at all. The problem is with the arrogance and self-righteousness of people who come here and claim that they are smarter and better than others because they choose to place thier faith in an un-supportable theory rather than in God.


 
There is nothing wrong with believing in God at the same time as believing in science and evolution.  You can accept that evolution is true, and that God created the universe and the world and uses evolution as his mechanism for change.  It even makes sense, that God would use a mechanism that humans could observe and measure and understand.

But if you do believe in God, this is a matter of faith.  God's existence cannot be observed, measured, proven or disproven.

But evolution, as a mechanism that creates change in the world, can be.  That is science, and science is different from faith.  Science seeks to observe and measure and understand the world around us.  That is what it is for.

Faith is used to try and understand that which cannot (at least yet) be described by science.  But faith, the belief in God or any other higher being, has absolutely no place in a science class.  Faith is not science, and cannot be passed off as such, and has absolutely no place being taught to school children in a science class.

Religious based schools can and do teach religious ideology in their curriculum.  That is their right to do and I have no argument with that.  But it is important to understand where faith ends and science begins.  But this does not mean that faith and science are incompatible, and a belief in one necessitates a rejection of the other.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 23, 2006)

Dionysianexile said:
			
		

> No, that is mainly due to better nutrition...


 
But, taller men are more attractive to women. 
Men and Women procreate. 
The genes that make men tall are passed on.
And women continue to find taller men more attractive.


In a dozen generations, we may find that, nutrition aside, the species is getting taller.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 23, 2006)

Well said, Flying Crane. In particular. . .



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with believing in God at the same time as believing in science and evolution. You can accept that evolution is true, and that God created the universe and the world and uses evolution as his mechanism for change. It even makes sense, that God would use a mechanism that humans could observe and measure and understand.



It should be pointed out that this _theistic evolution_ is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and, therefore by extension, the largest body of Christians in the world today.

Laterz.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well said, Flying Crane. In particular. . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, but make sure you read the rest of what I said.  It isn't a blank check.  It comes with limitations and needs to be recognized as the act of faith that it is.  It needs to be recognized that it has nothing to do with science.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Heretic-

Please re-read Adept's remark regarding scientists who are skeptical about the validity of evolution.  His remark was "not among credible scientists."
That was clear enough for me.

Now, microevolution and macroevolution are two different concepts altogether.  One does not lead into the other as you would like for us to believe.  

     You state the there is "ample evidence" to support the theory of macroevolution.  If you would, please share some of that with us so that your discoveries might be shared with the scientific community and this entire arguement be put to rest.

You cannot rely on the fossil record as several members have tries to insist that we do in earlier posts - the gaping holes in the fossil record are the reason why so many scientists (who come from a variety of religious affiliations, by the way) have turned their backs on it.  So your "ample evidence" will have to come from some other source.

My rejection of gradualism is in line with the feelings and criticisms of numerous scientists - even though it may not be in line with your opinions on the subject.  "Gradualism", as you call it, IS, in fact, necessary if we are to accept macroevolution as being valid.

As for "bad science" and "good science" having to do with one's religious coloring, nothing could be further from the truth.  I suspect that if I were Buddhist or Hindu, I wouldn't be hearing the same arguements from you since you seem to prefer focusing your attention on subjects that have anything to do with Christianity.

     Are you familiar with what we were taught is the "scientific method" in high school?  If so, can you please explain how it has been successfully applied to the issue of macroevolution?  Or offer up any of your so-called "ample evidence?"  Because if you have any, you should see if you can get it published in a scientific journal.  You'd be famous!


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Now, microevolution and macroevolution are two different concepts altogether. One does not lead into the other as you would like for us to believe.



Says you.

Your argument just confirms in your case what is so common among those that criticize or otherwise attempt to attack evolutionary theory. Namely, that they are arguing from ignorance. What is so glaringly apparent to those of us who know a thing or two about the natural sciences is that the individuals in question just plain _do not understand_ what the theory of evolution entails.

The case in point here is the illusory dichotomy between "micro" and "macro" evolution. So-called "macro" evolution is what happens when enough "micro" evolutions accumulate in a population to genetically differentiate them from their parent species (creating either a new species or a sub-species). Drawing a difference between these two phenomena would be like arguing there is a difference between adding single-digit numbers and adding double-digit numbers. Well, sure, but it's a difference of size. It's not a difference of kind.

Essentially, the creationists are saying that 1+1=2 is a real scientific phenomena that has been proven, but 10+10=20 is dogmatic speculation that is completely different. Of course, those in the know (whether the mathematician or the biologist) find such arguments laughably absurd.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> You state the there is "ample evidence" to support the theory of macroevolution. If you would, please share some of that with us so that your discoveries might be shared with the scientific community and this entire arguement be put to rest.



The evidence is well-known and well-acknowledged among the scientific community, and claiming otherwise does not change this. The only circles that are having this "argument" are those _outside_ of science.\

Please reference my earlier point that no article in support of creationism or intelligent design has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The "argument" that you propose only takes place through the medium of personal websites, private thinktanks, and populist books. 

None of that is science. At best, its pop-science. It'd be like claiming what Dr. Phil is doing is "real psychology". Any psychology student would laugh in your face at such claims, as would any biology student when it comes to these criticisms of evolutionary theory.

However, to recap, the relevant lines of evidence are genetic, morphological, geographical, and paleontological.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> You cannot rely on the fossil record as several members have tries to insist that we do in earlier posts - the gaping holes in the fossil record are the reason why so many scientists (who come from a variety of religious affiliations, by the way) have turned their backs on it. So your "ample evidence" will have to come from some other source.



