Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This. - Page 2

Interestingly, common descent, what you're describing as "evolution", while proposed by Darwin, is a separate concept from evolution, although they share common ideas.

The more you use italicized words in your post, the more right you are. That's a fact.

I'm glad you brought up Judge Jones. It appears he took about 90% of his anaylsis on whether ID was religion from documents submitted by ACLU attorneys. Not illegal, no, but at least we know now exactly where he was coming from in his argument.

Then you'll need to distiguish between macroevolution and microevolution.

Yes, of course. Let's clear the semantic/connotative air then: macroevolution is of no use to science, and is only an ideological position.

I love that. I was raised by strict Christians and they say the exact same thing in a different context about how God exists because of all the wonderful things around us e.g how could such an amazing design have happened by accident?

I agree evolution occurs due to environmental changes etc but you can hardly extrapolate that to proof that new species can develop.


I was saying that it's incredibly difficult to gather information about our world as much as 2000 or so years ago so to collect data over a couple of decades or centuries and develop theories that are then applied to timeframes of billions of years seems a bit strange, though I know fossils help somewhat.

But yeah, some people's views on Jesus are just way out. I've seen it up close over decades of my life and it's very disheartening.


I never believe anything I can't convince myself of. I learned that lesson early in life after having Christianity drilled into me 24/7. I was being coerced into spreading christianity and professing to a faith that I didn't have. When I turned away from it, I became a firm sceptic in most things and irrespective of whether or not I believe someone to be more intelligent than me, they are bound by the same constraints I am. The best I can do is to accept that people have proven the theories to themselves and I respect their right to hold those views.


It comes down to definitions though. There are parts of the theory of evolution that are flakey just as with any science. I studied Quantum Mechanics and you should hear some of the stuff they come up with. 11 parallel universes, time travel, everything is made out of strings.

The problem with science (and similarly religion) is it applies the techniques we have managed to develop by overcoming our human limitations to the universe in which we are confined. Religion especially has this problem because you have to ask whether God created us in his image or we created him in ours.


I agree that all forms of both views are not mutually exclusive but I reckon that some forms are.


Evolutionists haven't proven that one species can change into another. I read there were recently some tests done that came close but they weren't conclusive. There are some hard sceptics in the religious field but just like the deal with the Earth being round, if enough evidence is presented, people will change.

The assumption you seem to make is that religious people are all just a bunch of uneducated people. There are creationists who know the ins and outs of biology and are still not convinced by the theories.


Someone was obviously watching porn near them and they have just adapted to their surroundings. I'm curious about what evolutionists think about homosexuality. I would have thought it would seem just as bad because why would people or animals insist on acting in a way that doesn't ensure survival of the species?

No, dmz. I don't know what that means.

Care to bring it to light for those of us who don't speak "nudge-nudge-wink-wink?"

Well, when you're copying and pasting someone else's argument.....

Oooooh, were you a JW too? Man, they can screw you up.


I did the same, but then finally hit a happy point: I will never know enough about all the specialist fields in science to be able to prove every point myself. I also won't have enough *time*... so somewhere along the line I accepted that I can reproduce the experiments where I can, and I can extrapolate, and I can check methodologies and logical arguments. At some point though, you have to establish whether or not you believe (ick) that the scientific process works, in general. Always be skeptical, but trust that others are skeptical too, and are watching your back. Don't believe everything, take everything with a small grain of salt, and always be looking for the flaws and thinking 'what if...'... but don't discount everything you can't individually recreate.


Yup. And yet it predicts the actual results nicely. That's all that matters. (Nit: QM != string theory. The former is a well-studied theory with predictions that can be tested and reproduced in the lab. The latter is, well, not. I dislike string theory quite a bit.) The thing you have to remember in modeling, well, anything, is that the models are artificial ways of trying to analyze and predict behaviors observed in nature. This goes doubly so for mathematical models. However... if the predictions concur with observations, we believe that the model fits... not that the model is *actually* what's going on (that's a serious bonus, and the goal, of course, but in the realms of QM and such, we're still just modeling), but that it allows us to predict what will happen given a set of inputs.


