A little proof of Evolution

Yup!

An egg and a chicken where laying in bed, the chicken smoking a cigarrette with a self satisfied smile on his face, frustrated, the egg looks over at the chicken and says: well i guess that mystery is solved!!


<grin> sorry..just had to...things are getting oh so serious

Agreed.

You are absolutely correct in that there are other sources of directed genealogical change outside of natural selection, the best examples I can think of are sexual selection, selective breeding, and gene therapy. However, I disagree with nomenclature used by your source, as mixing the labels for the observed facts and theories can lead to confusion and become a barrier to acceptance of the facts and adoption of the theories.

While you are demonstrating above-average knowledge of evolution and its accompanying theories, remember providing a clear framework for the beginner is important to help them understand the concepts. It is my belief that separating out the observable fact from the theories helps teach people what to hold onto and what to look at skeptically. After all, if one can never accept an observed fact as an observed fact, how can one ever accept the accompanying theory?

~Ulrika~

I guess they aren't "clucking" anymore

...heh heh heh...

I think Gould actually did more to spread factual information about Evolution than most of his scientist peers - you may disagree with his nomenclature, but he's right. To avoid misquoting him, here's his complete words from Discover Magazine: Evolution as Fact and Theory (May 1981):

I think Kenneth Miller has done a marvelous job of taking up the cudgel since Gould's passing, and if you ever have a chance to hear him speak (if you haven't) he's more than worth the price of admission. He makes solid points in terms laypeople can grasp without having a Biology PhD His book sits on my computer desk and is seriously dog-eared.


I'm all for making Evolutionary Theory more approachable for laypeople (and I'm a laypeeps too), but I also think that at some point you can lay out all the information available in the simplest forms and the listener still has to make an effort to comprehend. Understanding Evolution isn't something one can do in an hour's internet reading, it requires some focus and effort consulting with credible scientific resources like Miller, Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, Dennett and others. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to invest that time & effort. There has to be a breakpoint where the spoon-feeding stops and intellectual curiousity takes over.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's the observable facts that support the theory itself, and it's a mistake to separate the two.

Since the creator is omniscient and omnipotent, he certainly might have generated the seed which created the universe and laid out the natural laws that caused it to take its current form.

It is also possible that he created the Earth 4500 years ago and also manufactured the evidence so that it appears much older.

There's no way to tell. If you want to prove that evolution is a fact, then you first have to disprove the existence of an omnipotent creator.

please don't start this AGAIN!

Thank you for taking the time to put together that excellent post! I read every bit of it.

~Ulrlika~

So much happened by the time I got done, I felt I had to reread
the thread.

Cyn I suspect that we agree more than not on most points.
I could see having trouble with the terms "divine creator".

I think that is another leftover of religion is the assumption
that the source of whatever our causation is by some necessity
infallible. While all the evidence I have observed screams the exact opposite. Everything in nature must struggle to survive.

Effort IMO is one of the mega constants it appears to me that all life forms share. I think of the universe as more of a challenge framework for deveoping life forms.

In regard to chance, levels of order and and chaos I noticed that you sort of intermixed those principles which is not as
counterintuitive as it first may sound. As we are living beings
mostly contained at the level of truth as it appear at eye level.
But I think what you are referring to is the layers of order
that exist at what would usually appear to be chaos at first glance. I read an excellent book quite a while ago called
"Order out of Chaos" by I believe Prigogene and Stengers.
I am pretty sure they received a nobel for their efforts on that
one.
Some interesting concepts in that book was on reversible and irreversible processes.
Another book that I have read more recently is called the
"Global Brain" by Howard Bloom whose emphasis is on
multi-disciplinary sciences. The idea being more about synergy
in the processing of multiple component factors. In the book
he gives examples of scientific fact in the realm and context
of social networking and its importance in the role of survival.

He gives examples from the microbial level all the way up to
the human level throughout history. His approach is that
differing subjects of knowledge did or do not evolve independently but in concert with each other in a massively
connected manner.
I am impressed with your knowledge and grasp of biology and evolution. Even if I were inclined I would not be able to debate the details with you in that arena.