It should be pointed out that your "so many" scientists make up less than 1% of the relevant field in question and have yet to publish their relevant findings in peer-reviewed academic journals. That puts them in the same boat as the "flat earthers".

In any event, this thumbing of one's nose at the fossil record is pretty absurd. That there are some holes here and there does not negate the obvious trends that exist within said record. Furthermore, these so-called "missing links" are only problematic, as before, if one accepts universal gradualism. Most biologists do not. 



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> My rejection of gradualism is in line with the feelings and criticisms of numerous scientists - even though it may not be in line with your opinions on the subject. "Gradualism", as you call it, IS, in fact, necessary if we are to accept macroevolution as being valid.



The very fact that you believe gradualism is necessary for macroevolution demonstrates quite clearly you have no clue what you're talking about.

Imagine my surprise.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> As for "bad science" and "good science" having to do with one's religious coloring, nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect that if I were Buddhist or Hindu, I wouldn't be hearing the same arguements from you since you seem to prefer focusing your attention on subjects that have anything to do with Christianity.



And yet, all of the proponents of "intelligent design" have published works extremely sympathetic to religious fundamentalism and not one of them has published anything in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Also, what you are arguing for is not "Christianity", it is an archaic and parochial vestige of Christianity that makes up a rather vocal minority in this country. Most Christians have no problem reconciling their religious beliefs with scientific findings.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Are you familiar with what we were taught is the "scientific method" in high school? If so, can you please explain how it has been successfully applied to the issue of macroevolution? Or offer up any of your so-called "ample evidence?" Because if you have any, you should see if you can get it published in a scientific journal. You'd be famous!



No, I wouldn't. I'd just be regurgitating what Darwin and Wallace said over 150 years ago (well, except for the genetic stuff). The evidence is there, you just don't _want_ to see it.

Laterz.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

Au contraire - those of us who really_ do_ know something about the subject are very much aware of the difference between micro and macro evolution.  It happens to fit into your aruguement which is why you insist on using it.  There's no "illusory dichotomy" involved at all.  These are two very different theories.

As for the skeptics being in circles "outside of science"...gosh, I didn't know that representatives from the Smithsonian, the director of the center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, and other such men were considered to be "outside of science."  

Once again, your colors are showing.  I have not indicated or asked that creationism be supported by anyone - I have never indicated that any scientific journals have published anything in regards to the subject.  Like I said, if I was anything but a Christian I doubt you'd even bother to respond.

     I'm curious to know how you arrived at the figure of 1% regarding the number of scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution...?

As for thumbing noses at the fossil record being absurd, perhaps you should speak to the scientists who do just that.  You seem to know more about the subject than they do...The gaps in the fossil record _are _the problem!

You assume that I am arguing for creationism.  I haven't said anything to that effect.  I am arguing for good science.  And you still didn't answer my question about the "scientific method."...or provide any of your "ample evidence."

Come on...show me.


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 24, 2006)

I got a nice note in my reputation from Elder/Cuffee, further demonstrating how pathetic he is.

Again, rather than offer up evidence to support his argument, he states that a "business degree" makes me "uneducated".

This is the what happens when you argue on the internet with morons - which by they way is what he called me. 

This is the arrogance of these people.  They tell you to believe something - merely because they do not because there is evidence.  And if you are an independent thinker instead of koolaid drinker - they say your just not educated.  

Dude, please explain how I earned a degree without an education?  Or atleast try.  I know you have a difficult time with things like that.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

Remember what Mark Twain said:

"Never let schooling get in the way of your education."​Just let it go...​


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Au contraire - those of us who really_ do_ know something about the subject are very much aware of the difference between micro and macro evolution. It happens to fit into your aruguement which is why you insist on using it. There's no "illusory dichotomy" involved at all. These are two very different theories.


 
You repeatedly claim this but have yet to demonstrate _how_ this is so.

Orthodox evolutionary theory argues that genetic adaptations emerge in a given population via random variation and natural selection ("micro" evolution) and that, over time, these adaptations accumulate to the point where they genetically differentiate the population from the parent species ("macro" evolution).

So, please explain to me _how_ these two ideas are different, other than size effect. Simply claiming they are different does not make it so.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> As for the skeptics being in circles "outside of science"...gosh, I didn't know that representatives from the Smithsonian, the director of the center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, and other such men were considered to be "outside of science."



Please re-read my statements. I never claimed these men were outside of science, I claimed that the _arguments_ are outside of science.

And by that I mean the arguments of these gentlemen are not published in peer-reviewed academic periodicals devoted to such sciences. Lots of noted scientists hold lots of crazy opinions (everything from "the Holocaust never happened" to "women can't do math and science"), but that doesn't mean they could successfully argue for their position in a peer-reviewed academic setting.

Simply saying "Dr. X says Y" when discussing science is pretty meaningless if Dr. X won't publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. 



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> Once again, your colors are showing. I have not indicated or asked that creationism be supported by anyone - I have never indicated that any scientific journals have published anything in regards to the subject.



Which was my point exactly. No _scientific_ evidence has been advanced for these individuals' claim because they have not been subjected to _peer review_. 



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> I'm curious to know how you arrived at the figure of 1% regarding the number of scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution...?



The pertinent "list" in question that is floating somewhere out there on the web consists of no more than a few hundred scientists. This is in comparison to the thousands upon thousands of scientists that make up the field, none of whom have voiced any dissent concerning evolutionary theory (outside of disagreements on the details).



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> As for thumbing noses at the fossil record being absurd, perhaps you should speak to the scientists who do just that. You seem to know more about the subject than they do...The gaps in the fossil record _are _the problem!



In other words, you're not going to address my arguments and just resort to Appeals To Authority. Understood.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> You assume that I am arguing for creationism. I haven't said anything to that effect. I am arguing for good science.



