I'm having trouble finding contradition between the literary works of the Origin of the Species, and Genisis. Feer
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That'll be 10p, please.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
insert coin in the slot to activate homework robot
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
For an extra 5p, we'll use correct spelling and grammar.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
You are probably using the works of the Phil Collins-led Genesis, when of course you need to go back further and compare and contrast with the Peter Gabriel era.
Make my check out to 'Cash'. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I really sorry to hear that. It must be vey hard for you.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: I'm having trouble finding contradition between the literary works of the Origin of the Species, and Genisis. Feer
Have you read them both?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The main difference, as I see it, is the support for abortion provided in Origin of Species, and the support for Zionism (literally "apartheid") shown in Genesis.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If you get the unabridged version of Origin of Species, there's a line in the author's preface "Oh, yeah, also Genesis is wrong."
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
In fact the classic literary works that originated Species include H. M. Giger and H. P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft postulates gods called "the Old Ones" which are evil, live under the Pacific, and just one of them wakes up, it is all over for humanity. This contrasts with Genisis, which provides the arguement that You Can't Hurry Love, thus suggesting a different fate for mankind. However, Genisis is more tolerant of dissent and says that There Must Be Some Misunderstanding. Lovecraft's Old Ones don't care about misunderstanding. They devour things they misunderstand.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My understanding is that they devour everything, not just things that they misunderstand.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
They devour misunderstood things twice.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you get the unabridged version of Origin of Species, there's a line in the author's preface "Oh, yeah, also Genesis is wrong."
That's only in later editions, after Darwin started softening his position. The first edition preface actually states, "Genesis is wrong, therefore the entire Bible is invalid, I'm better than God, nyah nyah nyah. Also, gay sex is hawt. HAIL SATAN!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Darwin is gay? Who knew.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
That was after the summer Darwin spent in the gay deprogramming camp, right?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's only in later editions, after Darwin started softening his position. The first edition preface actually states, "Genesis is wrong, therefore the entire Bible is invalid, I'm better than God, nyah nyah nyah. Also, gay sex is hawt. HAIL SATAN!"
To be fair, though, Darwin would only give permission for an Arabic translation if it contained printings on the lower right corners of the right pages such that, if you flipped through the book, you saw a cartoon of him kicking Mohammed in the crotch.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Darwin is gay? Who knew.
It's true. In fact, Darwin got so tired of the "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument that he wrote his own version of Genesis wherein he changed the names. He called it Gaynesis.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's so gay.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: insert coin in the slot to activate homework robot
Oh baby.
-pH
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Darwin is gay? Who knew.
It's true. In fact, Darwin got so tired of the "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument that he wrote his own version of Genesis wherein he changed the names. He called it Gaynesis.
Little known fact: the original full title for "Origin of the Species" was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Fabulous Races in the Struggle for Life. Ta!"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Don't forget the sequel, Descent of Man: Going Down! Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Don't forget the sequel, Descent of Man: Going Down!
I find this hard to believe. Did he really use the exclamation point in the title?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Don't forget the sequel, Descent of Man: Going Down!
I find this hard to believe. Did he really use the exclamation point in the title?
Oh yeah. Threads like these.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Man, asking you guys for help is like asking a fish how to walk on land... what the heck does 10p mean? was darwin really gay?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Feer, both threads you've started on this forum have been to get help with homework, and in this thread you weren't even up-front about it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh, were you asking for help? Your OP didn't make that clear.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
As a bystander who has been duped by jokes like these in the past, I have to say that it isn't funny.
Oh, oh wait. Yes it is. HA! You guys crack me up.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: was darwin really gay?
Absolutely. I know because someone on an internet forum told me so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What kind of idiotic assignment asks someone to compare the Book of Genesis to On the Origin of Species, anyway? Slap your teacher for me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And post back to let us know how that goes.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I don't think Feer is trying to find out if Darwin was gay for a homework assignment. I think he is stirring an anthill to see what happens, like an Old One would. I am leaving this thread before it's too late. Stay behind if you are not afraid of being squamous and non-Euclidean.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Feer: was darwin really gay?
Absolutely. I know because someone on an internet forum told me so.
In fact, he should feel free to cite Hatrack directly. The MLA-approved format is as follows:
quote:Tarrsk. 2007. "Charles Darwin was teh h3lla ghey!!!11" Journal of a Series of Tubes, Not a Big Truck: Hatrack River Forum.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Feer, both threads you've started on this forum have been to get help with homework, and in this thread you weren't even up-front about it.
HAHA ok so 1: I have asked for help on homework Alongo time ago o. but not this time, gah I was in an ARGUEMENT. glory... And I have written more then 2 of these things, just the 2: that I want something from you guys catches... and 3...: What in Blue Blazes does 10p mean?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Rereading that I really am a n00b
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Rereading that I really am a n00b
Um, no kidding.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: What in Blue Blazes does 10p mean?
The link was at the top of a simple Google search. Dude, if you can't learn to feed yourself, this is going to be a short and painful life.
That'll be another 10p. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm pretty sure the 10p is actually a reference to the ministry of arguments sketch from Monty Python.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't remember "10p" in the clip, but I'm sure it's possible. They're Brits; it would be a "10 pence" reference nonetheless, no?
[Although, if it were a MP reference, that would provide additional context, of course, and we would be in your debt for pointing that out.]
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
It's actually "One pound for a five-minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I had a vague recollection of there being a 10 pence thing in there somewhere, but it was not at all clear. I imagine Tom will be along at some point to clear it up.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think it's in one of the Spanish Inquisition sketches on 'The Final Rip Off.'
I have no idea if that's what Tom is referring to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not a specific Monty Python reference, but indeed it was once the case in Britain that 10p was the go-to minor charge, the equivalent of a quarter in the U.S. around 1975.
--------
Feer, to be more helpful, I'd like to suggest that identifying the possible conflicts between the account of creation in the Book of Genesis and the story of creation implied by an evolutionary worldview based on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection -- which is really what your question's about, right? -- is something that's a matter of considerable dispute.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Kinda, that was my general question. But at this point in time it is long past the overveiw of everthing and its getting pretty detailed. More along the lines of spacifics.
What am I up to? 30p?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:More along the lines of spacifics.
You first.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, no one here is going to do your work for you.
You may as well get that into your head. If you have some thoughts of your own that you'd like to bounce off us, you'll find that you get a pretty good response.
If you say (as you've done), "Tell me everything I need to know about [insert subject]", you're not gonna get much help.
Plus, you're completely ignoring the possibility that the Book of Genesis was written by Darwin. You gotta cover all your bases.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What? That's ridiculous.
Darwin was barely literate.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Is acually not possible that this isnt for home work? i want some candid answers from some different mindsets before stating my own stand on the subject in question.
And i learned my lesson about homework from the last time i got lazy and tried to bum off you guys.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We want some some evidence that you've actually thought about this issue yourself before we go to the bother of sharing ours.
Your asking for something that takes time and effort out of our lives, and you're giving absolutely nothing in return -- not even discussion.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
I'm disgusting right now. hehe I would prefere that I get feed back from some without throwing in my opinion, whether you think it does or not I think stating my opinion first may acually affect the way some people respond to my question.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom pretty much summed up what I was going to say.
Charles Darwin, Homosexuality, Monty Python, British Currency, and the ethics of forum based homework assistance, all in one thread. Lets derail if further,
If William Shatner had had access to this forum would he have still cheated on the Kobayashi Maru?
edit: Feer: And in same token I am concerned that if I write out my opinion it will dramatically alter your opinion to the point that our opinions are identical. Since I'd rather not rock your universe, I must insist you state your opinions and observations before I tragically erase them from existance. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Who cares? His priceline.com commercials show his brilliance.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: I'm disgusting right now. hehe I would prefere that I get feed back from some without throwing in my opinion, whether you think it does or not I think stating my opinion first may acually affect the way some people respond to my question.
Sugar, let me get this straight:
You don't want to have a conversation. You only want answers, without having put anything into the discussion itself. Just straight, pure, answers to your teacher's questions, so that the process can completely bypass your brain altogether.
Is this correct?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Feer makes commercials?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Brilliant!
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
No not correct i want pre answers to see where other people from this universe stand before i jump in with what i have. oh glory, anything else before i submit and throw my opinion of life to heck??
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: I'm disgusting right now. hehe I would prefere that I get feed back from some without throwing in my opinion, whether you think it does or not I think stating my opinion first may acually affect the way some people respond to my question.
That's the cost of doing business, as they say.
You withhold your opinion, and get nothing back, or share it and risk (*gasp*) influencing our responses. Your call.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No not correct i want pre answers to see where other people from this universe stand before i jump in with what i have.
Do you always get everything you want?
Well, I guess this is just one of those times, then.
edit: Here's a bone. There are people on this board who have just about any opinion on this subject you can imagine. We don't actually all agree on some things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You could also do some work and check out what people here have already written on about 16 zillion evolution or bible thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You could also do some work and
Trying to get other people to do his homework is hard work!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: No not correct i want pre answers to see where other people from this universe stand before i jump in with what i have. oh glory, anything else before i submit and throw my opinion of life to heck??
He just called hatrack heck! Would that make sakeriver hell? Was hatrack.AOL.com heaven and loudmouth lion the garden of eden?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No not correct i want pre answers to see where other people from this universe stand before i jump in with what i have.
Do you always get everything you want?
