evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by deesw
How often has God been proven wrong? Never

you believe the bible is the absolute word of god, do you not?
if so, then god was proven wrong
how?
that whole "the earth is the center of the universe" thing was proven wrong
actually, the entire outline for the universe in genesis was proven wrong

Originally posted by whatukno
As far as the Big Bang theory it's just that a Theory. So is the Theory of Intelegent Design.

the idea that people are made of various groups of specialized cells is also "just a theory" but we don't have people trying to change that in text books

[edit on 2/24/07 by madnessinmysoul]

you believe the bible is the absolute word of god, do you not?

Actually the Bible never says that the Earth is the center of the universe. God was not proven wrong. Genesis says that God created the heavens and the Earth. It says nowhere that Earth is the center of all. Try and not misquote the Bible. They are both theories that have not been proven or disproven. You can poke holes in evolution all day long though.If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Natural selection? What a crock. Order from chaos? Another crock.
A cloud happens to explode, planets happen to form, Earth happens to have water vapor, it happens to gather forming lakes and oceans, bacteria happens to form in the midst of it all, it happens to decide to divide, then it happens to divide several times to become a multicellular organism, then it decides to grow gills and swims, then it happens to grow feet and lungs and crawl out of the water, then it happens to stand upright and use tools, then it happens to become intelligent and learn to communicate. That is a lot of accidents. It seems to me that it takes far more faith to believe in a gigantic series of accidents than to believe in divine intervention. Answer me this,,,, are we still evolving? If so, into what?

Originally posted by deesw
Actually the Bible never says that the Earth is the center of the universe.

it does say that the sun revolves around the earth

They are both theories that have not been proven or disproven. You can poke holes in evolution all day long though.

um, you can poke holes in ANY theory all day wrong

If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

because we didn't evolve from monkeys
we evolved from a group of primates that no longer exist
you seem to be quite ignorant of evolutionary theory

A cloud happens to explode, planets happen to form, Earth happens to have water vapor, it happens to gather forming lakes and oceans,

none of that is evolutionary theory
what does the big bang have to do with the formation of species?
or for that matter geological formation?
and you're grossly oversimplifying it

bacteria happens to form in the midst of it all,

chemical abiogensis, also not part of the theory of evolution

it happens to decide to divide, then it happens to divide several times to
become a multicellular organism,

you know, i'm not the biggest expert on evolutionary theory, but saying that it does "happen to divide" several times is a gross oversimplification

then it decides to grow gills and swims, then it happens to grow feet and lungs and crawl out of the water, then it happens to stand upright and use tools, then it happens to become intelligent and learn to communicate.

more horrific oversimplification

That is a lot of accidents.

no, it isn't
evolution is the non-random survival of creatures that are randomly there

It seems to me that it takes far more faith to believe in a gigantic series of accidents than to believe in divine intervention. Answer me this,,,, are we still evolving? If so, into what?

yes, we (and all the other species on the planet) are still evolving
and since i'm not prescient, i cannot tell you into what

I am not over simplifying anything madness. That is exactly what the theory of evolution says. The big bang is the beginning of all life according to evolutionists. I studied the whole theory at the University of Memphis. The basic summary of the whole theory is we come from a long string of coincidences and accidents with nothing guiding it at all. The theory tends to give some form of authorship to Nature and not God. In a nutshell according to evolutionists we all started as a huge ball of gas in the void of space. That gas existed in complete order and spontaneously erupted causing chaos and eventually you and I. You say I over simplify, you try and over complicate to make it sound more scientific than it is.

Originally posted by deesw
I am not over simplifying anything madness. That is exactly what the theory of evolution says. The big bang is the beginning of all life according to evolutionists.

no, it isn't
they are two seperate theories

the theory of evolution has to do with the formation of new species through natural selection

the big bang has to do with the origin of the universe...