Recent work in Italy found a common link not in homosexual men, but in their mothers. Apparently mothers who are 'ultrafertile' start having male children with a MUCH higher rate of homosexuality after a few kids. It's built-in population control... something that is quite important in *species* survival, if not individual. Nice piece of work.

Well, since this thread is getting so serious- I am going to kick it up a notch.

Isn't the connection of people who believe in ID/Creationism and their political leanings sort of hilarious and sort of a travesty at the same time?

I mean- in a way Bush and Co were genius in abusing these poor people's beliefs and preying on them for votes. Ripe for the pickins....

...judges aren't supposed to adopt winning arguments?

(And I doubt he "copied and pasted" as you're dubiously asserting)

I'm assuming you accept microevolution (which you previously claimed wasn't evolution) but not macroevolution?

I'm having a hard time following you: are you trying to be obtuse?

90.9% of that section is nearly verbatim.

Yes, people knew about microevolution long before Darwin.

Did you refer to some section before?

Regardless, the only relevant legal issue is whether Judge Jones correctly applied precedent-- and no one ever heard a peep out of you on that.

Too true -- with the copying and pasting of the ACLU's position -- it was a snap.

(so much for that iambic pentameter)

dmz:


How would bacteria "reuse" genetic information? Can you explain how reproductive adaptation via natural selection is not evolution?


Ah yes, I can see why you are ignoring me. You are attempting the entropy/information theory gambit, which is complete nonsense, because both of those postulates require a closed system, which the earth is certainly not.

The podcast I mentioned earlier dedicates an excellent episode on information theory arguments against evolutionary theory. (~12:00 minutes in)

I'll give you a hint:


The sun gives the earth an absolute shitload of energy all the time, constantly feeding all of the organic systems on the earth. The earth is not a closed system, therefore thermodynamic entropy and the burgeoning information theory gel nicely with biological evolution, because there is a constant and abundant supply of energy to feed from.


The actual working of evolution is natural selection and the mutations are only a part of it (a small part, at that, because a mutation is only considered deleterious or beneficial in context of natural selection). Natural selection is decidedly not random in any way at all.


What real-world gap is there between microevolution and macroevolution, in your view, that makes microevolution possible, but macroevolution impossible?

Well, for one, no one has documented a case of new species, or organs through Darwinian processes, and not for a lack of trying -- as Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."

And entropy, shemtropy, I can't get around Michael Polanyi's very astute observation, that you end up having to endorse the idea that chaos == complexity. I just can't go there.

I get up at 4 in the morning and find this.......

Off to your morning vespers and flagellation!!

It's evolutionary processes-- evolutionary biology isn't limited to what Darwin said.

And speciation *has* been observed in both the laboratory and nature.

• Observed instances of speciation
• Some more speciation events.

You have to be careful with that word "information".

When ID-ers specious arguments abusing the Second Law of Thermodynamics fell apart (not that these specious arguments still don't get plenty of air play, as if they'd never been shot down before), and claims like "you can't get order from disorder" couldn't stand any longer as "proof" that evolution is impossible (at least with any audience that understands the significance of the fact that the Earth isn't a thermodynamically closed system), a new tactic was needed. That tactic was to treat "information" as a special thing, separate and distinct from the mere "order" of thermodynamics. Information is the new thing that you can't get out of nowhere -- um, well, you can't get it out of nowhere unless you're God.

What ID-ers do is define "information" in such a way that it essentially has to be the product of an intelligence, hoping you won't catch on when anthropocentric concepts like "purpose" are thrown into the mix when they build up to their special meaning for the word. That done, all the ID-ers then have to do is say that DNA contains information, you know, that stuff that just can't come out of nowhere, can't be created (um, except by God), et voilÃ*, obviously some Intelligence, an intelligence which had to exist before man existed (cue Heavenly Choir music) must be responsible for the Miracle of Life (segue from Choir music into grand, triumphal trumpet theme, run majestic nature photography, pictures of new born babies, etc.).

Of course, dmz won't come out and admit any of this from the start. He'll pretend that his special meaning of the word "information" is the only game in town, and act (in his typical slippery, coy and round-about way) like you're being such an incredible dullard for not seeing the "obvious" implications of the "information content" of DNA, proteins, etc.

ive already masturbated thanks!

speciation is fine, it's not controversial at all -- but a new species through the macroevolutionary/Darwinian process has never been observed.

that must have hurt!

is this stand up?

that depends on what the definition of is is.