Not to be rude, but you don't know what _good science_ is.

That you still haven't got the point about _peer review_ after several posts is proof enough of that. . .



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> And you still didn't answer my question about the "scientific method."...or provide any of your "ample evidence."



29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution

Although, all of this is really beside the point because, as I said before, the only circles through which this "debate" is argued is outside of science. It is rather absurd to argue that populist books that have not been scrutinized by peer review are doing "good science", whereas the peer-reviewed academic journals are just awash in dogmatic "bad science".

It should be pointed out that in such discussions, "good science" is opertationally defined as "scientific conclusions (not methods) that the commentator agrees with", whereas "ample evidence" is operationally defined as "evidence that the commentator agrees with". Where I'm from, we call that a biased sampling, something that generally gets corrected in peer review.

Laterz.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 24, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> I got a nice note in my reputation from Elder/Cuffee, further demonstrating how pathetic he is.
> 
> Again, rather than offer up evidence to support his argument, he states that a "business degree" makes me "uneducated".
> .


 
Huh? 

I'll admit that I don't see how a business degree makes you at all qualified to argue about biology-just as none of my degrees-though at least science degrees-do either. 

I'll even admit right here that my feelings towards you-and your arguments-are pretty much the same as yours are towards mine,but, if I wanted to call you anything, I'd go ahead and do it right here;it's not really necessary, though,as you're doing a super-fine job of demonstrating just where you live-intellectually speaking-on your own.

As for my arguments, I didn't really have any, did I? I only pointed out that the prevalent scientific thinking by people in the fields in question points towards evolution, and how intelligent design simply isn't a "theory" in any sense of the word but the most simplistic. In fact, if you review all my posts on the topic carefully, you'll find that I, along with quite a few other scientists, happen to believe in a Creator; I just don't think, for scientific and philosophical/metaphysical reasons, that it's science's place _yet_ to prove or disprove his existence, or to even find evidence of a designer in all of this-in fact, many of the examples of "design" you used-in terms of the human body, for example-are evidence of evolution.

Lastly, Jim, you can certainly believe what you want to believe. It doesn't matter to me at all, but when you present your ideas on a public forum such as this, well, they're going to be disagreed with by more than a few people, including me-especially when they're as obviously weak and biased as yours are.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

Posted by Heretic-
"You repeatedly claim this but have yet to demonstrate _how_ this is so.

Orthodox evolutionary theory argues that genetic adaptations emerge in a given population via random variation and natural selection ("micro" evolution) and that, over time, these adaptations accumulate to the point where they genetically differentiate the population from the parent species ("macro" evolution).

So, please explain to me _how_ these two ideas are different, other than size effect. Simply claiming they are different does not make it so."

     Okay..."The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."
-R.H. Goldschmidt, _The Material Basis of Evolution_

"Microevolution involves mainly changes within ptentially continuous populations and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation.  Macroevolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution.  If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of microevolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."
-G.G. Simpson, _Tempo and Mode in Evolution_

"Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood.  None has ever been observed and we have no idea whether any may be in progress.  _There is no good fossil record of any." _(Italics are mine)
-R. Wesson, _Beyond Natural Selection_

     You asked about peer-reviewed material.  Here you go:

"We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating." 
*Gereth Nelson*, Wall Street Journal Dec.9, 1986. 


"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record." 
T. Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record", New Scientist, 108, pg 66, 1985


"Well represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happen to most species." 
S. J. Gould, "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness", Natural History, Dec. 1988, p 14. 

"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for evolution. The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)." 
S. J. Gould, "Cordelia's dilema, Natural History, Feb. 1993, p 15. 

"If it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution." 
T. H. Huxley, Three Lectures on Evolution

*S. J. Gould*, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" Natural History , pp 22, 24, 1977. 
"Rather than supporting evolution, the breaks in the known fossil record support the creation of major groups with the possibility of some limited variation within each group." 

*D. Ager*, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. 
"But I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. ... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." 

*E. White*, "Presidential Address: A Little on Lungfishes," Proceedings of the Linnean Society 177 (1966), pg 8. 
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil records has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." 

     How's that for starters?

     I did wonder where you came up with your figure of 1% (regarding the number of world-class scientists who are skeptical or in complete denial of macroevolution) and it is apparent that you pulled it out of thin air.

     You want to sound as though you have some idea of what you're trying to argue.  You don't.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

Oops- looks like I don't know much about my font here...    Dog jumped on my lap...


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

This is also an interesting take-


> Evolution Goes Fishing Again*Culture War** Brian Cherry
> *May 26, 2006
> 
> A good argument can be made that society today is dedicated to showing things as they do not appear to be.  Resumes, Clinton memoirs, the Push Up bra, etc are all monuments to the distortion of information.  Whether the misrepresentations are in the form of a president trying to pass oral sex off as just an enthusiastic Howdy Do from a star struck intern or somebody claiming on their resume that they invented the internet, none of them have the down home charm of the typical fish story.
> Most fish stories have something to do with the size of the fish, but when an evolutionist tells this sort of tale, the fish is somehow a distant ancestor of the human race.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Okay..."The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."
> -R.H. Goldschmidt, _The Material Basis of Evolution_
> 
> "Microevolution involves mainly changes within ptentially continuous populations and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macroevolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of microevolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."
> ...



In other words, instead of providing actual arguments for your position, you're going to lob a few quotations taken horridly out of context. Gotchah.

Still waiting for an actual argument. 



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> You asked about peer-reviewed material. Here you go:
> 
> "We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating."
> *Gereth Nelson*, Wall Street Journal Dec.9, 1986.
> ...