I studied the whole theory at the University of Memphis. The basic summary of the whole theory is we come from a long string of coincidences and accidents with nothing guiding it at all.

well, the last part is right
but they aren't coincidences as much as they are a series of actions having results

The theory tends to give some form of authorship to Nature and not God.

well, god isn't in any way scientific
so said being shouldn't factor in to science

In a nutshell according to evolutionists we all started as a huge ball of gas in the void of space.

that's actually wrong
it was an infinitely small thing called a singularity that contained all the matter in the universe
and there is actually an argument over whether or not there was space around it

That gas existed in complete order and spontaneously erupted causing chaos and eventually you and I.

a singularity isn't in complete order

and again
evolution is one theory
big bang is another theory

You say I over simplify, you try and over complicate to make it sound more scientific than it is.

no i don't
you also neglect the whole thing about how the universe in the big bang is billions of years old

in evolution the earth is billions of years old (though not as old as our universe)

in "intelligent design" the universe is what, 6000 years old?
don't we have enough evidence to show that the earth is around 4 billion?

in "intelligent design" the universe is what, 6000 years old?

Actually we have no proof that the Earth is billions of years old,,, yet again more theories. Carbon dating is not reliable at all. It only takes a few hundred years for an object to fossilize.

When so scientists supposedly found your so called missing link, they found bones scattered over a twenty square mile area and somehow summize that they are from the same being.
Sorry to keep pounding a dead horse, but the big bang theory is a part of evolution. They are tought in the same chapter. The big bang is theorized to have started the universe including Earth. It tries to explain how the gases and vapors appeared in our atmosphere thus beginning all life. I don't know where you studied, but I think you may need a refresher course if you think the two theories are not connected. It would appear that in order to not accept evolution, one would have to accept the presence of a higher power and evolutionists just can't seem to do that. I think this is one that you and I will have to just agree to disagree on. I can definitely see some points of evolution, if it didn't downgrade the omnipitency of God I might be able to accept it more. Let's you and I just leave it at we are not in agreeance on this or the homosexuality subject either. Please do not take anything I have said to be a personal attack, we are just debating here and it has been fun. I look forward to debating with you again in other threads.

Originally posted by deesw
Actually we have no proof that the Earth is billions of years old,,, yet again more theories. Carbon dating is not reliable at all. It only takes a few hundred years for an object to fossilize.

first, why would it matter how long it takes for an object to fossilize?
if you used carbon on something that's too long you get a result that is obviously erroneous
secondly.why would anyone use CARBON dating to measure the age of the earth?
it isn't the approriate radiometric method for measurement of the earth's age


from talk origins:

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

now, you are right, 4.54 billion years old is a theory, however
(also from talk origins)

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

so, yeah
radiometric data is quite appropriate for measuring the earth's age
using the rate of decay of isotopes is a great way to measure the age of objects
source

When so scientists supposedly found your so called missing link, they found bones scattered over a twenty square mile area and somehow summize that they are from the same being.

...
you're being to vague for me to respond here
but i have to say, there is no singular missing link

Sorry to keep pounding a dead horse, but the big bang theory is a part of evolution.

no, it isn't
one is a cosmological theory
the other is a biological theory
two seperate branches of science

They are tought in the same chapter.

so, they're taught inappropriately taught
whoop-dee-do

The big bang is theorized to have started the universe including Earth. It tries to explain how the gases and vapors appeared in our atmosphere thus beginning all life.

um...
again, the beginning of all life is chemical abiogenesis

I don't know where you studied, but I think you may need a refresher course if you think the two theories are not connected. It would appear that in order to not accept evolution, one would have to accept the presence of a higher power and evolutionists just can't seem to do that.

there are quite a few of evolutionary biologists that are religious folk...

I think this is one that you and I will have to just agree to disagree on. I can definitely see some points of evolution, if it didn't downgrade the omnipitency of God I might be able to accept it more.

saying god didn't do something doesn't downgrade it's omnipotence

Originally posted by deesw
The THEORY has passed nothing

It has constantly been tested since its inception, and even darwin discussed some of the observations and details that could potentially refute it.
[uqote] and it certainly has never been proven.
No theory is EVER proven. That is not what theories are around for, theories are not ever proven.