Well, I guess this is just one of those times, then.
edit: Here's a bone. There are people on this board who have just about any opinion on this subject you can imagine. We don't actually all agree on some things.
haha no I get nothing I want so I thought I would try for it for once, so does everyone share in this opinion that to you must get a gift before you give?
dang I guess i fall in there to.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
It would also help your cause a fair bit if you were to use better writing mechanics. I don't say this to be cruel, I say it in an honest attempt to help you start discussions in the future.
Example:
"I'm disgusting right now." Maybe it has been a while since you've showered, but it bears no relevance to your topic of discussion. Using the correct word "discussing" would more than likely make people a bit more amenable to conversing with you, not to mention being able to stand in your company.
Unless you were trying to be funny. Hmm. But if that were the case, it missed the mark.
Moral of the story: Conversation takes effort - if you show some, we will too.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Come back when you grow up.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I strongly suspect that English is not Feer's primary language.
Feer -- why don't you tell us about yourself? Where are you from? How old are you? What brought you to Hatrack? What is your purpose with this thread?
I know that I am far more likely to help out somebody I know and like than a stranger whining that I won't do his homework.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Holy poo... Not homework,
It was a jab at humor. A very bad one. I'm from a poor side of Phoenix, I'm 17, I'm a Card fan thats why im here. My purpose in this threads was to get candid answers, now i guess its more or less a losing battle to get back a reputation I never had.
I am appoligizing now for coming in here, not at all my territory, me having a total of 18 posts, and asking for things that are stong and personal opinions about a huge conflict around the world.
Thanks for the slap in the face Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am appoligizing now for coming in here, not at all my territory, me having a total of 18 posts, and asking for things that are stong and personal opinions about a huge conflict around the world.
Hint: you get more opinions when you share your own. It often helps to check the forum to see if threads about the very question you just asked have been actively discussed in the last few days.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Feer, lots of newbies post here and ask for homework help. Lots of newbies also post here and ask for opinions on subjects that have been hashed out dozens of times already, without wanting to contribute anything to the discussion. We are not puppets that dance on command for you. If you want to have a discussion, you must participate in it. That's not a slap in the face. That's us telling you to have respect for the community.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You could try giving your opinion.
The thing is, these discussions about Darwinism and Creationism lead to hurt feelings. We've had them many times before, and had the hurt feelings to show for it. So maybe you can understand why someone who wants to stir that pot but doesn't show evidence of wanting a genuine conversation might not be met with open arms. If you want friendship with a bunch of Card fans, you can find that here. But trying to get them all to fight each other for your amusement is not the way to go.
I personally have next to no patience for the wounded newbie stance, so I'm explaining this nicely once before I lose my patience altogether.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Holy poo... Not homework,
It was a jab at humor. A very bad one. I'm from a poor side of Phoenix, I'm 17, I'm a Card fan thats why im here. My purpose in this threads was to get candid answers, now i guess its more or less a losing battle to get back a reputation I never had.
I am appoligizing now for coming in here, not at all my territory, me having a total of 18 posts, and asking for things that are stong and personal opinions about a huge conflict around the world.
Thanks for the slap in the face
No need to be so dramatic. You are still welcome here, I myself have not formed a strong opinion of you at all. Were you to post another thread about how obnoxiously high movie ticket prices are I would probably forget you even made this thread and respond to your post in the affirmative.
I think folks are just trying to send you two messages.
1: People try to get forums to do their homework for them all the time and its usually in the form of, "Hey what do you all think about this?" Hoping to glean pages of responses, and yet post nothing that could be discussed.
2: Hatrack has many users and has been around some time now. Its MORE then likely that if you search for a topic as hot as religion or evolution that there are myriad threads dealing with it, you can go read those without expending any of our effort. Well actually, Ill expend some effort right now, enjoy, http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=046050;p=1&r=nfx ^^ now c.t.t.n could have been masking her homework phishing attempt with a poll, but who can know these things?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That was your face I slapped?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also I just realized that I very much like calling the concept of trying to glean mass numbers of responses on a topic from forum posters for the purposes of using it in homework assignments as "Forum Phishing" its extremely similar to identity theft.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Which turns my prespective to a different view of things. I have looked through the threads and there was nothing that really stood out to me. I could go digging through thousands of posts to find one section of a 100 page thread that gives me one line of what i want.
At that if people are still in this thread I'm am willing to let go of the idea that i have, and start with an actual discusion.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Might be worth a shot.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What's the worst that can happen? You won't get the responses you're looking for.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
My opinion coincides with both Origin of the species and genesis. I believe that there was and still is evolution. I also believe that there is a god. God being all powerful can create anything. So why not create a 70 year old man? He can have memories of growing up because god can plant them there in the 70 year old mans brain. So why can’t god make a world millions of years old with fossils and already evolved animals? With all the steps in evolution right there. Could be as simple as to test ones faith. I think that both can work. There are hundreds of people with an extra finger, 11 in stead of 10, is that not evolving? Slowly, but still going, that trait can be past on. So what if its incest that does most of it, its still going, and they are still producing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Edited to add: whoops, your post came up as I was writing]
Sure! What do you think about the topic? In your readings of Genesis and Darwin's work, what stuck out to you as similar and dissimilar?
*interested
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Mind you this came about long after i had posted the original post, so thats why what i just said differs from the post leading off this thread
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"^^ now c.t.t.n could have been masking her homework phishing attempt with a poll, but who can know these things?"
c.t.t.n. is my alt. Last I checked, I'm male.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: So what if its incest that does most of it, its still going, and they are still producing.
I'm not sure this is a supportable fact. Most mutations are not correlated with incest, and most [individual incidents of conception via] incest (actually) are not going to result in the increased expression of a mutation in the offspring.
(Is this a tangent, or did you want more info? I can point you in the right direction if needed.)
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
it was a tangent.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Feer, you could be right, but I see no evidence that the universe punishes those who go by logic any more than it punishes those who go by belief.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:11 in stead of 10, is that not evolving?
Mmmm...I don't know. I think there's a difference between mutation and evolution. Having 11 fingers is a mutation; having larger lungs to facilitate breathing in a low oxygen environment is evolution.
But I may be wrong.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah, okay.
I don't see a conflict between a figurative interpretation of the Christian Bible and the scientific theory of evolution. I do see a conflict between a literal interpretation of the CB and the theory, but I am neither a believer myself nor a literalist, so it doesn't cause me any consternation myself.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Evolution comes from mutation. The fish that has a mutated fin alowing it to go faster through that water, a human having an extra finger to type fast on a computer and get a better job, so he doesnt die off and he can pass his extra finger gene mutation
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe in evolution defined as the genotype of a species changing over time, but you're not convinced that evolution is responsible for the origin of the species.
I can understand that. I know I've said similar things in the past.
I think that evolution as you described it is an unassailable fact. We've seen species adapt and change according to environmental pressures.
As far as the origin of the species is concerned, I have no strong opinions. There certainly appear to be contradictions between Genesis and what we find in the physical world, and there many ways to reconcile those apparent contradictions without assuming that one is completely false. Honestly, it doesn't bother me much to not know what the correct reconciliation is.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Evolution comes from mutation. The fish that has a mutated fin alowing it to go faster through that water, a human having an extra finger to type fast on a computer and get a better job, so he doesnt die off and he can pass his extra finger gene mutation
That's sort of the gist of it. It would help if you were to add in an account of unhelpful mutations as well, since the mutations themselves are random.
It is only within context that they become helpful or unhelpful, and if you change the context, you may well change the helpfulness (or hinderance).
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
May I hear the conflict none the less?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
a mutation of a fish so it cant swim faster, would ultimatly lead to the death of that fish and the bad mutated gene.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Evolution comes from mutation.
Not true. New mutations come from mutation (heh. How's that for a useless tautology), but that only becomes evolution if that new mutation is passed down and helps the descendants survive.
A good example of evolution without mutation is the peppered moth. They come in two colors; light and dark. 200 years ago, the light colored ones were far more common, because those who were dark tended to get eaten quicker and didn't pass on their genes as much.
As pollution from the industrial revolution in England got worse, and things started getting covered with soot, the white ones started getting eaten sooner, and there was a shift in the genetics of the moth. Many more were dark, with the light ones in the minority.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Ok so evolution is possible through mutations, but not from mutations?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um, no. At least, I don't think so. But I don't really understand what you said.
Mutations can cause new genotypes to appear in the population. That's not necessarily evolution, but it could cause it to happen if those genotypes confer some sort of benefit.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I don't see a conflict between a figurative interpretation of the Christian Bible and the scientific theory of evolution. I do see a conflict between a literal interpretation of the CB and the theory, but I am neither a believer myself nor a literalist, so it doesn't cause me any consternation myself.
quote:Originally posted by Feer: May I hear the conflict none the less?
Well, first off, tell me about your understanding of how Genesis describes the origin of the world. Which of the two stories of origination do you reference, and why that one -- or, if both, where do you think there might be a conflict between the two?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Thats about what I was saying. That withou Mutations evolution wouldnt happen.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Evolution comes from mutation. The fish that has a mutated fin alowing it to go faster through that water, a human having an extra finger to type fast on a computer and get a better job, so he doesnt die off and he can pass his extra finger gene mutation
That's the start of it. As CT said, though (and Scott alluded to), mutations that do not offer an advantage aren't evolution. It's only when the mutation offers enough of an advantage to give the creature with the mutation an edge over the creature without it that it becomes evolution.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Thats about what I was saying. That withou Mutations evolution wouldnt happen.