My point is that I do not believe that complex organic systems
create themselves without some ordered manner of doing so.
Yet neither do I believe that there is a supreme being micro-managing tiny molecular changes.

The best scientific guesses to the number of cells in the human body is somewhere over 100 trillion. I am certainly glad
I do not need to consciously monitor their behavior so that they perform in a manner that continues to compose my physical self. And somehow I am certain that they are not conscious of the role they play in the creation of Infiniview.
It does bring up the point that truth is to a large degree
determined by context and perspective, depending on the size of the truth we are referring to.

While many things appear to be constant and unchanging
we actually know scientifically that absolutely everything is in a constant state of change. While the attempts to change may appear to be random on some levels the selection that is made is usually the one that serves future survival.
Which indicates that survival is a guiding principle in the outcome of such changes. That this would continue to be the case over time for species in general implies to me the existence of order.
Thus even if the actors involved in this process are not capable of the type of logic we humans are accustomed to
possess consciously (some anyway) that rules for survival
exist on other levels.
At the collective social level, cellular level or even the molecular level.
The levels of complexity involved in just the daily actualization of the physical world are and remain beyond
the scope of current human comprehension in regards to exactly how it is being accomplished. However the why
appears to be much simpler.
Whatever the source of all of these "random" incredibly intricate natural designs.

I believe it is some interconnected force i.e we are part and parcel of it that Wants to Exist.
Even if it takes billions of years and has to be bloodthirsty raw meat eating creatures for a while to evolve to the point of possessing more comfortable human avatars to reside in the physical realm within.
For humans to be the only ones to be able to take credit for the great and heroic efforts we make in our creations seems too arrogant somehow. Especially while we are surrounded by
levels of complexity that blows our tech away, and that we frequently copy.

So I guess I blew my cover, I am not an atheist.
My source of inspiration is some faceless force of fallible
creative intelligence that I am certain has left us with some
magnificent algorithims is probably on to other activities
in much greater challenge contexts.

ROFL

Uh, no. I guess if one wishes to prove evolution is a fact TO YOU, then the criteria is that they first disprove the existence of an omnipotent creator.


Briana Dawson

I read no post longer than my hand.

~Ulrika~

I'd be careful with statements like this. While it appears to be a useful tool for dismissing logical arguments it does more harm to theists than good. By using it, you recognize that the proof or disproof of a supernatural entity is impossible. While this appears to demonstrate that the theory is beyond proof when it's made a requirement of a scientific theory's acceptance (which is fallacious since supernatural entities are outside of the field of science), it in fact demonstrates that your beliefs are unprovable and thus supernatural.

Here's an analogy of your fallacy redirected at Christianity. I will believe in the Christian God, when you have proved that Shiva does not exist.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika I do not believe you.

And I echo Ulrika, nice work Cyndy.
This morning I was minding my own business creating textures.
And I had to peek my head in the forums, now a couple of hours
have melted like wax.

Great fun though, you guys are smart.

I seriously have no idea what you point of view is, because I skip over your strangely formatted monoliths of text most completely. Try breaking your posts up into single paragraphs. If you have a lot to say, do it slowly and interactively as people reply to you. Otherwise you'll put a lot of work into typing that no one will actually read.

~Ulrika~

Not at all... Look, this is my belief ok, I'm not claiming any facts here...

1. I believe that there was/is a creator.
2. I believe that evolution, as described by Darwin and his followers is true.

The reason is that all evolution is, is a method for species A to become species B. It takes no account of whether or not the creator wanted it to happen or not and is therefore completely seperate.

Look at this ...

1. Genesis says that God created the world in 7 days.
2. Exodus says that in God's eyes, 10,000 years are like a watch in the night (4 hours).

Therefore, even taking only the first two books into account you get (10,000 years) * 6 (4x6=24) * 7 (days) = 420,000 years.

Granted, this is nothing like the billions of years Geology speaks of, but if you'd tried to teach someone from BC 1100 about the concept of a billion (which we can't even agree on today - 1,000,000,000 in the US vs 1,000,000,000,000 in the EU) then you'd be getting nowhere... It is however, a lot more than 4,500 years.