How often are scientists proven wrong,,,, quite often.

And yet, no one has proven darwin's theory wrong.

For years Scientists said definitely that the Earth was flat.

What scientists have claimed that their experiments showed that the earth was flat? If anything, the people that were trying to observe and study the world demonstrated that it was round, and made good estimates as to its circumfrence, this was done by the greeks.

How often has God been proven wrong? Never

How can god possibly be proven wrong??? Jesus told his disciples that the second comming would occur before their generation was gone, it didn't happen, but that doesn't prove jesus wrong. The bible says that there was a global flood, there is no evidence for it and rather it has to be said that it didn't happen, but that doesn't prove god wrong.
You literalyl can not prove god wrong, not matter what the situation. God is a supernatural being that is entirely unbounded by petty human logic.

Evolution may be accepted by some, but that doesn't mean it has been proven and true. I believe that Creationism is correct, you believe that evolution is,

I don't merely beleive that evolutionary theory is correct, I can see it is correct, whereas creationism can only be irrationally beleived as an article of fatih.

please don't insinuate that evolution is fact

It is a fact that populations change over time. Natural Selection is not a fact, and I have not said at any point that natural selection is a fact

just because science accepts it without proof.

Scientists accept darwin's theories because they are the best explanation of the evidence at hand and have stood up to over a century of testing.

If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

Why the heck wouldnt' there still be monkeys?

Order from chaos? Another crock.

So chaotic lava can't become a set of orderly mineral crystals? Liquid water can't freeze into extremely ordered snowflakes? A mess of chemicals can't react with one another and form a more ordered product? Its pretty obvious that these things do infact happen, thus it can't be lodged as an objection to evolution.

It seems to me that it takes far more faith to believe in a gigantic series of accidents than to believe in divine intervention

That statement doesn't make the least bit of sense. It requires no faith to observe a natural undirected process, it requires nothing but faith to beleive in supernatural beings.

Answer me this,,,, are we still evolving? If so, into what?

The fact that you even ask a question like that shows that you don't even know what evolution and natural selection are, and that is revealing, since you don't know what they are but still reject them.

Actually we have no proof that the Earth is billions of years old

Proof? Again, scientific theories are never proven. Radioisotopic data demonstrates that the earth is billions of years old.

When so scientists supposedly found your so called missing link, they found bones scattered over a twenty square mile area and somehow summize that they are from the same being.

This is actually not true, so its an irrelevant objection to evolutionary theory.

Sorry to keep pounding a dead horse, but the big bang theory is a part of evolution

Sure, and its also a part of atomic theory, gravitational theory, mechanical theory, and every other theory, since its about the begining of the universe. So are you saying that a car engine can't work, because the big bang is 'wrong'?
And who says that the big bang is wrong? Its a theory that is an excellent explanation of the data that we have and it has never been refuted. Upon what evidence or logic are you rejecting it? That you merely don't like it???

It tries to explain how the gases and vapors appeared in our atmosphere thus beginning all life. I don't know where you studied, but I think you may need a refresher course if you think the two theories are not connected

I think that its you that needs to crack open a book or two if you think that the big bang is specifically related to how gases accumulated on earth.

I can definitely see some points of evolution, if it didn't downgrade the omnipitency of God I might be able to accept it more

Ok, so there ya go. You reject evolution because you personally beleive that it 'downgrades' god. Has nothing to do with the evidence, or anything else, it doesn't jive with your faith based beleifs, and therefore its rejected. So all the palaver about evidence? THe evidence doesn't matter to you.

Originally posted by deesw
I can definitely see some points of evolution, if it didn't downgrade the omnipitency of God I might be able to accept it more.

Get out of here?!?!?!

I'd like to hear your definition of ignorance.