Like I said earlier, I disagree.
Did you read the page I liked to about the peppered moth? That was clear example of evolution happening without any mutation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "^^ now c.t.t.n could have been masking her homework phishing attempt with a poll, but who can know these things?"
c.t.t.n. is my alt. Last I checked, I'm male.
I usually go with "he" when I am unsure, and this time I went with my instinct, apologies for guessing wrong. Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Was it not mutation that the peppered moth was a darker color?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
I see it as god made the earth, and made animals to evolve. is that what you asked claudia?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: I see it as god made the earth, and made animals to evolve. is that what you asked claudia?
Ah. There are two different Genesis stories, and they differ in some (possibly) important ways. Would you like a link to read about them?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
If you are talking about the King james and the Jerusalem Bible i have read them. but if you arn't then I would like the link.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think she means that in the book of Genesis, there are two different creation stories (or parts of two stories) sort of smushed together. And they don't entirely match up.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. *removes sarcastic asshat cap*
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Evolution comes from mutation. The fish that has a mutated fin alowing it to go faster through that water, a human having an extra finger to type fast on a computer and get a better job, so he doesnt die off and he can pass his extra finger gene mutation
That's the start of it. As CT said, though (and Scott alluded to), mutations that do not offer an advantage aren't evolution. It's only when the mutation offers enough of an advantage to give the creature with the mutation an edge over the creature without it that it becomes evolution.
Not exactly. I would argue that both genetic drift and harmful mutations are an example of evolution (or, to be more precise, natural selection) in action. In both cases, you have change in genotype, and certainly in the latter case you have a change in phenotype as well. Genetic drift itself can lead to phenotypic variation, although if the variation is more or less neutral in terms of survival and fecundity, natural selection obviously won't push it one way or the other. Regardless, all of this comes out of the process of evolution through the mechanism of natural selection.
quote:Originally posted by mph:
quote:
Like I said earlier, I disagree.
Did you read the page I liked to about the peppered moth? That was clear example of evolution happening without any mutation.
Not quite- the two peppered moth phenotypes are themselves the result of mutations that occurred in the distant past. The prevalence of the white phenotype prior to the Industrial Revolution was itself the result of natural selection; the change in the ratio of black-to-white phenotypes afterwards is another.
As for whether evolution can result in speciation, as usual, the most concise response is a link to talk.origins' "Observed Instances of Speciation" page, which lists a number of cases in which speciation occurred, and provides the appropriate citations to the scientific literature.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Was it not mutation that the peppered moth was a darker color?
No. Did you even bother to read my link?
Before the industrial revolution, there were already light and dark moths. The evolution was that before, the dark moths were very rare, like albinoism is very rare in most animals. After the change in their environment, about 90% of them were dark moths.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: If you are talking about the King james and the Jerusalem Bible i have read them. but if you arn't then I would like the link.
No, not the difference between the Catholic translation of the Christian Bible and the KJ version. Many consider there to be two separate accounts of creation in Genesis, a.k.a. the "Priestly" and the "Jahwist" accounts: See here.
If you want to talk about how Genesis might be in contrast to evolution, it's good to make sure you know what each is first.
Also, does the distinction between "literal" and "figurative" interpretations make sense to you? If you aren't familiar with the terms, they would be worth looking up.
---
Edited to add: I'll step back for awhile while you work on evolution.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I would argue that both genetic drift and harmful mutations are an example of evolution (or, to be more precise, natural selection) in action.
How are harmful mutations an example of natural selection? That seems counterintuitive (which doesn't mean it can't be true, I'm just asking for clarification).
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
I did read the link i know the story. How do you get 2 moths of different colors? one had to have had a mutated gene that changed the color. and that gene was passed on.
so like Tarrsk later natural selection came along and played its part in evolution.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: ... It's only when the mutation offers enough of an advantage to give the creature with the mutation an edge over the creature without it that it becomes evolution.
As a helpful addendum, it is interesting to note that while most conceive of evolution as happening on the level of (populations of) individual organisms, this viewpoint is not unanimous. Some (including me) find it helpful to also view evolution as occurring on the level of (populations of) genes, when looking at "junk" DNA, transposons, and so forth.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Feer: If you are talking about the King james and the Jerusalem Bible i have read them. but if you arn't then I would like the link.
No, not the difference between the Catholic translation of the Christian Bible and the KJ version. Many consider there to be two separate accounts of creation in Genesis, a.k.a. the "Priestly" and the "Jahwist" accounts: See here.
If you want to talk about how Genesis might be in contrast to evolution, it's good to make sure you know what each is first.
Also, does the distinction between "literal" and "figurative" interpretations make sense to you? If you aren't familiar with the terms, they would be worth looking up.
---
Edited to add: I'll step back for awhile while you work on evolution.
I was basing it off of KJV, i hadnt even thought of those others.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How do you get 2 moths of different colors? one had to have had a mutated gene that changed the color.
Well, if you assume that all genetic variation is the result of random mutation, then of course the different colors of moth come from mutation.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:I would argue that both genetic drift and harmful mutations are an example of evolution (or, to be more precise, natural selection) in action.
How are harmful mutations an example of natural selection? That seems counterintuitive (which doesn't mean it can't be true, I'm just asking for clarification).
Natural selection isn't just the elevation of populations with higher fitness- it's also the concurrent reduction in populations with *lower* fitness. Harmful mutations are one example of the latter. For example, a mutation in a fish that results in a slightly slower average swimming speed might not impair it enough to prevent it from breeding entirely, but could prove enough of a liability that it (and its progeny) are less reproductively successful than their normal-speed compatriots.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:How do you get 2 moths of different colors? one had to have had a mutated gene that changed the color.
Well, if you assume that all genetic variation is the result of random mutation, then of course the different colors of moth come from mutation.
If you can propose another mechanism for generating genetic variability, I'd like to hear it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Gene splicing is one.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:I would argue that both genetic drift and harmful mutations are an example of evolution (or, to be more precise, natural selection) in action.
How are harmful mutations an example of natural selection? That seems counterintuitive (which doesn't mean it can't be true, I'm just asking for clarification).
Natural selection isn't just the elevation of populations with higher fitness- it's also the concurrent reduction in populations with *lower* fitness. Harmful mutations are one example of the latter. For example, a mutation in a fish that results in a slightly slower average swimming speed might not impair it enough to prevent it from breeding entirely, but could prove enough of a liability that it (and its progeny) are less reproductively successful than their normal-speed compatriots.
Okay. It's the less discussed side of natural selection, i.e. less heritable traits reproducing less successfully. Gotcha.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In a discussion about Genesis vs. Origin of the species, you can't just assume that everybody already agrees on how and if evolution happens.
Even some of the most staunch anti-evolutionists can concede that evolution of the type we see in the peppered moth happens. We've seen it happen. It's almost impossible to refute.
But those same people are not necessarily convinced that random mutation could cause the complexity we see in the natural world. In fact, that's one of the big Intelligent Design arguments.
One reason why it's not as persuasive is that we haven't observed, as it happened, that all of the genetic variation that exists was caused by random mutation.
There are people who believe that God created the species, complete with genetic variation, within the last 10,000 years, and that they've slowly changed since then.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
So what is your view? where do you stand in this?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:There are people who believe that God created the species, complete with genetic variation, within the last 10,000 years, and that they've slowly changed since then.
I don't recall offhand if you're one of those people, Porter, but I wonder if you know how they explain the fossil record? If you're not in that group of people, you don't need to speculate on their behalf on my account -- I'm sure someone will come along to explain it. I just thought you might know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I really don't stand anywhere. At least not strongly.
I used to believe, as I said in the edit of my last post, that God created the species, and then let them run free and slightly evolve from there.
I'm not married to that idea anymore. As I said before, the earth certainly appears to be much older than Genesis would lead us to believe. I think it's probably an error to take that part of Genesis literally, but I'm not positive. Perhaps God purposely made the world to appear much older than it is, but I doubt it. Perhaps we're really misinterpreting the physical evidence, but I don't know enough about any of the fields to even make a WAG.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I think it's probably an error to take that part of Genesis literally, but I'm not positive.
This is what I thought when I was in high school (read: more religious).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: I was basing it off of KJV, i hadnt even thought of those others.
Both of those stories of creation are in the KJV.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Then i need to reread KJV, becuase i have no recolection.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No worries. Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Perhaps God purposely made the world to appear much older than it is, but I doubt it.
Why not? IF the main reason we are down here is to be tested why not throw tricky questions to test faith?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:I think it's probably an error to take that part of Genesis literally, but I'm not positive.
This is what I thought when I was in high school (read: more religious).
As opposed to (read: a whiney punk like Porteiro)? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Why not? IF the main reason we are down here is to be tested why not throw tricky questions to test faith?
How does this test faith? (*curious about your answer, given that you've said you don't see a conflict)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't recall offhand if you're one of those people, Porter, but I wonder if you know how they explain the fossil record? If you're not in that group of people, you don't need to speculate on their behalf on my account -- I'm sure someone will come along to explain it. I just thought you might know.
One speculation is that the dating methods we have (such as carbon14) are completely wrong, and that those are all the remains of creatures who became extinct with the great flood.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Perhaps God purposely made the world to appear much older than it is, but I doubt it.
Why not? IF the main reason we are down here is to be tested why not throw tricky questions to test faith?
