Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

I am no biologist, so I can't speak for the precise answers to your questions. However I am a computer scientist and I can provide a compelling example that lends credence to evolution.

In artificial intelligence, there exists a technique known as Genetic Algorithms or GA.

A genetic algorithm is a program written to quickly find solutions to equations or other problems, by a process of random mutation and selection.

It more or less goes like this:

A population of solutions with randomized attributes is created. Because it is randomized, they are pretty much all crappy solutions.... some crappier than others.

a process of selection and elimination removes from the population the worst performers, then it generates a brand new population by randomly choosing attributes from the "winning" solutions in the previous round.

this process repeats until eventually (and much faster than other search methods) a very good solution is found.

The GA (genetic algorithm) is analogous to the process of reproduction, and the selection process is analogous to the notion that organisms with greater fitness have an increased likelihood to survive.

In as much as GA represents a "model" of life and reproduction, then it could be said to be laboratory evidence for evolution. It is up to you to agree or disagree as to whether GA mimics life and reproduction.

One thing is certain: Genetic Algorithms are proof that a random process coupled with a selection component will result in accurate solutions, so anybody claiming that evolution is impossible because it contains randomness, should probably come up with a new counterargument. The process of genetic mutation and reproduction includes both randomness and a selection component, so it does seem to be a close analog.

-rrr

I like your argument but I have a question/concern about it as a parallel or evidence towards evolution:

While this illustrates "natural selection" in a way, doesn't the fact that you have to DESIGN the algorithm, and add a selection component somewhat refute the whole idea of it being random?
I'm not sure how exactly to explain what I'm getting at... Essentially, while within the system there is an element of randomness, the system was CONSTRUCTED by you to perform this task. The computer (once again, something constructed) did not randomly create the algorithm in the first place.

While your analogy is interesting, I'm not sure it is the best example but I would like to hear your thoughts. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something?
Thanks
-UberDave

Originally posted by lunarminer
Why does every discussion of evolution have to involve a dispute between religion and science?

What I find particularly interesting is how it is the proponents of evolution that seem bent on confronting people who believe in creation and beat them over the head with the "facts".

Let me say that I am not a creationist nor am I a big believer in evolution. I consider the question of the origin of life and the species something like the creation of the Universe. We can speculate and theorize but we do not KNOW how it happened. That is why evolution is a theory and not the LAW OF EVOLUTION.

If you want to do an interesting study of evolution, just take a look online at the evolution in the theory. It has changed and continues to change and evolve. I made this point earlier. A case in point, RNA, DNA, amino acids, mitachondria, proteins, viruses, were all discovered after the theory of evolution was first put forward. The theory was changed to accomodate these discoveries.

Does evolution exist? Yes, it probably does but we don't know that for sure. Those of you quoting mutations of existing organisms and holding it up as proof of evolution should do some more study. Mutation and evolution are not the same thing, not even remotely.

One previous poster put forward the fact that the development of eyes is problematic for the theory of evolution. That is because there are at least 3 different types of eyes in the animal kingdom (to say nothing of light sensing plants), and they are not related, nor can any existing eye be developed through mutation. Eyes are one of the organs that just seem to appear fully developed in the fossil record.

This does not even address the issue of the spontaneous creation of life. An issue that even many PhDs avoid, because science cannot explain how amino acids, suddenly become proteins, or how those proteins spontaneously chain together to form RNA or DNA. So, there are gaps in the theory to say the least.

Also, don't try the idea that the earth was seeded with life from space. That still does not handle the issue of where that life came from, or how it spontaneously sprouted.

So, let's just say that there is a lot that we don't know. There is a lot that we will never know.

On the subject of creation, there are plenty of holes there too. The questions of who, what, when, where, to name a few.

What I would say though is that creation does not exclusively eliminate evolution as a mechanism, nor does evolution expressly eliminate a creator.

The human race is advancing rapidly in the field of genetics and bioengineering, we are not far from being able to create new life (not talking about splicing existing genes here.). So, who are we to say that it cannot be done by someone else? Call that person God if you like, or the Greys, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't care.