How can god possibly be proven wrong??? Jesus told his disciples that the second comming would occur before their generation was gone, it didn't happen, but that doesn't prove jesus wrong. The bible says that there was a global flood, there is no evidence for it and rather it has to be said that it didn't happen, but that doesn't prove god wrong.

Jesus did not tell his disciples his second coming would be within their generation. There is evidence that the Earth flooded. Evidence of flood waters has been seen as far north asKentucky. So read your Bible again and get educated on what it actually says.

The time of the Second Coming is unknown. In fact, Jesus stated that only the Father knew the time. Therefore, the return of the Lord should be a matter of constant expectancy. As He came the first time, in the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4), so will the Second Coming be. The believer’s task is not to try to determine the time of the Second Coming. We should share the gospel message diligently until He returns (Acts 1:8–11).

This is a quote from Nelson's illsutrated Bible dictionary.

The Bible mentions Christs return 300 times in the New Testament alone and not one says anything about his second coming being within his disciples lifetime.
This has been greatly off topic and I apologize.
Darwins theories are not accepted by the entire scientific community.

In Ukrainian schools, not the Darwin's theory of evolution, but creationism that claims that the world had been created by the Supreme source, should be taught. This was declared recently by the Ukrainian scientists at the press conference in Kiev.

source, the Epoch Times International

Some scientists oppose Darwin's theory

More than 600 scientists from around the world have signed a statement publicly expressing skepticism about the theory of evolution

www.physorg.com...

this is the link about the previous quotes
So noone can say that it is accepted by the entire scientific community. In fact the trend seems to be more and more scientists moving over to the creationists side of the table.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the majority of the scientific community....

1.) Have you interviewed the entire scientific community and can statistically demonstrate there is a majority in this thought?
2.) Is truth ruled by majority?
3.) Has the idea of evolution passed the Scientific Method?
....a.) Is it able to be tested?
....b.) Is there a working model?
....c.) Can the working model reproduce similar results?

No comments on this madness?



[edit on 25-2-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Nygdan
There is no need to interview every member of the scientific community, evolution has overwhelming support within it, from the jews, atheists, agnostics, muslims, and christians and everything else who are scientists

You're making an assumption. In order to have a majority, you must be able to quantify. This is skirting the issue.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its not that we are saying that science is determined by a vote and majority rules. In science the idea is called 'consensus'. Consensus is built up by having lots of people over a great deal of time work on a problem, and come up with their results, and explain their results, and having everyone else go over those results, re-test that work, find out any problems in it, etc etc. If at the end of that you still haven't refuted a hypothesis, still haven't come up with a better alternative hypothesis, doesn't it make sense to recognize that hypothesis as the generally accepted one?

Why pretend scientists have not refuted the hypothesis? Why "generally accept" something that is not functional?

Originally posted by Nygdan
And yes, that could all be overturned by a single observation tomorrow.

This is why peopel say that science doesn't get at "The Truth".

Science is a useful tool. The danger is accepting this tool as the truth instead of a mechanism to help discern truth.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Has the idea of evolution passed the Scientific Method?

Absolutely. Darwin is practically the quintessential scientists, and natural selection, the model theory.

I've studied Origin of Species and Stephen J. Gould's follow-up on Diversity of Life. Neither provide mechanism, model, tests, data and reproductions. What else you got?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes. The hypothesis that evolution occurs via a mechanism of natural selection,

Another idea which has gone through a lot of kicking around in ecology because it doesn't quite seem to work. Any specifics beyond the two words jammed together as "natural selection" is severly lacking.

Originally posted by Nygdan
which is based on the observations that all populations are variable, that variation in inherited, and that there is an overproduction of offspring, is clearly testable. Its been tested, repeatedly, for over a hundred years, and has never been refuted.

This is false, natural selection has and is being refuted at the university level at least with professors and ecologists. Also variation was first clearly defined by Mendel. Darwin wasn't the father of the understanding of modern genetics. Variation within the confines of DNA parameters and evolution (transpecies growth) are two different ballgames entirely.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Is there a working model?