While I concede that this is possible, it doesn't really mesh well with my (admittedly very limited) understanding of God. That's why I doubt that explanation, but don't outright reject it.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
People everywhere take evolution over god. They're faith in god is gone. It lets people have a chance to choose god over something else. If there where no fossils then there would be less of a choice of what to believe in. thus making the test easier.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I really don't stand anywhere. At least not strongly.
I used to believe, as I said in the edit of my last post, that God created the species, and then let them run free and slightly evolve from there.
I'm not married to that idea anymore. As I said before, the earth certainly appears to be much older than Genesis would lead us to believe. I think it's probably an error to take that part of Genesis literally, but I'm not positive. Perhaps God purposely made the world to appear much older than it is, but I doubt it. Perhaps we're really misinterpreting the physical evidence, but I don't know enough about any of the fields to even make a WAG.
Sounds like we're in the same boat. I used to be one of the "microevolution but not macroevolution" types. It was actually a course in historical linguistics that made me change my mind (or opened my mind to the possibility, anyway).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: It lets people have a chance to choose god over something else.
So, if I understand you correctly, having some evidence (even if "faked" by God) that supports a non-God-centered origin of the world is important to facillitate free will. Moreover, that it is the facillitation of free will which leads to a test of faith. Yes?
(I'm not setting you up -- just trying to understand.)
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Yes, the will to chose something over god is a test of faith.
If of corse that we are here to be tested.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:People everywhere take evolution over god. They're faith in god is gone. It lets people have a chance to choose god over something else. If there where no fossils then there would be less of a choice of what to believe in.
First of all, I think that evolution vs. God is a false dichotomy -- there is no need to choose only one or the other.
Also, there were thousands of years of people on this earth who didn't even have a chance to choose evolution. Do you think that their faith suffered as a result?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Just becuase there is no need to choose either does not mean they do chose one over the other.
I think that they may have had different tests of they're faith.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Yes, the will to chose something over god is a test of faith.
If of corse that we are here to be tested.
Sooooo not the reason I think God created us.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
I'm all ears Boots Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(By the way, thanks for sticking with the conversation, Feer. It's nice to get to know you.
And in case it hadn't been said before, welcome to Hatrack. )
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Thanks, this really was what i was looking for, I like to know opinions of other people other then the ones in my area.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Feer: Yes, the will to chose something over god is a test of faith.
If of corse that we are here to be tested.
Sooooo not the reason I think God created us.
You have to admit though, if true, it could possibly explain alot
Though there are gaping holes too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think God created us to love each other.
To be conduits and creators of love.
All the rest is instructions on how and a record of how we get it right sometimes and fail to get it right sometimes.
But that is a tangential discussion.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Without going too much into my beliefs, I'll say that if I were a believer I'm not sure I'd like the idea of a god who tested his followers by planting evidence that directly contradicted his word.
That's not how faith, or trust, is supposed to work, IMO.
Edit: Much the same way I didn't like it when a buddy of mine 'tested' his girlfriend by asking a third party to try to get her to be unfaithful to him. It's just dishonest.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
If we didnt know what wrong was how would we know right? There needs to be opposition in all things.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
I agree with your edit, thats a good point I hadnt thought about.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just wanted to applaud, CT, your entirely unintentional but nonetheless masterful set-up of Feer. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I just wanted to applaud, CT, your entirely unintentional but nonetheless masterful set-up of Feer.
*solemn bow
I will take credit for any and all masterfulness, whether deserved or not. I'm greedy that way.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I think the real question hinges on whether you take the Bible/Genisis literally or symbolically. If you take it literally then there really is no hope for understanding or reconciliation with the scientific world. Further, the Bible is so self-contradictory that I don't see how it can be taken literally. Next, in the Bible I have, the Creation story is told twice, just a page apart. The two version don't match, so which is the correct version? Finally, a day is only a day relative to where you are when you measure a day and by what means you measure a day. The Sun, which is our world standard for a day, was not created on the first day, so how was a day measured, and who says God was standing on earth when he created earth? Maybe he was standing on Mars when he created earth, in which case, the day would not be 24 hours. More likely God was standing in his own infinite time and space, in which case, a day has no meaning in human terms. To God, his day could be a billion years.
Perhaps to God a day is infinite, or perhaps it is as long as he chose to take for that stage of development of the universe, and keep in mind that God wasn't only creating Earth, he was indeed creating the universe. So, by what logic would God, creator of a great and complex universe, choose to measure a day as 24 hours?
As far as I'm concerned Science merely documents God's methods. The problem is that most religious people measure 'Gods' works by human standards and by human time when the should be measuring it by the standards of a God and a wide near infinite universe. Why would a God of infinite knowledge, infinite time, and infinite wisdom allow himself to be trapped in a 24 hour mindset? Makes no sense.
I see no conflict between Science and Genisis, if fact, I think science very accurately documents Genisis.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, this Genisis stuff is infectious.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
I see your point.
That brings up another good point about fossils. If indeed a day to god can be any amount of time, then when he made the beast of the earth, it could have been thousands of years before he made man, so there are already alot of fossils becuase animals came years before man.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Gene splicing is one.
Fair enough. Assuming you mean insertion/deletion of actual DNA fragments into a given genome, rather than mRNA splicing (which is actually the more common usage for the term "splicing"), that is. The former *does* result in generation of new information, and is actually considered a mutation, albeit one that isn't strictly random... although one could actually argue that mutation is never truly random, since a given method of mutation will generally result in particular base mispairings (for example, GC pair to a TA pair, versus GC pair to an AT pair).
BTW mph, I want to be up-front about the fact that I really enjoy discussing this subject with you and most of the other nominal IDers on Hatrack. It's useful to me as a biologist to have my own ideas challenged, and there has been more than once instance when you guys raised an objection that I couldn't immediately answer. Of course, a bit of research into the literature has always yielded a good response (in my eyes, at least ) eventually, but I like being kept on my toes. So, thanks!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: ... If indeed a day to god can be any amount of time, then when he made the beast of the earth, it could have been thousands of years before he made man, so there are already alot of fossils becuase animals came years before man.
That seems unnecessarily complicated. How do you explain the fossil record leading up to Homo sapiens? Did God wait for the lineage up to Homo erectus to evolve, and then suddenly jump in to create man, which coincidentally both happened to be in his image and the next step in the lineage?
Also, when you say "thousands" you actually mean millions. The human-chimpanzee split is roughly 5 million years ago and we have fossil evidence of life at least a billion years back. This is not a trivial difference.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [qb] Gene splicing is one.
Fair enough. Assuming you mean insertion/deletion of actual DNA fragments into a given genome, rather than mRNA splicing (which is actually the more common usage for the term "splicing"), that is.
Um, you just went waaaay over my head.
quote: The former *does* result in generation of new information, and is actually considered a mutation, albeit one that isn't strictly random...
Then we're using different definitions of mutation. I have little doubt that yours is more accurate.
quote: BTW mph, I want to be up-front about the fact that I really enjoy discussing this subject with you and most of the other nominal IDers on Hatrack. It's useful to me as a biologist to have my own ideas challenged, and there has been more than once instance when you guys raised an objection that I couldn't immediately answer. Of course, a bit of research into the literature has always yielded a good response (in my eyes, at least ) eventually, but I like being kept on my toes. So, thanks!
Thanks. I'm not trying to push any agenda here.
I do start from the assumption that the scriptures are literally and factually correct, and work from there, but that doesn't mean that I can't consider the evidence for seemingly contradictory theories. But it does mean that those theories have to be somewhat persuasive, in my eyes.
[ April 05, 2007, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also, when you say "thousands" you actually mean millions. The human-chimpanzee split is roughly 5 million years ago and we have fossil evidence of life at least a billion years back. This is not a trivial difference.
When he has the assumption that "a day to god can be any amount of time" (emphasis mine), the difference between thousands and billions is trivial.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Also, when you say "thousands" you actually mean millions. The human-chimpanzee split is roughly 5 million years ago and we have fossil evidence of life at least a billion years back. This is not a trivial difference.
When he has the assumption that "a day to god can be any amount of time" (emphasis mine), the difference between thousands and billions is trivial.
And how acurate is our dating anyhow?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It depends on the method used, I'm sure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Accurate enough to tell the difference between thousands and billions of years. Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Also, when you say "thousands" you actually mean millions. The human-chimpanzee split is roughly 5 million years ago and we have fossil evidence of life at least a billion years back. This is not a trivial difference.
When he has the assumption that "a day to god can be any amount of time" (emphasis mine), the difference between thousands and billions is trivial.
And how acurate is our dating anyhow?
Quite accurate. Thesetwo talk.origins pages broadly summarize how radiometric dating is done, and why the results are trustworthy, again with appropriate citations to the primary literature should you wish to investigate their conclusions in more detail. Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
You guys make life fun.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Accurate enough to tell the difference between thousands and billions of years.
Good point.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Gene splicing is one.
Fair enough. Assuming you mean insertion/deletion of actual DNA fragments into a given genome, rather than mRNA splicing (which is actually the more common usage for the term "splicing"), that is.
Um, you just went waaaay over my head.
Heh, sorry. mRNA splicing is one way to get a whole bunch of different proteins from a single gene sequence. The traditional understanding of molecular biology held that a gene encodes an mRNA transcript, which is in turn translated into a working protein by ribosomes. However, it turns out that the reality (at least in higher eukaryotes than, say, yeast) is far more complex. Most eukaryotic genes, including our own, consist of alternating sequences of coding DNA ("exons") and non-coding DNA ("introns"). After transcription, the initial RNA is cut up and the exons spliced back together to form the mRNA message. The respliced mRNA is then exported from the nucleus and translated to protein.
