Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Evolution does *not* depend on chance but rather processes that are in turn limited by other processes. We didn`t *happen* to come together as we did; the processes that preceded us simply made it an inevitability.
It`s convenient to think of the universe as having been developed by coincidence but it`s not strictly coincidence. Coincidence implies that the universe contains a vast range of possibilities and that we happened to form from an endless chain of accidents. This is *not* so. Every event or process the universe undergoes limits the succeeding results in a linear fashion.
[Here`s a deal. I can sufficiently demonstrate how we are the result of linear processes but it`d simply take too much room to post out here. It`s a lot of writing but if you want to hear it I`ll make the effort and write to you in PM. If you want to read my explanation I`ll write it for you but only if you agree to remain objective and docile so as not to waste my time.]
BlueAdept, please. That`s not evolution, that`s genetics. If two parents are heterozygous for the genes that determine a tall or short phenotype, then theoretically 1/4 of their children will be short. Genetics is responsible for why we have variation, but it is not responsible for why there exists a wild-type of each organism, which is attributed to natural selection which *does* fall directly under the domain of evolution. You should educate yourself some more.
"That is a semi-example of Natural selection"
It`s not even "semi".
"But just because parts of evolution have validity to them does not make it wholly correct."
Agreed, except that the greater parts of evolution have not as of yet been proven false, therefore it is accepted as true. This is how science works.
You just implied no human is perfect, which reinforces the contradiction in my previous post.
"It is a process over a long period of time that a given organism participates in that takes that organism from a state of relative simplicity to a more complex state, through things such as natural selection and mutation."
Your definition should negate why you think the complexity of the eye is incompatible with evolution. If indeed evolution is capable of transferring organisms to a higher state of complexity, why couldn`t evolution apply the same principle to the eye?
We already *know* the eye is complex, as is all life. The question is not whether it is complex, but whether said complexity could have arisen in nature without intelligent interference. According the evolution, the answer to that question is yes.
"If we were to be perfect, we would be the same as God, and that`s not what He was trying to do."
If God wanted us to be created in His image, then, yes, we would be the same as God. As you have and I have already pointed out, we are not, and so there exists a paradox, or at least a contradiction. Let me guess: that part of the Bible wasn`t literal either?
An atheist friend of mine once told me that he wished he could have the faith I do to believe in God, but in my mind, it takes much greater faith to believe in the minute chances represented by evolution.
Now, I will say this…parts of evolution are correct. A simple example – if two tall people have a kid, that kid is very likely to be tall. The same can be said for if two short people have a child. That is a semi-example of Natural selection, taking out that there really is no obvious advantage to being tall over being short. Since we still have short people in the world, we see that as true.
Now about God and Us. There`s nothing to state that God is vain. He created us in His image, yes, but there is nothing that says He wanted us to be perfect. If we were to be perfect, we would be the same as God, and that`s not what He was trying to do. And there has been no human who has existed without myelin sheaths and stop codes and such, so who is to say a perfect human wouldn`t need them or at the least, have them? There is no comparison.
I fear perhaps your rejection of evolution stems from, *perhaps*, your misinterpretation of it, and so I would ask that you explain, in your own words, what you feel evolution is.
That is certainly appreciated, but I don`t feel you are keeping as open a mind as you claim to.
Think about this: an omnipotent being creates a creature with the intention of that creature being in his (omnipotent being`s) image. One would then conclude that this being would want to make that creature as perfect as possible so as to adequately reflect his (omnipotent being`s) image, assuming of course that this being is vain, which is a fair assumption to make if we further assume this is the Judeo-Christian God found in the Bible. Okay. So why, indeed, is the creature not perfect? Why do we need myelin sheaths around our neurons to help send signals when a perfect being shouldn`t need such support? Why does protein production require multiple STOP codes rather than just one?
It`s not as complex as you think. Anything can be broken down to its sum parts but in doing so we`ll only find that some parts rely upon others to work. All this means is that those structures existed before the others were formed upon them and so on and so forth. Anyone who says it`s too complicated hasn`t either done adequate research or is deliberately neglecting the potency of evolution.
"And speaking of following, I`m willing to bet that there as many `blind` followers of Evolution as there are of Creationism."
Of course. This is nothing new. But do note that the validity and truthfulness of an argument is mutually exclusive from how many people happen to accept it. History is filled with so many former popular ideas (supported by the majority) that have since been debunked by science.
And speaking of following, I`m willing to bet that there as many "blind" followers of Evolution as there are of Creationism. But that doesn`t make me one of them, as hopefully this points out. I`ve asked myself all the questions, I`ve thought of things through both viewpoints and still Creationism makes more sense.