I wish you hadn't started this thread; it's too hard to resist adding my 2 cents.

Evolution is an observed phenomena, describing how living organisms change, especially in response to environmental stress. That's how I see it. Not much to argue about. 'Micro and Macro' appear to be made up terms that only add to confusion, IMHO, So what's the beef? I believe the real issue is what evolution can accomplish, and what it can't.

Level 1.

It's obvious that organisms adapt to their environment, and the article just gives more examples of the kinds of things we know take place. Not much to argue about.

Level 2.

Can evolution explain formation of the various species of life? Now we have a more controversial topic. Most biologist say yes, it is a proven fact, but many mathematicians strongly disagree. It gets very complicated and this is one place where information theory comes up I believe.

Level 3.

Can evolution explain the origin of life itself? Okay, here is where we have the greatest dissension in the ranks of scientists. Many are now saying things like: life came from outer space, a theory called panspermia. The difficulties of explaining how life spontaneously evolved on earth has gotten so difficult that many scientists are forced to look for alternatives.

Anyway, that is how I divide up the pie.

I don't get the distinction you're attempting to draw.

--Speciation is the formation of a new and distinct species.

Excuse me, are you denying the existence of the fossil record?

Or... are you saying that because no scientist was there to witness a new species being developed with their own eyes that observation has not taken place.

I invite you to do some research into whales.

He'd be demonstrably wrong on that point.

Actually, I think that people knew that if they mated the dumbest black dog they could find with its dumbest white sister they'd get a dalmation.

is that like p diddy and britney?

Many mathematicians? Such as who? What percentage of the mathematical community are we talking about here? Do these supposed mathematicians know very much about the biology to which they are applying their numeric calculations? Note: An ID-er who naively looks at a strand of DNA or protein in isolation, treats the problem of creating this molecule as if evolution means you get one single out-of-the-blue shot at coming with that specific molecular sequence, dismissing all iterative and self-organizing processes from his calculations, neglecting the issue of there being multiple final molecules which could serve identical purposes, and then declares odds like 10^500 for evolution creating this molecule "by chance"... does not a mathematician make.


No, it just gets very obfuscated where the ID brand of information theory, which has it's own "special" set of rules, gets trotted out.


There's that "many" again.

First of all, evolution of species can and does stand as a separate issue from the origin of life itself, and can function as a completely valid theory by taking the existence of life of some sort as a given initial condition. Similar thinking can be applied to the development of life itself in a pre-biotic world, but science there is definitely more speculative. But, unlike the creationist/ID approach to such thing, not havng a complete answer to everything doesn't suddenly mean that "God did it!" is the best answer. It simply means that "I don't know" is the best answer.

As for panspermia, it's a very interesting idea, but I don't think many biologists consider the idea anything more than interesting speculation, one which obviously doesn't solve any ultimate puzzle -- where the first life came from --the concept simply broadens the playing field for opportunities for life to arise.

Just an observation. The fossil record shows what species formed and about when it happened. It tells us nothing of the process that gave us the new species. The evidence is said to be consistent with species evolving, but this is not the only possible explanation of the evidence.

Also, it has been pointed out often that there are gaps in the fossil record, and it's been assumed that these would be found. With no luck in finding them, a few biologists came up with a theory called punctuated equilibrium, saying it happened in big jumps, not baby steps. As a result, gaps are now expected in the fossil record. The problem is that punctuated equilibrium is mathematically less probable than Darwin's original proposal.

God I'm glad Shetline posts in these threads.

No argument from me. I put it as another level because that is how I see origin of life treated, as an extension of evolution.



That is not how I see their approach. Someone like Behe simply says that evolution of a cell cannot be explained by chance, but looks more like design.



It's my impression that the idea arose because they were running out of ideas. There was little or no progress being made regarding origin of life.

Do you really view this as an accomplishment?

This is AI. Almost every fifth thread ends up discussing abortion, gay rights or evolution.

or clinton