Pretty pitiful, actually.

Not only are most (if not all) of the aformentioned authors proponents of evolutionary theory (I mean, Stephen Jay Gould??), but absolutely _none_ of the sources you cited come from peer-reviewed academic journals.

In fact, pretty much everything you have cited thus far lends support to punctuated equilibrium, which does not contradict evolution.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> I did wonder where you came up with your figure of 1% (regarding the number of world-class scientists who are skeptical or in complete denial of macroevolution) and it is apparent that you pulled it out of thin air.



If that's what makes you feel better, sure.

Of course, I'm not the one confusing "denial of macroevolution" with "questioning how macroevolution actually happens".



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> You want to sound as though you have some idea of what you're trying to argue. You don't.



Kettle? Pot? Black??

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> The methods used to teach this to our children is not dissimilar to the methods used to teach young kids in Nazi Germany that Jews were not human. We all know how well that turned out


 
Well, that just says it all, doesn't it??

Still waiting on articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals that are in support of intelligent design or creationism. Still waiting. . .


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

I would have thought that the cited material would have satisfied your "peer-reviewed journals" hunger.  Do you have any specific journals in mind?  If so, I'll make some phone calls and see what I can do...

It would seem that no matter what material is presented to you, no matter that it is written by well-respected authorities in the field, it isn't going to be good enough...

By the way- the quotations weren't taken out of context.  

I suppose that material which has been presented in textbooks and other such publications won't be authoritative enough for someone of your stature...unfortunate.  There's a great deal of it.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

Oops- almost missed your last point.

As I have stated previously in this thread - so write it down this time - I'm not arguing for creationism.  I'm arguing against macroevolution.  There's a difference.

You are assuming (and we all know what that does) that because I'm Christian, I'm arguing for creationism.  Let's pretend I'm a Tibetan Buddhist or something...


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> I would have thought that the cited material would have satisfied your "peer-reviewed journals" hunger. Do you have any specific journals in mind? If so, I'll make some phone calls and see what I can do...
> 
> It would seem that no matter what material is presented to you, no matter that it is written by well-respected authorities in the field, it isn't going to be good enough...
> 
> ...


 
Actually, pstarr, it's quite simple.

It's becoming increasingly obvious you don't know what peer-reviewed academic periodicals are nor do you seem to understand what makes up good science. Good science doesn't rest on Appeals To Authority. Nothing is authoritative in science. Period.

I still find all this gibberish to be rather amusing in nature. "Bad science" is what is being presented in academic journals, but "good science" is what is discussed in websites and populist books. Creationists have their own "journals", of course, but they have the kind of "science" where everybody agrees with everybody else and the conclusions are foregone.

That all of this is being interpolated with some kooky conspiracy theory "cult of evolution" nonsense is just the icing on the cake, in my opinion.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> As I have stated previously in this thread - so write it down this time - I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm arguing against macroevolution. There's a difference.


 
Just as there's a difference between denying macroevolution and simply questioning how it takes place.

Funny, that.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> You are assuming (and we all know what that does) that because I'm Christian, I'm arguing for creationism. Let's pretend I'm a Tibetan Buddhist or something...


 
Wouldn't make a difference. Religious mythology is religious mythology. It ain't science.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

Oh, and I see that proponents of creationism and intelligent design are still referring to evolutionary theory as "evolutionism". This is after I pointed out that this term has absolutely _nothing_ to do with biological evolution. It refers to a now-discredited sociological theory popular in the late 1800's.

Sorry, but whenever somebody criticizes biological evolution as "evolutionism", I can't help thinking they have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

And, of course, none of those criticizing evolutionary theory have yet to seriously answer my previous questions. If evolution is not real, then....

Why do humans get goosebumps?? Why do upland geese have webbed feet??

Still waiting, still waiting. . .


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 24, 2006)

I guess my question would be this. If evolution is proven to be true, how would it influence the Christian  viewpoint of our place on Earth?


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 24, 2006)

Humans get goosebumps when they are cold and when they are frightened. When someone gets goosebumps the hair stands up. This would stand to serve the purpose of trapping air between the hairs, creating insulation, and providing warmth. Look at birds. When it is cold they puff up. 

The hair standing up would also serve to make a animal look bigger when threatened. We are animals, like it or not.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

We have some other scientists who have come to the fore (although I realize that it's meaningless unless it's published in some peer-review journal...but it does shed more light on the subject):

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." 
*S. Stanley*, Macroevolution, pg 39

And this is interesting:

Quotes by Darwin in The Origin of Species:
"why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see *innumerable transitional forms*? 
The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been *inconceivably great*" 

"[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in *countless numbers* in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and *every stratum full of such intermediate links*? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." 
*C. Darwin* quoted in The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, 1974, pg 202, 292.

And......

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. *Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record.* *The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.* 
*N. Eldredge* and *I. Tattersall*, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46. 

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks." Science, July 17. 1981, pg 289. 

What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories. 
*E. Mayr*, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, pg 524.

As for peer review articles- (full article available at link)



> Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (Developmental genetics of homoeosis, _Advances in Genetics_, *16* [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as _Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science,_ and _Herpetologica_.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 24, 2006)

_*Moderator Note:

When posting articles and materials not of your own creation, please abide by copyright law and follow the MT Copyright Policy.

Several posts in this thread have been severely edited to comply with this policy.  Links have been provided to the original source of the material.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator*_


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> We have some other scientists who have come to the fore (although I realize that it's meaningless unless it's published in some peer-review journal...but it does shed more light on the subject):
> 
> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
> *S. Stanley*, Macroevolution, pg 39


 
You know ... I have stayed out of this discussion mostly, because the Intelligent Design supporters never support their position, they only attack that of science. 