What I would like all evolutionists to do, is take a look at the order of creation in Genesis and you will see that it is basically correct. The heavens are created, then the earth, then the land is separated from the sea, then plants, then animals, then man. I think that it is amazing that someone who knew nothing of modern science (presumably) got that much right. Are there errors? Sure, there are errors and I don't think that the Adam and Eve story is intended to be literal. Every story needs a starting point and I think that the Book of Genesis is a great starting point for what follows. That is how I view it.

I really don't see why some folks get their panties all bunched up over it. Religion says who did what, but does not explain the how. Science is focused on the how and why, but never worries about the who. These two philosophies, and that is what they are, are not necessarily incompatible. It is close minds that make them so.

Best post on this thread.

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'm saying it isn't evolution, it's only breeding, forced at that.

But that IS evolution in action !
Forced selective breeding is SELECTION, the key process in evolution.
But you don't understand that simple fact.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Now if a deer can only eat something that is 12 feet in the air and he grows extra long legs so he can reach it, I would consider that evolution.

Wow!
This crazy idea is NOTHING like evolution at all!
It's a bizarre fantasy straight out of X-men (X-Deer?)
Evolution is NOTHING like that.
Individuals can NOT and do NOT suddenly grow 12-feet legs.


So :
when presented with examples of evolution you deny it is evolution,
then you present an example of evolution which is complete fantasy and NOTHING to do with evolution !

In short, B.A.C., you are completely ignorant about evolution.

The question is, why don't you study it first, so you can know what you are talking about? Instead of repeating creationist PRATTS, long since conclusively disproved.

You claim 19 years of Christianity, yet it is crystal clear from your comments that you have spent less than 1/2 hour ever studying evolution (I don't mean reading the little brochures they hand out in church, I mean actual science.) You COULD have easily spent some time studying it, but you haven't. But amazingly that doesn't stop you making claims that are totally false about a subject you are ignorant of.

You may claim not to be a creationist, but you check all the boxes :

* complete ignorance of evolution - check

* refusal to actually study evolution - check

* denial of the facts - check

* repeating creationist PRATTS - check


The ONLY persons who reject evolution are those who don't know anything about it. The only group that preaches against evolution are creationists.

In short you are behaving EXACTLY like a creationist who knows nothing about evolution.


Kapyong

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi, evolving ATSers !

I did not read all 19 pages. But about evolution,
you can see it at work on "one" of the Galapagos islands.

On that island there are, evolving:

a bird: finch (songbird), with big beak, or small beak;
and trees, with big seeds and small seeds.

At a stage or moment of the evolution on that island, there are big beak finches,
and big seeds trees.

BUT, with time, too many big beaks eat too much on the big seeds trees, and there
is less and less and less big seeds to be found.
Soooooooo, the big beaks birds die more and more and more. . .

But there was a little little population of small beak finches, that did the same,
about 25 years before. Soooooo, because it is now at its small-population-stage,
the small seeds trees did gow more and more and more. . .

Now that the island is almost empty of the diminishing big beaks, the small beaks
begin to grow and to grow and to grow and to grow. . . and guess what ?
Years later, there is a lack of small seeds trees, and the small beaks
begin to die, to die to die. And, for the "low profile" big beaks, it is
AGAIN their turn to grow up in population again. . .

This cycle is about 25 years long.
It can be "contemplated", a few times, in ONE human life-time !

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Now, it seems to happen/begin on other islands.

Darwin's finches evolving fast.
bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au...

Blue skies.

I know it all makes sense, doesn't it ?

How about this -
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bac81fdf3f29.jpg[/atsimg]

If there is a Great Architect, and I happen to feel it's amazingly obvious there is, then he is just laughing his a** off at all of us silly humans trying to act like we know something !

reply to post by Kapyong


LOL...now now...I called it first pages ago! But yeah you're pretty much spot on

2nd line with appropriate edit LOL

[edit on 3-3-2009 by griffinrl]

Gday,

Originally posted by gpzrd350
The lack of any links in the fossil record between species, suggests to me that perhaps we are missing a large part of the puzzle and that the current theory of evolution possibly doesn't explain everything.

False.
Here is the perfect example of creationist ignorance.

In fact - EVERY FOSSIL is transitional.
There is overwhelming evidence of many transitions.

But creationists simple deny the facts.
Anyone who actually bothers to check the facts, instead of repeating what they heard in church, wil find plenty of evidence.