Of course, even this turns out to be a simplification of the situation. It turns out that the divide between exon and intron is not nearly as cut-and-dry as once thought. Some putative introns are actually incorporated into the mRNA message in certain situations, and some exons are treated as introns. By mixing and matching these chunks of RNA, the cell can produce an incredible variety of mRNA splice variants from a single gene. The current record-holder for "most splice variants from one gene" is the fruit fly gene Dscam, which has 38,000 known splice variants.
Sadly for those of us who have to memorize this stuff, that too is still an oversimplification. But I'll only go into that if you reeeeeeeeeally want me to.
quote:
quote:The former *does* result in generation of new information, and is actually considered a mutation, albeit one that isn't strictly random...
Then we're using different definitions of mutation. I have little doubt that yours is more accurate.
Well, for a given value of "accurate." Like "planet," "mutation" is ultimately just terminology with a particular definition that scientists have decided is useful. In the case of "mutation," I take it to mean "a change in the DNA sequence," admittedly a very broad definition. I think what you think of when you hear the word is strictly considered a "point mutation"- that is, a change in a single base-pair due to exposure to a mutagen or an error in DNA replication.
quote:Thanks. I'm not trying to push any agenda here.
I do start from the assumption that the scriptures are literally and factually correct, and work from there, but that doesn't mean that I can't consider the evidence for seemingly contradictory theories. But it does mean that those theories have to be somewhat persuasive, in my eyes. [/qb]
Fair 'nuff. Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Is darwin really gay? I don't think any of the answers I got were clear.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Does it matter?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
no, not at all.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Tarrsk- what did you think of that Science paper that showed that the same amino acid sequence could lead to different protein configurations? Silent mutations may not be so silent afterall. Very, very upsetting for a biochemist.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Hmm... I haven't seen it. D'you have the citation?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll bet it mattered to his wife.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Originally published in Science Express on 21 December 2006 Science 26 January 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5811, pp. 525 - 528 DOI: 10.1126/science.1135308
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Originally published in Science Express on 21 December 2006 Science 26 January 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5811, pp. 525 - 528 DOI: 10.1126/science.1135308
Thanks! I'll take a look at work tomorrow, when I have access to a subscription to Science. Speaking of which- hey hey, the author of that paper works right down the street from me!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Darwin had a bunch of kids, if I'm remembering correctly, and he was married to a woman. So I'm guessing he probably wasn't gay.
Abraham Lincoln may well have been, if it matters.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
No, it doesn't.
Also, many gay men marry and have kids. It was blasphemous to come out of the closet in Darwin's day (like it is in certain contexts today). There's no reason to assume that there were fewer gay men at the time, so hiding one's homosexuality or trying to deliberately suppress it in oneself would have been the recourse of a great many gay men and women.
I had no idea that there were rumours about Darwin being gay. It would be ironic if it were started by fundamentalist Christians; the vilification would only work if the audience was already a part of their group.
Ultimately though, I don't care at all whether Darwin liked sleeping with men.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Well, it seems that the only person who can say whether or not someone is gay is the person themselves. If a person says they're not gay, and they marry someone of the opposite sex and have a bunch of kids, then I don't see any meaningful test that could look at that person and say, "No, they really were gay."
Does gay mean you ever feel any attraction at all to people of the same sex? If so then I think everyone is gay.
Understand that I don't think it matters, either way. People are a huge complexity, and they fall anywhere on millions of different continua. Darwin was really smart, and a great scientist. He transformed the way we think about life, and all of genetics and biology and medicine and every other field of life sciences is profoundly informed by what he realized, that all life on Earth are blood-kin.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I see it this way...when explaining something important to a child, you often have to make sure you are using language that child understands. That doesn't mean you lie, but it does mean you oversimplify complex actions and events.
Compared to God, we are children. As we evolve, because I don't think we are a complete work of his yet, his message will probably continue to change. Not so much the basic message, but the details.
Evolution holds the details we can handle right now in our species evolution.
I agree with mph......despite anything KoM says, God or Science is a false dichotomy. I refuse to chose one over the other when the best explanation to me is that evolution is the tool God is using to shape our world.
Keep in mind that I really don't think THAT is what should be taught in science class, though. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Does gay mean you ever feel any attraction at all to people of the same sex?
No, those are homoerotic tendencies which everyone shares. There are degrees of homosexuality though (as you say).
The thing is, it's not unheard of to have gay men coming out of the closet after marrying, or after serious relationships with members of the opposite sex after conscious suppression of homosexual desires.
[ April 06, 2007, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Sounds like we're in the same boat. I used to be one of the "microevolution but not macroevolution" types. It was actually a course in historical linguistics that made me change my mind (or opened my mind to the possibility, anyway).
Jon Boy, that's really interesting. What was it about the historical linguistics class that made you reconsider your beliefs on the subject?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I had no idea that there were rumours about Darwin being gay. It would be ironic if it were started by fundamentalist Christians; the vilification would only work if the audience was already a part of their group.
Umm... just for the sake of clarification, there aren't any such rumors, as far as I know. I was joking around in my first post, back before the sarcastic asshat cap (sarcastic ass-hat?) came off.
That being said, Darwin liking the dudes would not surprise me terribly. Have you seen the way that guy dressed?! Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Darwin was really smart, and a great scientist."
Actually his whole theory was taken from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, as well as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. He merely looked for evidence to prove the theory, if I understand correctly.
Check the Wiki on Erasmus .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Charles Darwin hardly existed in a vacuum; no scientist does; in almost every case of a major discovery people have made parts or closely related discoveries around the same time and often shortly before. This happens in math, too, which is perhaps slightly more odd.
However, he definitely contributed original thought. Charles Darwin provided the first coherent theory as to the mechanism of evolution; that species change over time was old hat, a good explanation of why they change was lacking. He was able to reach this greater understanding by his empirical study, and he did not merely look for evidence to prove the theory. Notice in the Erasmus quotation on wikipedia that his understanding of the reason for improvement is entirely flawed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Charles Darwin hardly existed in a vacuum; no scientist does.
Not for long, anyway.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Somebody's .sig on GC says something like "sooner or later this forum is going to max out on hyperliteralness."
That's how I feel about Tom's post. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Jon Boy, that's really interesting. What was it about the historical linguistics class that made you reconsider your beliefs on the subject?
I think it was that beforehand, I lacked both perspective and an understanding of the processes behind many language changes. Like people who can't understand how single-celled organisms could evolve into multicellular organisms, or how asexual organisms could evolve into sexual organisms, I couldn't see how a language without something like noun declensions could evolve into a language with them. I had no problem seeing how they could change once they existed, but I couldn't figure out how they could ever come to be.
But in my historical linguistics class, I discovered that declensions come from eroded postpositions (just like prepositions, but they come after the noun instead of before). If you have a little function word that always comes after a noun in certain situations, pretty soon it becomes attached to the noun. In turn, postpositions come from verbs that were similarly worn down from constant use as function words.
And not only are there typical methods of evolving various bits of grammar, but there are languages at all different points on the spectrum. Chinese, for example, has no declensions (or virtually none, I believe), but in a couple thousand more years, it might have gained them again. Meanwhile, European languages have been losing them for the past few thousand years, and they might eventually get to the point Chinese is at now.
In other words, languages are generally not moving from complexity to simplicity, but rather shedding complexity in some areas and gaining it in others. For the most part, anyway—languages with few speakers do tend to accumulate more grammatical bric-a-brac than others, and languages with many speakers tend to shed some of that dead weight, but that's sort of beside the point. The point is that I realized that something that appears to be incredibly complex really can evolve one step at a time.
And by the way, you might be interested in reading The Power of Babel by John McWhorter. He covers these topics and a lot more. Very fascinating stuff.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Originally published in Science Express on 21 December 2006 Science 26 January 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5811, pp. 525 - 528 DOI: 10.1126/science.1135308
Thanks! I'll take a look at work tomorrow, when I have access to a subscription to Science. Speaking of which- hey hey, the author of that paper works right down the street from me!
This has caused a lot of discussion amongst the grad students in my dept, since we routinely clone and purify based only on the amino acid sequence. However, we aren't willing to accept the conformational differences are proven. We will accept the differences in function and that mRNA concentrations, protein concentrations and splicing are not the culprits, but we need a lot more proof to believe the fold is different. I haven't seen people so eager to rip apart a paper in a long time. Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
I find it unlikly that Darwin would acually be gay.
The more I think about it the more it seems that if Darwin were to be gay that not fit well with the survival of the fittest idea.
Not to bash on gay people but Procreation invovles the opposite sex, to pass on a mutated gene.
Doesn't seem like Darwin would right something cantradicting his own feelings.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Darwin was one of the first "porn stars". His porn name was "Ben Dover".
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's been some interesting work showing how homosexuality could improve the survival chances of your other genes, by providing additional parents to help raise closely related offspring.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's also the fact that a gene can have multiple affects -- some bad (from an evolutionary standpoint), some good.
For example, the same gene which causes Sickle Cell also confers resistance to malaria.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
How can homosexuality improve survival chances?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Along the same lines, many people with severe nut allergies became allergic to GMO soybeans after brazil nut genes were used in soybeans.
The law of Unintended Consequences applies at least double to genetic engineering.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Gonna jump in here: If an analogy is being drawn between macro-evolution and the evoultion of language (I don't know that one is), I think the fallacy there is obvious.