Consider that scientists at the begining of the last century were able to model natural selection in laboratory studies of fruit flies, and other model organisms. Also consider that they can use essential thought models (or computer models) along wiht the living ones to investigate the various aspects.

I've done the fruit fly experiments, which explores the nature of genetics, not natural selection nor multi-generational mutations nor anything related to evolution. Now, care to answer the question with specifics?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Can the working model reproduce similar results?

Absolutely, right down to having single mutations that result in new beneficial abilities, and then they can watch them passed along to offspring who have higher reproductive success and thus observe the trait spread through the population. And at the other end, they can observe speciation in the lab and in the wild.
Observed Instances of Speciation
More Observed Instances of Speciation

How about posting a scientific source? Talkorigins is the tabloids of wanna-be scientific data and grossly assumed generalizations. Anyone can post magazine bibliographies too.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its not really an opinion. Evolutionary theory IS the result of logical and reasoned analysis of the natural world and our attempts at understanding and explaining it. Its not merely someone thumping their chest and saying 'me logical ook ook, me reasonable ook', its not bravado, its a sensible statement of fact. Science IS logical and is based on reason and rationality.

Real science is based on data, of which evolution has none. It requires faith and as completed my biology requirements for a bachelor's degree in the field, I can earnestly say the university has yet to produce the results some claim are present about evolution.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Faith clearly is not, and its not supposed to be. Faith is irrational.

Faith is not irrational, it's based on experience, trust and understood principles. It would be irrational to assume things would happen without experience, trust and understood principles. There are mechanisms to faith as there are mechanisms in science.

Originally posted by Nygdan
And consider how weak a faith would be if it were based on solid, rational, evidence. It'd be meaningless. What kind of chistian would you be if you were personally escorted into heaven by jesus, had a long chat with god the father, and ran around with the holy spirit, if, in other words, you have definitive proof that it all exists and that you should follow it?

You'd have proof of the things experienced, but not of the things not experienced. You'd also have to have faith that what you experienced was real and not some form of biochemical psychosis (see thread on Tryptamines and God). The measure of faith would be less required, but one would not be completely devoid of it. Also, the proof is not definitive as you would be unable to test, model, collect data and reproduce it for others. That would indeed cause doubt to many as... "is it really happening?"

Originally posted by Nygdan
It'd be nothing, compared to the person that knows nothing, suffers and labours on earth, but yet beleives.

It is true a person of great faith requires lesser proofs and I respect those who can. I on the other hand, like many skeptics, needed a springboard of proofs in order to have faith in the rest of the picture. But, this thread isn't about faith, Christianity, and so forth, yet it makes for great spin to get off the topic at hand, yes?


[edit on 25-2-2007 by saint4God]

New Evidence That Natural Selection Is A General Driving Force Behind The Origin Of Species

Science Daily — Charles Darwin would undoubtedly be both pleased and chagrined:


Daniel Funk is in the greenhouse where he raises a type of tiny leaf beetle that is in the process of transforming into a new species. The famous scientist would be pleased because a study published this week finally provides the first clear evidence that natural selection, his favored mechanism of evolution, drives the process of species formation in a wide variety of plants and animals. But he would be chagrined because it has taken nearly 150 years to do so.

What Darwin did in his revolutionary treatise "On the Origin of Species" was to explain how many of the extraordinary biological traits possessed by plants and animals arise from a single process, natural selection. Since then a large number of studies and observations have supported and extended his original work. However, linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive.

In the last 20 years, studies of a number of specific species have demonstrated that natural selection can cause sub-populations to adapt to new environments in ways that reduce their ability to interbreed, an essential first step in the formation of a new species. However, biologists have not known whether these cases represent special exceptions or illustrate a general rule.

The new study, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.