That`s not to say I`m going to condemn you guys and tell you that you`re all going to Hell...I keep an open mind. Too many people take the stereotypical `holier-than-thou, look down my nose at every other belief` as the way all Christians act, and I`m certainly not like that.
That you even need ask how the human eye evolved puts you rather in a bad position. This is a popular case for creationists to refer to because they cannot even conceive of how the development of an eye can be broken down into a step-by-step process. It`s been done before and I`m not an optometrist but if you really wanted an answer, I can direct you towards those who can, yes, fully defend evolution`s processes in respect to the eye.
What you`re not considering is really how simple the eye indeed is. If an omnipotent being (God) designed the eye, why did it only enable the eye to process light radiation from such a limited spectrum? Wouldn`t an omnipotent, caring being want its creation to have the best sight possible? Creationism just doesn`t add up.
You tell me how the woodpecker, or how the human eye evolved(and that`s only a couple of the many things evolution can`t explain), and I`ll back Evolution. Until then, I`ll believe what I`ve found to be the most logical explanation.
Broadway, cut "Lost_in_time" some slack, eh? He went through great pains assuring everybody that the post in question wasn`t directed towards any particular individual, especially you!
Devolution was a bad term to use. By Devolution I mean that rather than evolving into a more complex organism, one evolves into a less complex organism.
It was just my personal (and I will admit uneducated) opinion.
As for the person who made the digs at me being an idiot:It is rather perplexing that you would venture so far as to make a guess at my intelligence from a single post on a dinky little internet site. If you must know. (and I know that you will not believe me) I scored a 130 on the Stanford-Binet IQ test.
The broader question you should be asking, LKJSlain, is not from what other organism an organism evolved - as that only pushes the question further - but rather how did an individual cell (eukaryotic or prokaryotic) form. If scientists can suggest the means by which the first cell formed and demonstrate such in a lab, explaining all subsequent life would be a piece of cake. We need not look for answers at www.godandscience.org as, assuredly, it yields none.
"Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that."
BlueAdept... I swear...
If you can prove evolution to be false, I promise you the scientific community will gradually abandon evolution. However, evolution as a theory has to this day not been proven false, which coincidentally is why it is so widely accepted.
"If I believed in evolution, I would think that devolution would be possible."
Devolution implies an organism reverting to a precursor species (traits, chemical make-up, all), something which at this time has not been reflected in the evidence.
"It goes along with that law of Science that I`m too lazy to look up that says that the universe will always go towards chaos and disorder."
Wrong. You`re thinking that an organism, because of entropy, will break down to *exactly* the same species it was before (devolution), when in actually if evolution was incompatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we`d lose whole organ systems and limbs and life as a whole would not be possible. See my post here on page 4 addressed to BlueAdept.
I expect, BroadwayLove, that unless you thoroughly familiarize yourself with scientific premises, you and I will have a rather serious row on these forums sometime in the future.
Davymid, myself, and any others that take issue with others who say evolution is *just* a theory are fully aware that evolution is a theory. We know and appreciate this fully. What we take issue with is the suggestion of belittlement by saying evolution is *just* a theory. A theory in scientific nomenclature is the second most powerful explanatory statement, behind `law`. Being able to categorize evolution as a theory should speaks volumes for its potency.
In any case, regardless which system Earth indeed is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy (and thus matter) declines towards entropy as opposed to organization, meaning that energy tends not to be concentrated in a given area for very long. However, this does not conflict with evolution for several reasons, a significant one being that if evolution failed under the 2nd Law of Thermo., life itself would not be possible. Hmm.
Just because there tends to be a general decline towards entropy does not mean that individual concentrations of energy cannot be stable. Life is possible because every chemical bond involved in life is at a stable level or is made to be at a stable level.
According to BlueAdept, we shouldn`t be able to build buildings...
the world of man started out.. natural. evolution happened. All living beings were part of the food chain.. only normal right? That`s hwo the world started out. It was peaceful. When "man" was created or evolved.. it should have stayed that way, the way of life. But with weapons.. firearm.. We dont follow the way of life.. instead... we are killing each other. Sooon enough mankind will be diminished and it will be back to the way it was meant. It`s a message.. instead of finding resources, we find trouble.
P.S. Grow up, get wise. Open your eyes to the real world. You will be surprised. =]
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution, the two have nothing to do with each other. This is to do with the fact that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems (the earth is an open system due to solar energy input). I have better things to do than to explain the whole thing to you- go look it up.