I read a book that tried to show that the fossil record might appear as it does because of a great worldwide flood. It requires a lot of pre-suppositions that have not been verified (but not disproeven either), but it would explain a whole lot of the inconsistencies in the record.
It makes me wonder: if the theory of evolution had never been developed, would geologists and paleontologists have looked at the evidence with a more objective perspective, and perhaps found that all the evidence points toward the Great Flood instead of interpreting it as supporting Evolution? (Loaded question, I know.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a matter of fact, they would not. The experiment was done once: Geologists in the early 1800s set out to prove the Great Flood. (You'll note, this isn't just a neutral view of the evidence, they actually believed the Biblical account.) They couldn't do it, and in fact arrived at what is substantially the modern account. This is 50 years or so before Darwin, you'll note.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Gonna jump in here: If an analogy is being drawn between macro-evolution and the evoultion of language (I don't know that one is), I think the fallacy there is obvious.
First of all, I didn't say they were strictly analogous, just that it helped me understand some things that I hadn't understood about evolution. Second, what's the fallacy?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
feer: Let's assume for the sake of argument, that being homosexual is equivalent to death of your own iteration of your genes. The question becomes, how can death or altruistic behaviour such as sacrificing one's life for one's family increase the survival chances of one's genes?
Well, consider the fact that one's siblings essentially each have on average, half identical genes as you do. So if a train comes by that threatens to kill three of your siblings, then your genes survive in greater numbers if you sacrifice yourself to save all three than for you to remain safe yourself.
In a less drastic situation, fugu13 is simply proposing that homosexuality might provide additional parents for children that have very similar genes to them, the loss of one person's genes might be matched by the gain in chances for the children's genes.
Reshpeckobiggle: Can you elaborate on how the Great Flood could explain the fossil record? What is the age of the earth and life that such a theory would propose, and what inconsistencies would it answer?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The ridiculous thing about using the Flood as a method of explaining away the fossil record is this: we have found marine life fossils on some of the highest mountains in the world. Even if all the water on the planet were in liquid form, the oceans would only be about 300 feet higher, if I understand correctly. How would those fossils become imbedded in rock that is thousands of feet above sea level?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Ok so homosexual can take the place of parents that die?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: How would those fossils become imbedded in rock that is thousands of feet above sea level?
Moutains all over the world are rising slowly as we speak. They might have been much lower along time ago.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Mountains don't rise that fast. Maybe an inch or two a year at most, usually, unless they are volcanic, which the ones under discussion aren't.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
How many years ago was th flood?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Feer: How can homosexuality improve survival chances?
I didn't mean to say that it does. I meant to say that it's possible that a homosexuality-influencing gene, if it exists, could improve survival by affecting something other than sexual orientation.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's also the fact that a gene can have multiple affects -- some bad (from an evolutionary standpoint), some good.
Is that what you were getting at when you posted this?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Ok, thank you for the clarification.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"How many years ago was th flood?"
IIRC, about 5000 years, according to the Old Testament. You do the math.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course, you're assuming both that the earth has about the same amount of water now as it had back then, and that mountains are moving about the same speed now as they were back then.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
So for those 5000 years, if those mointains rose inches at a time. that would mean it rose about roughly around 400 feet. Not quite enough is it.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Of course, you're assuming both that the earth has about the same amount of water now as it had back then, and that mountains are moving about the same speed now as they were back then.
earth doesnt lose water over time. it has the same amount its always had.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Really? Because I've both created and destroyed water.
Now, I'm not saying that the earth doesn't have roughly the same amount -- I'm just saying that, in this conversation at least, it's an unproven assumption.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Water can change forms and all that jazz, but there is still going to be the same amount, just mixed with stuff and in animals. Where would it go?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Why would mountains have risen faster then? You'd be implying much greater speed of continental drift, which would indirectly imply a rate of vulcanism several hundred times greater than that of today. If Vulcanism were that much greater in the past, where are all the extra volcanoes and lava flows? Don't say "under the ocean", because there would be more on land as well.
Also, the fact that you can find quartz crystals that are literally 8-10 feet high and 6 feet thick proves the Earth is much older than Genesis says. Crystals like that take tens of thousands of years to form. They also form at very regular rates. You can map the rate of cooling pretty easily using crystal size.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Water can be split into its constituent elements (hydrogen and oxygen) or made from those elements.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Also, the fact that you can find quartz crystals that are literally 8-10 feet high and 6 feet thick proves the Earth is much older than Genesis says. Crystals like that take tens of thousands of years to form. They also form at very regular rates. You can map the rate of cooling pretty easily using crystal size.
Which is why I lean towards the idea that god made the earth millions of years old, when he made it thousands of years ago.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Look, people, if you're going to start using miracles - and this you basically have to do, in order to get any kind of Flood out of the evidence - why bother with this penny-ante creation-from-hydrogen stuff? Just own up and say "God put the water there, then he took it away". There's no need for all these middlemen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Water can change forms and all that jazz, but there is still going to be the same amount, just mixed with stuff and in animals. Where would it go?
I have personally both broken down water into its component oxygen and hydrogen and created water by burning hydrogen.
Chemical reactions which create or destroy water happen all the time. In fact, IIRC, photosynthesis is one of those reactions.
quote:Why would mountains have risen faster then?
I have no idea. But you can't prove that the mountains weren't under the ocean 5000 because of the speed they're moving now unless you also prove how fast they were moving back then.
quote:Also, the fact that you can find quartz crystals that are literally 8-10 feet high and 6 feet thick proves the Earth is much older than Genesis says.
Unless those crystals were created that big when the earth was created, or unless those crystals grew faster in the past then they do now.
Now, I'm not saying that all of this isn't good, persuasive evidence. But I do think you're throwing around the word "proof" too quickly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Look, people, if you're going to start using miracles - and this you basically have to do, in order to get any kind of Flood out of the evidence - why bother with this penny-ante creation-from-hydrogen stuff? Just own up and say "God put the water there, then he took it away". There's no need for all these middlemen.
That could explain it as well.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Unless those crystals were created that big when the earth was created, or unless those crystals grew faster in the past then they do now."
Quartz crystals that size couldn't form in space. There's nowhere near enough heat. The plasticity and crystal formation speed of quartz are absolutely, 100% correlated to temperature. We know exactly how quickly those crystals cooled because we know what temperature quartz "melts" at, and the speed at which they must have cooled. Faster cooling=smaller crystal size. Quartz is extremely predictable in this regard.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
edit: I wrote this a while back, and as I finished some network problems at work occurred; I guess they delayed its submission.
Homosexuality can improve survival chances because evolution does not work on the individual level, but on the level of genes. Successful genes are ones that survive.
Homosexuality can, in the right circumstances, increase the survival chances for genes. For instance, many (most?) animals have a supportive reaction to kinship. When there're homosexual members of the group, children have more available caregiver time than if there aren't, because the ratio of children to adults is lower than if all adults had children. This improves the survival chances of children, which improves the survival chances of the genes they carry. Those genes are also present in the homosexual relative, so the homosexual relative is increasing the survival chances of his genes, at least sometimes.
Too many homosexual individuals would obviously harm many population's survival chances, but there have been several models showing that a small percentage can significantly improve those chances.
Resh: feel free to bring up any inconsistencies, and I'll either deal with them or point you at someplace that does. Furthermore, show me some of these pre-suppositions and we'll see if we can disprove any of them.
Btw, you can start with the pre-suppositions that explain the particular order of fossils, the consistency of that order worldwide, and the correlation of dramatic changes in fossil makeup with deposits of the types we would expect from various catastrophic events, such as major impacts.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Quartz crystals that size couldn't form in space.
If God created the earth, fully formed, in a blink, then being able to create those crystals that size is a minor trifle.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Portizzle, are you actually postulating that the Earth was created with the fossils already there? Are you saying the tyrannosaurus skulls were already put there? Man, them tyrannosaurs went extinct mighty fast if the earth is only 5,000 years old.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
steven: he's engaging in a hypothetical, given the possible actions of a God powerful enough to create the earth in a few days.
He's already clarified his thoughts on the topic as to what happened.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Steven, your mocking tone is unwarranted. This is a thread about Genesis vs. Darwin.
Also, if you want to know my personal views on this subject, all you have to do is read through this very thread.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm still lost. Which extinction in the fossil record is the Great Flood supposed to resolve?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not sure -- maybe all of them?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
It's not my theory. I just read a book a while ago, and it made me wonder. I can't explain the theory very well, but there was some pretty interesting stuff in it. One of the things it said was that the conditions on Earth were far different back before the flood. The earth was "smoother," in that the mountains were not as high and the oceans were not as deep. Most of the water was located under the surface, or suspended in the atmosphere as vapor. The theory postulates that the newer mountain ranges (Rockies, Alps, Himalayas) were formed during a few days time, and there is some pretty compelling evidence for that, like certain geographic features of the Grand Canyon that seem to indicate that the canyon was formed very quickly by a massive rushing of water from a huge resevoir that broke free some time after the waters receded. Lots of other examples.
The fossil record was explained by some theory about all the dead plants and animals being deposited at once, but I can't remember right now how it worked. Some of the inconsistencies it explained was the presence of petrified trees that stand upright through several strata of rock, and how some newer species show up earlier than others in the rocks. I remember it explaining the Cambrian Explosion very nicely.