Filling a gap in evolutionary studies

"This helps fill a big gap that has existed in evolutionary studies," says Daniel Funk, assistant professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt University. He authored the study with Patrik Nosil from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and William J. Etges from the University of Arkansas. "We have known for some time that when species invade a new environment or ecological niche, a common result is the formation of a great diversity of new species. However, we haven't really understood how or whether the process of adaptation generally drives this pattern of species diversification."

www.sciencedaily.com...

Ecological divergence exhibits consistently positive associations with reproductive isolation across disparate taxa

Daniel J. Funk*,, Patrik Nosil, and William J. Etges

Abstract

To what degree is the divergent adaptation responsible for life’s phenotypic variety also responsible for generating the millions of species that manifest this variation? Theory predicts that ecological divergence among populations should promote reproductive isolation, and recent empirical studies provide support for this hypothesis in a limited number of specific taxa. However, the essential question of whether ecology plays a truly general role in speciation has yet to be systematically evaluated. Here we address this integral issue using an approach that adds an ecological dimension to comparative studies investigating the relationship between reproductive isolation and divergence time. Specifically, we quantify ecological divergence for >500 species pairs from eight plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate taxa and statistically isolate its association with reproductive isolation. This approach demonstrates a highly consistent and significant positive association between ecological divergence and reproductive isolation across taxa. This relationship was also observed across different aspects of ecological divergence and components of reproductive isolation. These findings are highly consistent with the hypothesis that ecological adaptation plays a fundamental and taxonomically general role in promoting reproductive isolation and speciation.

Linky to PNAS

Originally posted by deesw

Sorry to keep pounding a dead horse, but the big bang theory is a part of evolution. They are tought in the same chapter.

They are in the same chapter?? How in the world does that make them part of the same theory? Deesw, your statements are so off-base I hardly know where to start.

The 2 are separate theories. The Big Bang theory was introduced what in about the '40's or '50's? Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859 for starters. My husband taught biology and evolution for 20 years, we have 2 copies of the Origin of Species and both are well-read. He can tell you all about both theories, but the two are most definitely NOT RELATED. The Big Bang theory comes from physics, evolution comes from the field of biology. They are 2 totally different branches of science. The only thing they have in common is that Creationists refute both and therefore lump them in together. No disrespect meant, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You just don't have the facts about evolution straight at all.

Now to the topic at hand: Why can't evolution and creationism be compatible? I know alot of good Christians who believe in both. They figure that God designed the Universe and he used evolution to do it. See how nicely that works? My mother taught me good Christian principles (though I'm no longer Christian), and one of them was that evolution is true and the Bible is a guideline but not real accurate when it comes to scientific facts. It is about religion, not science. Also, about 99% of scientists believe in Evolution as a fact at this point. And Nygdan is correct, no one has ever been able to debunk it. It's only been in recent times with the rise in creationism belief that any scientist believes in creationism and those are all pretty much fundamentalist Christians. No, thsere are not more scientists believing in Creationism now.

I believe that DNA is the manifestation of Life and I also believe that it has its own intellligence. It's not infallible, simply because it likes to experiment, such as 2 headed babies. It wants to know if something different will work and if it doesn't then it doesn't produce any more 2 headed babies. It's managed pretty well I'd say to create a rich diversity of life. How does anyone know that Life doesn't have its own intelligence, one that has nothing to do with religion or God? DNA doesn't care about whether anyone believes in creationism or not, it just simply is. It's more powerful than humans, and it obviously has some kind of intelligence, because it's been very susccessful.

How can you possibly say that both are not related? One starts the other. They may have been thought up at different times, but one directly links to another. The theory of evolution picks up where the big bang ends.

Originally posted by saint4God
You're making an assumption. In order to have a majority, you must be able to quantify. This is skirting the issue.

Skirting the issue? You do realize you are doing the exact same thing, don't you? What does a majority have to do in science? It’s not a popularity contest when it comes to theories. It’s a matter of what which theory can hold up to falsifiable tests. So far evolution has withstood all of them. If a theory is accepted by 99 percent of the population it doesn’t mean its correct. Likewise, if a theory is only accepted by 1%, it doesn’t mean its false.