But, that you claim this quote would 'shed some light' on the subject ... I just have to ask.

Even if I were to show you the fossil record that documents the gradual evolution ... blah, blah, blah ... could you even recognize it?

I don't believe someone who argues the position of Intelligent Design can be equiped to discern the things they claim are not present .... 


Seems to me that I recently heard of two fossil discoveries ... one believed to be of the first fish to develop lungs and leave the water .... one of a dinosaur 1/10th the size of all previously known records of that species. The size change was an adaptation for the creature living on an island, rather than a continent. 

But, could the Intelligent Design crowd recognize these new discoveries as evidence? It seems not.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 24, 2006)

* Moderator Note. 

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). 

If you feel that the reputation system is being abused, please feel free to contact any one of the Administrators of the site and they will look into any concerns you have.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Senior Moderator
*


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 25, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> We have some other scientists who have come to the fore (although I realize that it's meaningless unless it's published in some peer-review journal...but it does shed more light on the subject):



Well, peer review is essential because it is the _testing ground_ in science.

If one's findings have not been subjected to peer review, then from a scientific point-of-view, that is basically the same as saying they have not been scrutinized, examined, or "fact-checked" at all. Any scientific "hypothesis" or "theory" that has not been published in academic journals is basically unreliable in science.

This is not to say that scientists don't occassionally publish in populist books or periodicals, as they most certainly do. However, no scientist that wished to have his or her ideas taken credibly would ever publish their ideas in populist mediums _before_ subjecting them to peer review. That would just be absurd.

And, that is _precisely_ what proponents of intelligent design and creation science do.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
> *S. Stanley*, Macroevolution, pg 39
> 
> And this is interesting:
> ...



While none of the aforementioned are peer-reviewed, most (if not all) of the sources you have cited are addressing the idea of gradualism, not macroevolution. That you consistently collapse these two ideas speaks volumes concerning your understanding of the subject matter.

I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you suggesting that punctualists like Stephen Jay Gould and James Mark Baldwin before him reject macroevolution?? They most certainly do not, they are simply providing new theoretical tools by which to explain the process.

In fact, what seems to be readily apparent is that proponents of intelligent design seem to often confuse "evolution" with "Neo-Darwinism". The idea here is that if they can cast doubt on the theoretical framework of Neo-Darwinism, then this casts doubt on evolution as a whole. However, this does not logically follow, as a number of evolutionary scientists (calling themselves "Post-Darwinists") are also concerned with updating or amending the basic Darwinian skeleton. It wouldn't be the first time, either, as Darwinians previously held to mistaken ideas such as recapitulationism and pre-Mendelian genetic inheritance. Today, this includes gradualism (as well as gene-centrism).

Furthermore, nothing you have cited thus far are actual arguments. They are just brief summaries of the opinions of individual scientsts. Opinions are all but meaningless without supporting arguments and evidence.

So, yeah, not impressed and not convinced.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> As for peer review articles- (full article available at link)



You guys seem to be regurgitating each others' arguments. I already addressed this here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=565335&postcount=238

My basic point was that a scientist publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals on a subject like sea turtle migration while posting in a peusoscience creationist journal on something like the Flood has _no_ relationship whatsoever with one another. 

This is just Poisoning The Well, but in reverse. You try to present complimentary information about a source in other to artificially enhance the credibility of all his claims. However, it does not logically follow that a source that writes accurate information about sea turtle migration patterns will also write accurate information about geological time or evolutionary theory.

That is why until such arguments are presented in pee-reviewed academic periodicals, why should treat them as the pseudoscience that they are.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You know ... I have stayed out of this discussion mostly, because the Intelligent Design supporters never support their position, they only attack that of science.



Well, that's what you have to do when you have no evidence in support of your own claims.

The tactic by proponents of intelligent design right now is to criticize and undermine evolutionary theory, so as to put the two ideas (evolution and design) on "equal footing", so to speak. They themselves have said as much on the matter. Thus all of the "viable alternative" rhetoric.

They know well, I think, that they don't actually have enough positive evidence to support their own position. Mostly just philosophical speculation and _a priori_ metaphysical assumptions about reality. Therefore, their tactic is to attack the other guys' position to bring theirs up in status.

Of course, what the proponents of intelligent design are _actually_ attacking is not evolution, but a Straw Man masquerading as evolution. They seem to hold to glaringly inaccurate ideas such as gradualism (tell that to S. J. Gould) and the idea that every evolutionary novelty must be adaptive in nature (thereby ignoring the possibility of by-products or stochastic "noise"), notions which are generally not held by evolutionary scientists today.

The truth is that most of the "critiques" that these guys bring up are more adquately addressed by things like niche selection, organic selection (i.e., the Baldwin effect), punctuated equilibria, self-organizing systems, and so on. 

That is where the _real_ debate about evolution is: not about its existence, but about its precise mechanics.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Even if I were to show you the fossil record that documents the gradual evolution ... blah, blah, blah ... could you even recognize it?
> 
> I don't believe someone who argues the position of Intelligent Design can be equiped to discern the things they claim are not present ....
> 
> ...


 
Well, the "Incomplete Fossil Record" argument is an interesting one. . .

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that there are indeed no "transitional forms" in the extant fossile record. A fallacious presumption, I know, but I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. 

Now, then, where does that leave us?? 

Well, we know that certain species exist today that did not exist thousands of years ago. And, we know that certain species existed thousands of years ago that do not exist today. Furthermore, we can pinpoint with a reasonable degree of accuracy (give or take a few thousand years) when specific species appeared to arise within the fossil record and when they appeared to disappear in the fossil record.