But creationists never study the facts.
The only people who reject evolution are those who don't understand it.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Not just through breeding which doesn't really change anything major (which is my point). It must also somehow alter it's very DNA to accomplish this, changing it's DNA generation by generation until the change is complete, that would be evolution.

Yes,
that's exactly what DOES happen.

Mutations are always present (all of us are mutants), then selection changes the proportions of the different mutations.

That is EXACTLY how evolution works.
Of course, you just deny these facts.


Kapyong

reply to post by Kapyong


Careful...you said the "C" word and that's not allowed on this thread.

2nd line

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'm saying it isn't evolution, it's only breeding, forced at that.

But that IS evolution in action !
Forced selective breeding is SELECTION, the key process in evolution.
But you don't understand that simple fact.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Now if a deer can only eat something that is 12 feet in the air and he grows extra long legs so he can reach it, I would consider that evolution.

Wow!
This crazy idea is NOTHING like evolution at all!
It's a bizarre fantasy straight out of X-men (X-Deer?)
Evolution is NOTHING like that.
Individuals can NOT and do NOT suddenly grow 12-feet legs.


So :
when presented with examples of evolution you deny it is evolution,
then you present an example of evolution which is complete fantasy and NOTHING to do with evolution !

In short, B.A.C., you are completely ignorant about evolution.

The question is, why don't you study it first, so you can know what you are talking about? Instead of repeating creationist PRATTS, long since conclusively disproved.

You claim 19 years of Christianity, yet it is crystal clear from your comments that you have spent less than 1/2 hour ever studying evolution (I don't mean reading the little brochures they hand out in church, I mean actual science.) You COULD have easily spent some time studying it, but you haven't. But amazingly that doesn't stop you making claims that are totally false about a subject you are ignorant of.

You may claim not to be a creationist, but you check all the boxes :

* complete ignorance of evolution - check

* refusal to actually study evolution - check

* denial of the facts - check

* repeating creationist PRATTS - check


The ONLY persons who reject evolution are those who don't know anything about it. The only group that preaches against evolution are creationists.

In short you are behaving EXACTLY like a creationist who knows nothing about evolution.


Kapyong

I know a fair bit about evolution. A lot of what you call evolution, I call adaptation.

BTW I don't go to church, and I don't think I've ever read a pamphlet.

Just admit that the theory of evolution has holes in it, or gaps if you prefer.

I can't believe it unless I get a full picture, and science doesn't have a full picture of it. Anyone who says they do is sadly mistaken, or so caught up in proving people wrong they will say anything.

Address the problem of the eye, in one of my previous posts, if you can answer that, you may sway me a little (one less gap in the theory). But let's face it, science can't answer it, so how can you?

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
They haven't evolved until they are born to grow taller than previous generations. Which wouldn't happen, because the DNA is the same.

The DNA IS different due to mutations.
Then selection acts on the differences.

But it is clear you intend to keep denying this simple fact.


Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by gpzrd350
The lack of any links in the fossil record between species, suggests to me that perhaps we are missing a large part of the puzzle and that the current theory of evolution possibly doesn't explain everything.

False.
Here is the perfect example of creationist ignorance.

In fact - EVERY FOSSIL is transitional.
There is overwhelming evidence of many transitions.

But creationists simple deny the facts.
Anyone who actually bothers to check the facts, instead of repeating what they heard in church, wil find plenty of evidence.

But creationists never study the facts.
The only people who reject evolution are those who don't understand it.


Kapyong

Again, you're spouting off misinformation.

Every fossil is transitional? You actually believe this? You're the only one then, because science doesn't agree with you.

Like I said earlier in this thread if there are thousands of transitional fossils, name 51 for me. Should be simple for you to do, no?

Since you can't do that, quit claiming you're right.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by tamusan
Climacoceras, Canthumeryx, Paleomeryx, Palaeotragus, and Samotherium. The line from a deer with a short neck to the modern giraffe.

Scientists after much study now consider Climacoceras a Giraffoid, which is a member of the same species.

So - YOU asked for evidence of giraffe evolution.

You were presented with the evidence.

You IGNORED the evidence entirely ! and instead picked a small nit that has no bearing on tge subject.