Why pretend scientists have not refuted the hypothesis? Why "generally accept" something that is not functional?

When did scientist refute evolution?

Science is a useful tool. The danger is accepting this tool as the truth instead of a mechanism to help discern truth.

How is the tool of science considered truth? Elaborate on this. I have no clue what that means.

I've studied Origin of Species and Stephen J. Gould's follow-up on Diversity of Life. Neither provide mechanism, model, tests, data and reproductions. What else you got?

While I haven’t read Diversity of Life and have read parts of Origin of Species, I can only say that there is other material to be read which does show mechanisms, models, tests, data and reproductions. Why discredit the theory based on these two books not having enough data based on your standards? Why not research more than two books?

This is false, natural selection has and is being refuted at the university level at least with professors and ecologists. Also variation was first clearly defined by Mendel. Darwin wasn't the father of the understanding of modern genetics. Variation within the confines of DNA parameters and evolution (transpecies growth) are two different ballgames entirely.

There is no way in hell you have a bachelor’s degree in biology and not understand that the modern theory of evolution, called modern evolutionary synthesis, is based on both of these gentlemen’s theories. They compliment each other perfectly and have passed rigorous testing since then.

I've done the fruit fly experiments, which explores the nature of genetics, not natural selection nor multi-generational mutations nor anything related to evolution. Now, care to answer the question with specifics?

Again, if you are qualified with a bachelor’s, you would know that natural selection occurs through genetic means. Natural selection and genetics go hand in hand and are related to evolution in every sense.

How about posting a scientific source? Talkorigins is the tabloids of wanna-be scientific data and grossly assumed generalizations. Anyone can post magazine bibliographies too.

Why should we consider it a tabloid? Their sources all check out and their articles are supported by scientific documents. What more could you want?

Real science is based on data, of which evolution has none. It requires faith and as completed my biology requirements for a bachelor's degree in the field, I can earnestly say the university has yet to produce the results some claim are present about evolution.

I am having a hard time believing you are biologist. If you really were, you’d know that evolution has tons of data to back it up. Just exactly what was written in your textbooks? What did you study to pass your exams?

Faith is not irrational, it's based on experience, trust and understood principles. It would be irrational to assume things would happen without experience, trust and understood principles. There are mechanisms to faith as there are mechanisms in science.

Experience is not always to be trusted, as found by psychological experiments that deal with eye-witnesses and false memory. Trust in what? Understood principles? What are they?


I gotta say, overall you have no basic knowledge of how evolution works, yet you somehow claim you have bachelors in biology. How is this possible? What school did you attend?



[edit on 25-2-2007 by LuDaCrIs]

[edit on 25-2-2007 by LuDaCrIs]

Originally posted by saint4God
No comments on this madness?

nygdan gave pretty much the exact same answer that i was going to give

mel, nice link

Originally posted by deesw
Jesus did not tell his disciples his second coming would be within their generation.

www.biblegateway.com...:42;&version=9;
Acts 10:42 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

And

www.biblegateway.com...:1-9:1;&version=9;
Mark 9:1 (King James Version)
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power

And

www.biblegateway.com...:27-9:27&version=31
Luke 9:27 (New International Version)
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.

And

www.biblegateway.com...:32;&version=9;
Luke 21:32 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled

And

Matthew 16:28 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

There is evidence that the Earth flooded. Evidence of flood waters has been seen as far north asKentucky.

There is a tremendous difference between 'flods have occured' and 'the whole of the earth was flooded'. There is no global flood layer. There is no resvoir for all the water. There is, in fact, no way that it could've happened, short of a miracle. If it was a miracle, then there's no evidence for it and its just a beleif.

Darwins theories are not accepted by the entire scientific community.