Still, no transitional forms. So, where does that leave us??

Well, we know a hominid species known as _Australopethicus_ walked the earth some 3 to 4 million years ago. Around the time those hominids died out, another hominid species known as _Homo Habilis_ seemed to just have "appeared" out of nowhere living in roughly the same geographical habitats as _Homo Habilis_, around 1.5 to 2.5 million years ago.

That the fossils of these two species of hominid shared a remarkable degree of morphological similarity is beside the point because, again, no transitional forms.

Of course, _Homo Habilis_ isn't running around today, so they obviously shared _Australopethicus's_ fate. Amazingly, another hominid species, _Homo Ergaster_ appeared in the same geographical regions of _Homo Habilis_ at roughly the same time the former died out, some 1.5 to 2 million years ago. Then again, the same thing happened to _Homo Ergaster_ when they were increasingly "replaced" by the spontaneously-appearing hominid _Homo Erectus_ around 1 to 1.8 million years ago.

So, again, where does that leave us??

Well, this really leaves us with two choices. Either a) macroevolution does actually happen. Or, b) some external Other has been intermittently "creating" new species of hominids on our planet at around the same time that morphologically similar species have died out for the better part of 4 million years (just based on the aforementioned examples alone).

But, let's be serious here. As the above examples demonstrated, the "Incomplete Fossil Record" argument is clearly a Straw Man. Yes, there are holes in the fossil record that have yet to be accounted for. But, the fact that there are holes here and there does *not change the fact that we do know perfectly well about the when and where of Australopethicus, Homo Habilis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, and several other species.

In essence, proponents of creationism and intelligent design are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They try to make you believe that because the fossil record is incomplete that it tells us absolutely nothing about the paleontological history of our planet. This is nonsense. The examples I demonstrated along the Homo genus evince a clear line of descent, when one takes morphological similarities, chronological appearance, and geographical location into account.

So, which is it?? Does macroevolution actually happen, as all the evidence seems to indicate?? Or, has some Designer been repeatedly "creating" new species on our planet at just around the time that morphologically similar species seem to die out?? Which seems more plausible??

Laterz.*


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 25, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, the fact that there are holes here and there does *not change the fact that we do know perfectly well about the when and where of Australopethicus, Homo Habilis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, and several other species.
> *


*

There is another thing in the discussion of fossil records, and intelligent design that serves to muddy the issue. I certainly am not as familiar with the actual fossil records ... but let us use your list above ...
Australopethicus
Homo Habilis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Erectus ​If we look carefully at this list, there are three un-accounted for transitions; one 'gap' (if you will) between each listing.

Let us assume that tomorrow, I find a new fossil. We can determine that this fossil does not fit with any of those species (or genus, or whatever). Let's call this new fossil .... Homo MartialTalkus. We determine that Homo MartialTalkus fits, somehow between Homo Ergaster and Homo Erectus. Let's review our new chart.
Australopethicus
Homo Habilis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Martialtalkus
Homo Erectus​As we look carefully at our known history, with the new discovery, we now have four 'gaps' in the fossil record. 

Now, this may be a bit simplistic. But that is how I see the 'fossil record argument. It is impossible for science to make enough headway, until I sprout wings and mutate into the cool angel guy in X-Men III.*


----------



## elder999 (Jun 25, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> God created the earth in a mature form. He then created all the plants, animals and man, making sure that each had what it needed to survive.
> 
> He created the human body with a heart, a ciculatory system, lungs, stomache, kidneys, brain, nervous system, etc. And they all worked flawlessly together from the start. Again, if not, the first humans would have died and there would be no more. There was an obvious inteligence behind the creation of the first man and woman.


 
The notion that the creation myth of Genesis is to be taken literally is a rather new one-in fact, it's medieval in origin. Early church fathers and Jewish commentary pretty much make the case that the creation myth of Genesis is an allegory, in terms of time and sequence especially. 



> *And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: &#8216;This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth&#8217; [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression &#8216;when they were created&#8217; intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression &#8216;in the day that God made them,&#8217; that is, in and by which God made &#8216;all things,&#8217; and &#8216;without which not even one thing was made,&#8217; points out the activity exerted by the Son" Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208].
> 
> "And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" -Origen, Against Celsus6:60, A.D. 248.*




Creation, as Origen understands it, is the temporal expression of an eternal order. And it is from this standpoint that we have to approach the description in Genesis of the creation of the world. It is an act which essentially takes place outside time.

The God who made the whole world did not need time to make the mighty creation of heaven and earth... For even if these things seem to have been made in six days, intelligence is required to understand in what sense the words "In six days" are meant...


Origen believes it is ridiculous to understand creation as taking place in "six days,&#8217; interpreted as a literal sequence. He points out that "days" did not exist before the sun and moon and stars were formed, and it is quite clear to him that the "days" described in Genesis 1 do not refer to a literal succession. In this he is following the thinking of Philo, and of the Middle Platonists who said that Plato's description of an apparently temporal creation was made for the sake of "clarity of instruction." In the same way, Origen says that "everything was made at once ... but for the sake of clarity a list of days and their events was given. The same line of thought is found in St. Didymus. The story of creation, in other words, refers to one simultaneous act, but was presented in sequential form to enable us to imagine the process.

Origen is happy to affirm that "bodily nature was created out of nothing after a space of time and brought into being from non-existence." Similarly it will end in non-existence: "bodily matter exists but for a space of time, and just as it did not exist before it was made, so it will again be resolved into non-existence." This philosophical proposition is confidently related by Origen to those Biblical texts which affirm that heaven and earth will pass away. This world has both a beginning and an end. Its nature is such that it forms a cosmic counterpart to the life of the individual, who enters into time by his birth and departs from it by his death.
 