This is classic creationist behaviour - IGNORE the facts, argue about minor points.

B.A.C. - you have made it crystal clear that :
* you know nothing about evolution
* you will not study evolution
* you will simply deny and ignore the facts that support evolution


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by turbohenk
What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations. Who/what else should know what the problem is and if there is a problem and what to want to resolve it?

Lamarckism.
There is no evidence for it.

Originally posted by turbohenk
Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.

Nonsense.



Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
They haven't evolved until they are born to grow taller than previous generations. Which wouldn't happen, because the DNA is the same.

The DNA IS different due to mutations.
Then selection acts on the differences.

But it is clear you intend to keep denying this simple fact.


Kapyong

I'm well aware that "generally" the scientific community believes that mutations are what natural selection acts on.

Does it mean they've convinced me? No.

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Firstly, who said anything about me being a creationist? Whether you're right or not is irrelevant, you shouldn't assume anything about someone.

I conclude you are a creationist, because you keep repeating false claims that only creationists believe.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I didn't copy ANY of these from ANY website, these were all hand typed.

Where did you get these beliefs from, B.A.C. ?
Certainly not from any science source.
All your claims are false creationist PRATTS.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This whole thread has been me (save a few supporters) against everyone.

But you still have NO IDEA why that is, do you B.A.C. ?

We do - because your claims are false.
That's why you are copping so much flak - these claims are silly creationist nonsense that have all bee conclusively disproved long ago.


Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by tamusan
Climacoceras, Canthumeryx, Paleomeryx, Palaeotragus, and Samotherium. The line from a deer with a short neck to the modern giraffe.

Scientists after much study now consider Climacoceras a Giraffoid, which is a member of the same species.

So - YOU asked for evidence of giraffe evolution.

You were presented with the evidence.

You IGNORED the evidence entirely ! and instead picked a small nit that has no bearing on tge subject.

This is classic creationist behaviour - IGNORE the facts, argue about minor points.

B.A.C. - you have made it crystal clear that :
* you know nothing about evolution
* you will not study evolution
* you will simply deny and ignore the facts that support evolution


Kapyong

No, I deny what YOU consider facts. You just blindly accept whatever science tells you.

I accept some of what science tells me, if it's not full of gaps.

And no, I didn't ask for that evidence, someone just posted it. I gave an example about deer and someone posted that.

They have no proof that them animals evolved, only educated guesses. Go read up on each of them individually, like I did (even though I don't do research), you'll see what I mean.

Gday,

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe

More creationist nonsense.

Carbon Dating IS observable in the lab, which you would know if you ever bothered to check the facts.

But anyway -
what is this cretinist nonsense about being "repeated in a lab"?

It's silly nonsense.

Can we replicate a volcano in a lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe in volcanoes.

Can we replicate the moon's orbit in a lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe the moon orbits the earth.

Can we replicate a tsunami in the lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe in tsunamis.

This is such a stupid argument, but creationists still make it, decades after it has been disproved.

That's the problem with creationists - they are incapable of learning.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by visible_villain
The issue I personally have with Darminism or Evolution is that it reduces the existence of living beings, such as people for instance, to an absolutely random event.

Wrong.
Another person who knows nothing about evolution.

Evolution is NOT random.

It includes some random processes sure - but it is driven by NON-RANDOM selection.

Not that creationists would ever know this basic fact.


Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Firstly, who said anything about me being a creationist? Whether you're right or not is irrelevant, you shouldn't assume anything about someone.

I conclude you are a creationist, because you keep repeating false claims that only creationists believe.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I didn't copy ANY of these from ANY website, these were all hand typed.

Where did you get these beliefs from, B.A.C. ?
Certainly not from any science source.
All your claims are false creationist PRATTS.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This whole thread has been me (save a few supporters) against everyone.

But you still have NO IDEA why that is, do you B.A.C. ?

We do - because your claims are false.
That's why you are copping so much flak - these claims are silly creationist nonsense that have all bee conclusively disproved long ago.


Kapyong

I could care less if you conclude I'm a creationist. It doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution has gaps in it that makes me less than convinced.

Still no answer about the development of eyes? (Another gaping hole in the theory)

I like to be certain of something before I believe it.