Agreed, not everyone in the world with a scientific degree accepts darwin's theories. Its merely the vast bulk of them that do, and the ones that don't, like the alleged Ukrainian scientists, don't seem to have any evidence that refutes it.

deesw
How can you possibly say that both are not related? One starts the other.

Again, does that mean that IF the theory on the big bang was refuted, that all of a sudden our theories on aerodynamics were also refuted, or that planes will start dropping out of the sky??

The theory of evolution picks up where the big bang ends.

The theory of evolution via a mechanism of natural selection has nothing in particular to do with the theory of inflation, the theory of evolution explains what we are able to observe about the living world, regardless of whether inflation is correct.

Saint4God
You're making an assumption. In order to have a majority, you must be able to quantify. This is skirting the issue.

Saint, all you need to do is look through the numerous scientific journals that are out there, or attend some of the thousands of scientific conferences out there to see that there is overwhelming support, a consensus, amoung the scientific community that Darwin's theory is a darned good theory.

Why pretend scientists have not refuted the hypothesis?

It has not been refuted. Please point out who refuted it and how and we can discuss it.

Why "generally accept" something that is not functional?

The theory of evolution is functional.

I've studied Origin of Species and Stephen J. Gould's follow-up on Diversity of Life. Neither provide mechanism, model, tests, data and reproductions

Darwin provides a multitude of evidences for his theory, he explains the logical rational, and he rather clearly explains the mechanism.

Another idea which has gone through a lot of kicking around in ecology because it doesn't quite seem to work

Natural Selection IS Darwin's theory of evolution. What is 'lacking' in it?

This is false, natural selection has and is being refuted at the university level at least with professors and ecologists

No, it has not. Please provide the studies that have 'refuted' Darwin's theory of natural selection so they can be discussed.

Also variation was first clearly defined by Mendel

Mendel investigated the statistics of variation and inheritance, yes.

Darwin wasn't the father of the understanding of modern genetics.

I agree. Darwin didn't know what the source of the observed variation was, he didn't understand dna (and of course neither did mendel), and he favoured the theory of 'blending inheritance' as the mechanism of inheritance, which was refuted. None of that refutes Darwin's theory of evolution.

Variation within the confines of DNA parameters and evolution (transpecies growth) are two different ballgames entirely.

Infact, they are not. The genetic aspects of speciation are the same as the genetic aspects of mere 'sub-species level' change.

I've done the fruit fly experiments, which explores the nature of genetics, not natural selection nor multi-generational mutations nor anything related to evolution

I have no idea what experiements you have done. The fact is that genetic experiments on fruit flys show whats happening at the genetic level when a species if given different selection pressures. If they didn't respond to selection pressures, or couldn't, that would be evidence agianst natural selection.

How about posting a scientific source? Talkorigins is the tabloids of wanna-be scientific data

Those two lists have clear citations to the primary source papers on those experiments.

Real science is based on data, of which evolution has none

What data is missing? We have naturally variable populations of species that change over human observable time. We have been able to detail, down to the genetic level, what is going on when selection pressures are applied and what is happening during a speciation event. We have both laboratory and real-life observed examples of speciation. What is wrong with those data?

yet it makes for great spin to get off the topic at hand, yes?

Are you actually accusing me of purposely trying to take the discussion off topic??? Fine, we don't need to discuss faith anymore, I've removed my reponses to your statements on faith.



[edit on 25-2-2007 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by deesw
How can you possibly say that both are not related? One starts the other. They may have been thought up at different times, but one directly links to another. The theory of evolution picks up where the big bang ends.

I'm NOT saying they weren't related. What I'm saying is that they are 2 SEPARATE theories. Darwin didn't create the theory about the big bang. I've already explained to you why and at this point you're just being obtuse or perhaps you are trolling, I really don't know but I will tell you this: I agree with the person who said they have a hard time believing you to have a bachelor's degree in Biology. You don't know the most basic things about biology, period, end of story. When presented with evidence, you compltely dismiss it.

I, too, would love to hear your definition of ignorance.