Taking the case of the human body as well, why did the Creator endow the first man and woman with an appendix- a vestigial organ (like the ostriches wings, something they don't need any more) that is most commonly thought to be what is left of the herbivorous _caecum_, an organ in vegetable eating mammals (like most primates) that optimizes the digestion of cellulose, _but serves no apparent purpose whatsoever in humans, save to occasionally endanger their lives?_? (Though, like the pineal gland's once was, it's function may be undiscovered for now...)

As another example of human evolution, our skeletal systems are clearly evolved from creatures who were once neither completely bipedal or upright-the arrangement of our internal organs and spine reflect this adaptation-oh, that's right, I'm not supposed to use the word "adaptation" for evolution.....:lol:


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is another thing in the discussion of fossil records, and intelligent design that serves to muddy the issue. I certainly am not as familiar with the actual fossil records ... but let us use your list above ...Australopethicus
> Homo Habilis
> Homo Ergaster
> Homo Erectus
> ...


 
Heh. I'd rather evolve into Wolverine myself. 

However, I think the essential point you're trying to make is that all of these "missing link" arguments are fundamentally _subjective_ in nature. There is no established criteria for what does and does not constitute a "missing link", no standard for which a third-party observer to check for themselves. Instead, we are expected to appeal to intuitionism (it just _feels_ discontinuous, right?).

As I pointed out before, this whole whining about the fossil record "holes" is really a Straw Man. We have enough information from the fossil record to draw reasonable conclusions about the descent of certain species (most notably our own), as well as to observe certain morphological trends in paleontological history. That there are "holes" here and there in no way detracts from this basic idea.

Furthermore, the "missing links" argument has absolutely _no_ weight if we reject the paradigm of evolutionary gradualism, as in the case of Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibria.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 25, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> The notion that the creation myth of Genesis is to be taken literally is a rather new one-in fact, it's medieval in origin. Early church fathers and Jewish commentary pretty much make the case that the creation myth of Genesis is an allegory, in terms of time and sequence especially.



Well said.

There's also the little historical wrinkle that the Jewish creation myth is actually just a reworking of older Babylonian-Sumerian mythology. Joseph Campbell argued this point quite well in his various works. 



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Creation, as Origen understands it, is the temporal expression of an eternal order. And it is from this standpoint that we have to approach the description in Genesis of the creation of the world. It is an act which essentially takes place outside time.



This is similar to the thoughts of the German mystic Meister Eckhart:

".... there are more days than one. There is the soul's day and God's day. A day, whether six or seven ago, or more than six thousand years ago, is just as near to the present as yesterday. Why? Because all time is contained in the present Now-moment. Time comes of the revolution of the heavens and day began with the first revolution. The soul's day falls within this time and consists of the natural light in which things are seen. God's day, however, is the complete day, comprising both day and night. It is the real Now-moment, which for the soul is eternity's day, on which the Father begets his only begotten Son and the soul is reborn in God. 

The soul's day and God's day are different. In her natural day the soul knows all things above time and place; nothing is far or near. And that is why I say, this day all things are of equal rank. To talk about the world as being made by God to-morrow, yesterday, would be talking nonsense. God makes the world and all things in this present now. Time gone a thousand years ago is now as present and as near to God as this very instant. The soul who is in this present now, in her the Father bears his one-begotten Son and in that same birth the soul is born back into God. It is one birth; as fast as she is reborn into God the Father is begetting his only Son in her.

God the Father and the Son have nothing to do with time. Generation is not in time, but at the end and limit of time. In the past and future movements of things, your heart flits about; it is in vain that you attempt to know eternal things; in divine things, you should be occupied intellectually....

Again, God loves for his own sake, acts for his own sake: that means that he loves for the sake of love and acts for the sake of action. It cannot be doubted that God would never have begot his Son in eternity if [his idea of] creation were other than [his act of] creation. Thus God created the world so that he might keep on creating. The past and future are both far from God and alien to his way."



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Taking the case of the human body as well, why did the Creator endow the first man and woman with an appendix- a vestigial organ (like the ostriches wings, something they don't need any more) that is most commonly thought to be what is left of the herbivorous _caecum_, an organ in vegetable eating mammals (like most primates) that optimizes the digestion of cellulose, _but serves no apparent purpose whatsoever in humans, save to occasionally endanger their lives?_? (Though, like the pineal gland's once was, it's function may be undiscovered for now...)


 
There's also the two funny questions that have yet to be answered. . .

Why do humans get goosebumps?? Why do upland geese have webbed feet??

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 26, 2006)

By the way, in case anyone is interested in the actual fossil record pertaining to human evolution. . .

*Australopithecus:*​ 









 
*Homo habilis:*​ 











*Homo ergaster:*












*Homo erectus:*












*Homo sapiens:*









*Homo sapiens sapiens:*






. . . . so, can anyone tell me where we're supposed to fit in "transitional forms" here???


----------



## qizmoduis (Jun 26, 2006)

pstarr has just resorted to another dishonest, yet sadly predictable tactic of creationist anti-science crusaders called "quote mining."  The quote-miner attempts to derail proper debate by using painstakenly selected and edited quotes of scientists that appear, when stripped of surrouding (and occasionally interior) context, to support the creationist position.  Pstarr's above quotes were copied directly from a standard creationist quote list.  See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ for more information and examples.

Pstarr:  It is often claimed by christians that one of the most important doctrines of christianty is that of honesty.  Quote mining does not demonstrate this doctrine.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 26, 2006)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> pstarr has just resorted to another dishonest, yet sadly predictable tactic of creationist anti-science crusaders called "quote mining." The quote-miner attempts to derail proper debate by using painstakenly selected and edited quotes of scientists that appear, when stripped of surrouding (and occasionally interior) context, to support the creationist position. Pstarr's above quotes were copied directly from a standard creationist quote list. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ for more information and examples.