Like I said, not my theory, and not necessarily hard to disprove. But since I believe that all the evidence for evolution has been fitted specifically to prove the thoery, I was just wondering if the theory of evolution had never arisen would all the evidence have been tailored to fit the great Flood.
And I mean all the evidence that has been uncovered since the 1800s, KoM. Saying the some dudes from the 19th century tried to prove that the Great Flood happened and failed isn't proving or disproving a whole lot. 99% of all the evidence for evolution has been uncovered since the theory was postulated. And there's plenty of indication that most of that evidence has been applied to an unquestioned theory, with little to no effort made to present it independent of any theory whatsoever.
[edits] Grammatical; spelling.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Trees that stand upright through several strata of rock are expected, not an inconsistency. Imagine a tree, growing. Now imagine stuff building up around it, either quickly or slowly. Eventually you have a tree covered with stuff; sometimes that tree will fossilize. This is a natural property of trees being tall and vertical.
Without a specific example "some newer species show up earlier than others" isn't much to go on. Of course the fossil record isn't perfectly stratified, geology is sometimes quite active in disrupting it. Further, sometimes we're wrong, particularly about minor things based on small hints like the exact specifics of species order, and theories are revised. That's what science is all about.
Would you give an example of evidence for evolution you feel "has been fitted specifically to prove the theory"? Further, would you give some of your indications that "most of that evidence has been applied to an unquestioned theory, with little to no effort made to present it independent of any theory whatsoever"? (though as to the last, scientists theorize. Papers that present evidence try to explain that evidence. This is true of all science.)
Evolution, while widely accepted (largely because the evidence was overwhelming; the theory hadn't been much accepted previously because it hadn't existed, but lots of people were working on similar theories because the current explanations were baldly insufficient), had quite a bit of scientific controversy around it shortly after publication.
But just like 99.9% of modern physics papers you care to name (dealing in this sort of field) accept the basics of relativity, 99.9% of modern biology papers accept the basics of evolution. Both are supported by extensive evidence (and evolution rather more than relativity), and both are consistent with new findings.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And I mean all the evidence that has been uncovered since the 1800s, KoM. Saying the some dudes from the 19th century tried to prove that the Great Flood happened and failed isn't proving or disproving a whole lot. 99% of all the evidence for evolution has been uncovered since the theory was postulated.
You asked, "If people unaware of evolution looked at the evidence, would they find the Flood?" The experiment has been done; the answer is no. That there has been more evidence accumulated since then is not relevant.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Kom, that evidence has been incorporated into a worldview that sees macroevolution as being the explanation for ourexistence here on Earth. I'm asking if things may have turned out differently if that particular theory had never been developed. Obviously, things would have turned out differently. My question is if they would have tilted toward a thoery based on a great flood.
fugu, good questions. Those trees invade a number geological ages. There is more than one instance of this. Show me a tree that lives for about one or ten million years.
An "example of evidence for evolution (I) feel 'has been fitted specifically to prove the theory?'" I'll just point to the stated opinions of many well respected evolutionists. Nothing specific, as I don't have them on a set of index cards next to my computer; I'm sure some of this thread's evolutionists would be better prepared to assist me.
As for 99.9% of physicists believing in the basics of relativity, I have more faith in their ability (as mathematicians) to reject genral relativity if the evidence demands them to (rather than force-fitting it into their current theory.)
(Come to think, the highly recommended by OSC book The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin makes the point that even quantum physicists have a tendency toward dogmatic interpretation of data.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You continue to misunderstand the trees, and it seems to be because you misunderstand the building up of geologic layers.
There is not some magic process by which everything from a particular time period gets smushed together. This tends to happen, because most things from a time period are very malleable at geologic pressures. However, it happens over a very, very long time -- notice how things near the surface are not nearly as compressed as things deep down.
A tree is tall and vertical. Particularly for larger, stronger trees and a lack of horizontal shifts due to tectonic or other activity, this can result in a tree being built up around over incredibly long periods of time (say, hundreds of thousands, or a very few millions of years), and the tree fossilizing. The geologic pressures continue to compress the layers don't compress the tree because there's little vertical pressure on the tree -- there are many fewer layers on top of the tree than there are on top of the things next to the base of the tree, and because the tree is strong vertically, particularly after fossilization. This results in the layers around the tree becoming more and more compressed while the tree
I repeat, the presence of fossilized trees spanning layers is more than dealt with, it is expected (it is not expected to be particularly common, but it isn't, given what we know of how many trees there have been). This is well known. A program treating it as something unusual is intellectually dishonest or hasn't gone so far as to talk to an expert in the field who would dispel their ignorance.
I fail to see why people adhering to theories that they feel are supported by an incredible abundance of evidence is an indication of evidence being fitted. You know, there's always the possibility they're just right about it being the best theory given the evidence, just like scientists in many other fields are about other well accepted theories.
Its interesting you bring up Smolin's book. That should support the understanding that evolutionary scientists are worth listening to . Despite all the belief on the parts of some scientists (and its hardly 99.9%; smolin is a prominent believer in another approach to the problem, and there are other camps as well, so this isn't really comparable to evolutionary theory in the first place) that String Theory is the best theory to explain many things, very few (I won't say none; there are almost always some) would say the vast preponderance of evidence supports it as the preferred theory (some might say the vast preponderance of evidence is potentially consistent with it, but that's much weaker, and also correct, but it is correct for a number of theories).
Sure, scientists can be dogmatic. However, even dogmatic scientists are, on the whole, demonstrably limited in their statements about correlation with evidence. There's a difference between believing something is true and having the experimental evidence to back it up, and scientists on the whole understand that distinction, though it seems to be one you have a problem with.
If scientists were so dogmatic about string theory being true, why would they be lobbying such that the largest total amounts of research dollars were going to experiments that would enable them to test it experimentally (large particle colliders)? (Some of them) think it is true, so they want to test it and see how likely it is that it is true.
Concurrently, if evolutionary theorists were so dogmatic about evolutionary theory being true, why are new papers being published with fair regularity that result in modifications, sometimes significant modifications, to the structure of evolutionary theory?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You asked, "If people unaware of evolution looked at the evidence, would they find the Flood?" The experiment has been done; the answer is no. That there has been more evidence accumulated since then is not relevant.
It is relevant if the evidence accumulated since then actually would support the flood if only it were looked at by somebody not blinded by their preconceptions.
This argument doesn't hold much water, IMO. We've got enough very smart people with a personal stake in proving the biblical account that if such a smoking gun existed, I think they would have noticed it by now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Incidentally, I'm a particle physicist who doesn't "believe in" string theory, on the grounds that it doesn't have a shred of experimental evidence in its favour.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Kinda like macroevolution? Not a shred of experimental evidence?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, suppose you define your terms. What is macroevolution, anyway? I give you fair warning: If you use the word 'kind' without defining it in a way that's measurable, I'm off.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This is rich, Reshpeckobiggle. You claim
quote: I believe that all the evidence for evolution has been fitted specifically to prove the thoery
, and yet you also find "interesting" and presumably convincing and explanatory a theory that makes wild assumptions (with no evidence) about past conditions to prove something believed in, ie The Flood, and a Young Earth Creation. What evidence is there that the Earth was "smoother" 6000 years ago, or that water was mostly below the surface or suspended in vapor??
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: It's not my theory. I just read a book a while ago, and it made me wonder. I can't explain the theory very well, but there was some pretty interesting stuff in it. One of the things it said was that the conditions on Earth were far different back before the flood. The earth was "smoother," in that the mountains were not as high and the oceans were not as deep. Most of the water was located under the surface, or suspended in the atmosphere as vapor. The theory postulates that the newer mountain ranges (Rockies, Alps, Himalayas) were formed during a few days time, and there is some pretty compelling evidence for that, like certain geographic features of the Grand Canyon that seem to indicate that the canyon was formed very quickly by a massive rushing of water from a huge resevoir that broke free some time after the waters receded. Lots of other examples.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Interesting, Kwea said "...evolution is the tool God is using to shape our world". I certainly agree, but it bring up an important point. We arrogant humans think that God created man(kind) and that we are the final and complete product. But, we see that evolution proves that false. God didn't create man, he IS CREATING man. We are not the final product, but merely a stage along the way.
First - Homo Erectus (the tall and straight man) Then - Homo Sapiens (the wise man) Eventually - Homo Supremus (the supreme man) Perhaps someday - Homo Deific (the god-like man)
Unless, of course, we become Homo Arrogantus (the arrogant man) who destroys himself and the earth. In which case, we start all over again. Eternal life on earth only exist for mankind for as long as we can keep our supreme arrogance and assumed superiority in check.
If time is timeless to God, which is surely is, then billions of years of human evolution is roughly the equivalent to God snapping his fingers. Yet, most likely that 'snap' isn't over yet, and God is still in the process of creating the Universe. Let's hope when the 'snap' is fully and finally 'snapped', he likes what he sees, and therefore God doesn't change his mind and decide to start over again.
As a side note, I think that anyone who doubts evolution need only look at the history of the Olympic records. We see on every front faster times, higher jumps. There was a time when man said it was impossible for a human to run a four minute mile. That the stress would surely kill them. Yet, today, the four minute mile, while still extremely hard, is actually common. Mark Spits set several Olympic swimming records, all of which have been broke by faster swimmers. If we go back a century, we will find high school kids who today achieve times equivalent to century old swim records.
Evolution happening before our very eyes.