Basically, these books were teaching aids. They weren't literal... couldn't have been. I mean... Tradition tells us that Moses wrote them... yet he died in the second volume...

They are the inspired word of God, not the Literal. Does not scripture also tell us that no man can fathom the mind of God?

Now I don't care what you believe... You may believe in a literal OT God, or in Allah (much the same), or you may believe there is no God/Goddess/God(desse)s, but the point is, it doesn't matter in the end. It was a way of teaching a certain morality to a mostly uneducated populace.

In the NT, Jesus taught what he taught... there are theories that he merged Buddhism with Judaism, and it kind of fits but I don't know. I know I don't know and likely never will. The story says he dide and rose from the dead. The story says he was born of a virgin...

In the end, it doesn't matter... He started a cult/religion based on being an all round nice person and not being a complete asshole. Whether or not he was God stopped being importand about 2 seconds after the religion became stable.

The fact that the church (mostly the Catholic church, but that's mainly because they were the only ones at the time) became corrupt for a few hundred years is beside the point... corruption in the ranks was never the faith.

By their works shall ye know them. Those who claim to be Christian yet act with hate and bigotry are not Christian whatever they say. No more are those who claim to be Muslim but pay no heed to the tennets of Islam.


Sorry to waffle.

But saying you must disprove a creator to embrace evolution is the grossest bullshit I've heard/read in a long time. Then again... I have Ulrika on ignore, so that cuts down a lot

I forgot what a theist was.

And just for the record I very much respect the high level
of logical consistency you demand of yourself Ulrika.

I suspect thougth that many atheists simply choose not to share
what their metaphysical position really is.

I suppose I am more of an agnostic or failing that speculative.

Stating that the bible is "not literal" is how Christians explain away the fact that the Bible is complete bullshit. These two words are used to justify everything from mistranslations to gross inconsistencies.

I wish in school I could've written a partially plagiarized, fictitious, poorly written, self-contradictory paper and then tell the teacher, when she failed the work, that she shouldn't have taken it literally.

~Ulrika~

Groovy! Now that I'm reading your posts, you sound like a very nice fellow. Don't let me get you down. I'm a bear in the forums some time.

~Ulrika~

say it is in ebonics and you can

Does that mean you eat Buddhist?? I forget

Briana Dawson

I agree with you Sio.

Ok Ulrika,

You should be careful with the word "Supernatural".
As advances in quantum physics are quickly making the distinction between what we usually perceive as the "physical"
and the "non-physical" an arbitrary one. We cannot empirically
perceive electrons without the aid of special technology.
Does that mean they used to be "supernatural".
But it was the courage and vision of the early pioneers to state their actual positions in the face of riducule that allows us to interact in this medium right now.

Apologies for not responding earlier, but I only noticed this when someone else quoted it, since I of course, generally have you on ignore.

You can use that arguement to deny anything. It's pointless tripe used only by people without the education or wherewithall to seek out the facts... "Oh I don't believe you cos you said your source wasn't literal".... Well dear, I have never heared ANYONE other than a fundie (or an anti-christian like you) ever claim the bible was or should be literal. Believe me hun, I've studied it extensively, both in education and in life.

You pretty obviously don't know what you're talking about.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter because you don't believe it anyway. Please, feel free to hate those who do. I suspect it's jealousy since you'd like to believe in a higher power, but for whatever reason, you can't... Read my lips... It Doesn't Matter! You don't believe... that's great... do your thing... and leave those who do believe alone... Christianity, nor any other religion has never hurt you. (Perhaps people who claimed to be followers did, but that's them and not the teachings)...

Nowhere is it written "Go out to all nations and sexually abuse children"... it's not a part of doctrine... though I do accept that perverts get everywhere...

You appear anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic, Ulrika. Take a step back, a few deep breaths and think about why you are like this. You may hate the church, but the church doesn't hate you.

Does the existance (or otherwise) of any gods or goddesses make a difference to the way you should live your life? If the answer is no, then it doesn't matter... give it up and stop harrassing people who believe differently to you.

I should read all the responses before I push the last button.

hahaha

thanks