This (Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution) argument you put forward was first proposed by the "Young Earth Creationist" David Gish. This is the same David Gish who argued that the Grand Canyon was created in a day by Noah`s Flood. This should set some mental alarm bells ringing.
Needless to say, both arguments have long ago been shot down by the respected, international scientific community as being utter bunk.
I follow actual science. When the second Law of Thermodynamics(laws which are uncontested by scientists) states basically that all matter tends towards entropy(chaos, or disorder), and the theory of Evolution says otherwise...I`m going with the real Science.
Also, for the whole "fact vs theory" thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_a...
There is science and then there is politics. When you start creatively mixing something pure facts with something pure choice, you get a confusing message.
If only i got first post on this...
really wanted everyone to see that the pictures have bin mirrored (check the bus stop pic (the advert is backward) so really we should be startin from the other side and scrolling left!
For example: I theorize that you are an idiot. It doesn`t mean you ARE an idiot, but the given facts lean in the direction that you are. If now, you give me an IQ test proving you aren`t an idiot; then my theory has been blown out of the water. However if that IQ test comes back showing you are of lower intelligence, my theory just became a fact. Almost anything can be a theory when you look at from a certain point of view. (And I wasn`t talking to anyone directly, it was just an example, so don`t take offense anyone)
And a theory is defined as unprovable. We may have EVIDENCE but we have no PROOF therefore, you who believe in evolution, have fun. You who believe in Creationism, woot woot!and you who believe in Alium theories, call me, we`ll get coffee sometime.
If you even believe in evolution. Sorry, but even "aliens put us here as an experiment" is a million times more feasible than "everything evolved from bacterium".--maelstrom_x, evolution is a scientific fact and theory. It is the most plausible theory we have.
Actually, evolving into a stupider form of life is still evolution, not devolution. Devolution would be returning to a form of primate life that has already existed... IF, that is, evolution has actually happened (just to please all you creationists out there).
Someone doesn`t know the definition of "Scientific Theory."
Also, graffiti was cool, obviously not scientific, but very cool.
And crump, saying "we have no idea why or what causes gravity" isn`t correct. Indeed, Newton came up with the "Theory of Gravity" as an accurate wy to predict the behaviour of bodies, without knowing why or what caused it. We now understand that Quantum Physics (Einstein et al) is the "engine" of the "Theory of Gravity" (Newton`s original idea), just like we know understand that Genetics (Mendel et al) is the engine of the "Theory of Evolution" (Darwin`s original idea).
Newton`s "Theory of Gravity" lays out the laws of physics. That is, when I drop a ball it falls, and when I drop another ball it falls, and when I drop another ball it falls. If one day I drop a ball and it flies upward out of my hand, then indeed we will have to revise the "Theory of Gravity". Pythygoras` Theory (thanks for the reminder almightybob1) lays out the laws of geometry. If we one day find a triangle which doesn`t obey Pythagoras` "Theory", we`ll have to re-evaluate that one.
I like how BlueAdept knows for certain that evolution is "incorrect" and yet we`ve heard nothing in the press that it has been conclusively disproven. What you mean is, YOU think it`s incorrect. I think it is correct. Neither of us knows for sure because, surprise surprise, neither of us was there. Don`t pass off your opinion as fact when it is no more valid than anyone else`s.
When scientists use the word "Theory" yes they`re saying it`s an accepted scientific understanding of how things work as you so put it, but they`re not saying it`s 100% correct...And the theory of gravity is just a theory too, we can measure it, but we have no idea why or what causes gravity, just theories.
But I can`t hold back when comments like "Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that." (^^BlueAdept) start appearing.
When scientists use the word "Theory" it has very special meaning. It usually means an accepted scientific understanding of how things work (until then it is just a hypothesis).
Saying evolution is "just a theory" is wrong. Newton`s ideas about gravity is called by scientists the "Theory of Gravity", just like Darwinian ideas are called the "Theory of Evolution". But no reasonable person would suggest that gravity is not science, or that it doesn`t exist.
Anyway, not trying to stoke the fires of a science vs religion debate, just trying to blow the myth about the whole "Evolution is just a theory" false debate.
Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that.
If you even believe in evolution. Sorry, but even "aliens put us here as an experiment" is a million times more feasible than "everything evolved from bacterium".
Otherwise, all living things would be humans.
BUT WHO GIVES A poo! MAN< THAT WAS CLASS!
Took A LOT of paint...
and SarahofBorg, do realise that we also didnt evolve from dinosaurs, who seemingly evolved from other breeds of dinosaurs, its just a bit of artistic and political license.