 
Nicely down, qizmoduis.

I especially liked this statement from the scientist pstarr has without doubt quoted the most often, Stephen Jay Gould:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

(Stephen Jay Gould, _Evolution as Fact and Theory_)

Laterz.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 26, 2006)

*Moderator Note:
*
 Ladies and Gentlemen:

  This thread is fascinating in nature and full of really good information and opinions on the subject of Intelligent Design.  I have fully enjoyed the information being displayed here and admit to lurking and learning from all of you. 

  Unfortunately it has also been a thread that has resulted in multiple reports to the moderating team and one moderator warning regarding sniping has seemed to go unnoticed.

  I would hate to see this thread get locked down so I ask you to please refrain from getting personal in thread and calling out other peoples opinions and attitudes that could be regarded as sniping.  Chose your words and responses carefully, please.

*Consider this your second and final moderator warning and I thank you for your kind consideration regarding this manner.  *

* Lisa Deneka
  MartialTalk Senior Moderator.*


----------



## tradrockrat (Jun 26, 2006)

consider this post the "transitional" post between contentious calling out posting and constructive educational posting... kind of an evolution in posting if you will...



sorry - couldn't help myself. 


BTW - I'd want to evolve into Wolverine too.


----------



## Adept (Jun 30, 2006)

I'd just like to thank the person who anonymously left a negative rep point for one of my posts on this thread. Their input has been very valuable.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 30, 2006)

I can't believle this thread is still going on. I thought the Mods would have shut it down by now. By all means continue.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 22, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> There's also the two funny questions that have yet to be answered. . .
> 
> Why do humans get goosebumps?? Why do upland geese have webbed feet??
> 
> Laterz.


 
We can only assume that the upland goose once had more occasion to swimas for goose bumps, 

Goose bumps are created when tiny muscles at the base of each hair, contract and pull the hair erect. The reflex is started by the sympathetic nervous system, which is in general responsible for many fight-or-flight responses.

Goose bumps are often a response to cold: in animals covered with fur or hair, the erect hairs trap air to create a layer of insulation. Goose bumps can also be a response to anger or fear: the erect hairs make the animal appear larger, in order to intimidate enemies. This can be observed in the intimidation displays of chimpanzees, and in frightened cats. In humans, it can even extend to piloerection as a reaction to hearing nails scratch on a chalkboard, listening to music, or watching a scary movie/

Piloerection as a response to cold or fear is vestigial in humans; as humans retain only very little body hair, the reflex now serves no known purpose.

What heretic888 is implying, of course, is that this reflex is from a time when mass was less evolved, and covered with hair rather than clothing.

Interestingly, a friend and colleague is a prominent geneticist-she did some DNA testing on my family, as our ethnic history is pretty interesting for someone in her field.  Anyway, the other day I mentioned to her that I was lactose intolerant, to which she replied, Well, of course you are: 90% of African Americans and the same percentage of Native-Americans are. She then proceeded to tell me why.

She explained that milk contains lactose, and that the enzyme which we need to digest it, lactase, becomes deficient in adults, but is present in almost all human infants, and that infants need lactose to digest the essential calcium that is present in milk.  Adults can get calcium from plant foods, like leafy green vegetables, which, of course, infants cant eat. Another important factor for digesting calcium is vitamin D, which can be obtained from oceanic fish, fish-eating mammals like seals, and synthesized in the body by exposing the skin to sunlight. Infants, unlike adults, can get their vitamin D only from sunlight, because vitamin D does not naturally occur in milk.  So, lactase deficiency, or diminishing in adulthood makes sense, engineering wise-it makes a small case for intelligent design, but what about all those people who are not lactose intolerant?

Dairying first began in the Middle East, 12,000 years ago-people there discovered that they couldnt drink this abundant food, though-it made them sick. The could digest it if they let it sour, turn to yogurt or cheese, since fermentation changes undigestable lactose into sucrose, so there was no need for lactase production to use animal milk. Moreover, since these people had abundant vitamin D from sunlight, and calcium from leafy green vegetables, they didnt need lactase. So, Jews, Arabs, Greeks, Sudanese, Africans and South Asians often have lactose intolerance, because they have no need of lactase.

Europeans, though, dont suffer from lactose intolerance in such high percentages. They lived in a mist shrouded environment, had to bundle up against the cold, were without access to vitamin D in fish and sea mammals, and lacked green leafy vegetables in abundance. Under these conditions, individuals who were genetically capable of digesting large quantities of unfermented milk were better able to reach adulthood, avoid disease, and have reproductive success. Karen (thats my friend) estimates that within 4 or 5 thousand years, the gene that controls lactase production in adulthood spread to over 90 percent of the individuals in northern European dairying populations. 

Interestingly, in India, Mongolia and China, we have some interesting stuff-India has a very long tradition of dairying, but primarily consumes milk in fermented form-not being stressed for calcium from plants or vitamin D from the sun, China has virtually no dairying, while the Mongolians do, but use fermented milk, and over 90 percent of Chinese and East Asians are lactose intolerant as adults.

To sum up, we have people exposed to sun who access to vegetables being typically lactose intolerant, and those who lacked sunshine and green leafy vegetables developing, over time, the ability to produce lactase and digest raw milk well into adulthood.

So, my question, for the intelligent design/creationism/Adam and Eve, all of creation in perfect form as it is today crowd, is, were Adam and Eve lactose intolerant, or not?


----------