For what it's worth.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As a side note, I think that anyone who doubts evolution need only look at the history of the Olympic records. We see on every front faster times, higher jumps. There was a time when man said it was impossible for a human to run a four minute mile. That the stress would surely kill them. Yet, today, the four minute mile, while still extremely hard, is actually common. Mark Spits set several Olympic swimming records, all of which have been broke by faster swimmers. If we go back a century, we will find high school kids who today achieve times equivalent to century old swim records.
I think this is not explainable in terms of evolution; there are other effects, much larger over a mere century's timespan, at work. In the first place we have a larger population, so the high end of the bell curve (or whatever shape it actually takes out there) has more people in it. In the second place, we are orders of magnitude wealthier, and can afford to devote entire lives to nothing but athletics; of course our results are going to be better than those of hobbyists. In the third place, the technology has advanced; given modern running shoes, I think a lot of 1920s athletes might have done four-minute miles. And in the fourth place, there is a demand for this kind of talent now, as there wasn't before; children in the ghettoes dream of athletics as a way out of poverty, which just wasn't a viable option back in the days of amateur Olympics. Again, this vastly increases the size of the population of potential top athletes; and what's more, we actively seek out such talent, and encourage it and feed it. Evolution, pff. Show me an athelete with five children, and each of those five children inheriting his gifts, and I'll agree you may be on to something.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
BlueWizard, that is like saying that a greyhound has evolved from a wolf. While true in a sense, they are still the same species. All the races of men are dilineations from some original human, but we are not separate species. Some are faster. Some are darker, some lighter. Some taller, some shorter. Variation within the species.
KoM, Macroevolution: species developing over time so that where there was no life, now there is, and where all life was single-cellular, now there people and dolphins and oaks. It is this thoery for which no experimental evidence exists. It is entirely hypothetical. Much of it fits very nicely, but it has never been recreated in a lab. Like string-theory.
Morbo, I said it's not my theory. I don't necessarily think that it is true. But I do think evolution has been tailored to fit the paleontological evidence, and vice-versa. So I'm just wondering how this other theory would have looked if the same thing had been done with it.
Of course, you don't buy the premise that the evidence has been made to fit the thoery of evolution, so we're not going to be talking about the same thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You still haven't given an example of evidence being tailored to fit. You've stated why you think evidence has been tailored to fit, but you haven't given an example of the evidence.
Is there a particular step along the way from single-celled organisms to dolphins and oaks that you don't understand? Pick any step along the way (to either), and I'll given an explanation that is coherent and backed by evidence, typically evidence found directly in living organisms as well as in the fossil record.
Or, to put it in another way, yes, there is lots of evidence for those having happened. Not having observed the entire process != there is no evidence (particularly when observing the entire process would take longer than the existence so far of the human race). We have strong evidence of many steps along the way from single celled organisms to oaks and dolphins. We have observed new species coming into existence. We find species everywhere that seem to fit as intermediaries along similar continuums, based on multiple independent criteria (morphology, genetics, et cetera).
Lets see if you can come up with one reasonably concrete step along the way that cannot be explained with evidence .
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, Macroevolution: species developing over time so that where there was no life, now there is, and where all life was single-cellular, now there people and dolphins and oaks. It is this thoery for which no experimental evidence exists. It is entirely hypothetical. Much of it fits very nicely, but it has never been recreated in a lab. Like string-theory.
So, if someone created life in the lab, would you accept that as proof? Also, what of large changes in species, such as whales descending from land animals, or humans having common descent with apes?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Resh, we've had this conversation before. If laboratory evidence were the only sort admissable in science, the entire fields of geology, astronomy, meteorology, etc. would have to be thrown completely out the window. It is entirely possible for evidence to be both scientific and reproducible without being, strictly speaking, experimental. It's called observational evidence, and there is TONS of that in favor of what you call "macroevolution." Fossil evidence, genetic evidence, physiological evidence, behavioral evidence, chemical evidence, you name it.
You really think evidence was being tailored to fit evolution before Darwin was even born? It's already been pointed out in this thread that the basic concept of life evolving from one "kind" to the next was around long before Darwin summarized it and provided a mechanism through which it could occur. Darwin didn't just make up evolutionary theory wholesale. He himself took a vast quantity of available evidence and came up with a theory that could explain how it got there. The fact that 150 years of research has not produced a shred of evidence against his theory is a testament to the strength of that theory, not some imaginary conspiracy to make people believe in evolution.
And frankly, if you're going to make a claim like "I do think evolution has been tailored to fit the paleontological evidence, and vice-versa," I think the onus is on you to give some evidence for that. All you've done so far is refer vaguely to some book you read somewhere at some time. Was that book peer-reviewed? I'd be willing to put $100 down right now that says that it was not.
Edit: This bit by fugu so perfectly and succintly summarizes what I was trying to say that it needs to be repeated:
quote:Not having observed the entire process != there is no evidence (particularly when observing the entire process would take longer than the existence so far of the human race). We have strong evidence of many steps along the way from single celled organisms to oaks and dolphins. We have observed new species coming into existence. We find species everywhere that seem to fit as intermediaries along similar continuums, based on multiple independent criteria (morphology, genetics, et cetera).
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
If someone created life from non-living materials in a lab? That'll be the day.
And what of large changes in species? I don't know what you're asking.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And if it happens, and it IS the day, what then?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So, if someone created life in the lab, would you accept that as proof?
Is this not an intentional trick question? Have not scientists done very nearly that using various amino acids and carbons in a solution, placed in a laboraroty environment with a great deal of extreme temperatures and (static?) electrical discharges? Or am I remembering experiments that produced the "building blocks" of life and not an example of life itself?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Just the "building blocks," and even those results were trumped up to be more than they were. It was just a hodgepodge mix of left and right leaning proteins, as would have been expected to occur. There has been nothing even remotely resembling life in that experiment.
But if it does happen, and it is the day, Tom, then I'll... take a nap. And then stay up til 3 in the morning because that's what happens when I take a siesta.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Define "life," Resh. As specifically as you can.
And while you're at it, define "kind," "building blocks," and "evidence." Because you're clearly using your own definition of all of those words, none of which are remotely similar to how scientists use them (if they use them at all).
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Kind? Why do I keep getting asked to define this word?
And why should I define any of these things. These words have commonly accepted usages. If I'm not making any sense to you, I'm not going to automatically assume it is a failure on my part.
So in other words, define them your damn self.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think the problem is that you aren't using them in the commonly accepted way, which makes it difficult to have a discussion.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
How am I not? Are you guys just messing with me?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And why should I define any of these things. These words have commonly accepted usages. If I'm not making any sense to you, I'm not going to automatically assume it is a failure on my part.
They do not have commonly accepted useages, that's precisely the problem. Getting back to the lab experiments, again, what exactly would the scientists need to do to satisfy you that they had produced life?
quote:And what of large changes in species? I don't know what you're asking.
If I show you evidence that apes and humans have a common ancestor, is that evidence of marco-svolution?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If you could, would you read my recent post or two and respond to some of my queries?
If there's no evidence for a transition from single celled organisms, there must be no evidence for every step along the way. Could you name a step that you'd be interested in hearing the evidence for?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Just the "building blocks," and even those results were trumped up to be more than they were. It was just a hodgepodge mix of left and right leaning proteins, as would have been expected to occur. There has been nothing even remotely resembling life in that experiment.
Just give the scientists another 3-4 billion years. It can take a long time for random events to produce a complex, viable result. Of course, once that happens, you're set.
God, alternately, should have such a fantastically easy time proving His existence. Shame he can't be bothered.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Just the "building blocks," and even those results were trumped up to be more than they were. It was just a hodgepodge mix of left and right leaning proteins, as would have been expected to occur. There has been nothing even remotely resembling life in that experiment.
Just give the scientists another 3-4 billion years. It can take a long time for random events to produce a complex, viable result. Of course, once that happens, you're set.
God, alternately, should have such a fantastically easy time proving His existence. Shame he can't be bothered.
Why would god want to make it easy on us by showing his existence? That would be like getting answers to a test.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So any evidence of God is akin to cheating?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: "The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe... The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language ... "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
Would teacher that gives a multiple choice question, requiring the student to choose a correct answer from 4 possible answers, be considered a cheat?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Would a teacher who gave a test to students, while never teaching them anything they were going to be tested on be considered fair?
When most of the students in the class fail a test, it's generally considered a failure on the teacher's part to either teach the material so the students learn it, or give a fair test.
If God actually wants people to succeed, wouldn't it make sense to give them the best possible chance to do so?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
It's not like god hasn't given us material. The bible for one, however badly translated, is still learning material.
They have an oppertunity, at least in our faith, to be taught here and the here after.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You've also got dozens (hundreds?) of other religions with their own, often contradictory, learning material.
Pretty tough to pass a test when you're told that the same question has multiple answers, but only one of them is correct, and there's no way to verify which one.
Couldn't God say, get rid of the false information, or make a really strong case for some of the information? Maybe, give Catholic priests the power to cure cancer, or Mormon Elders the ability to walk on water, maybe Imams could feed their community with a basket of food.
For all the stories in these holy books, it's all talk, and no action. How about some angels flying around on golden wings to deliver messages to the righteous? How about some real, honest to goodness miracles?
If I recall correctly, Jesus said that regular people should be able to do what he did. Peter walked on water. Does no Christian today even have the faith of a mustard seed?
If God's all powerful, but he won't even bother to bring his strays back to the fold, why believe? Jesus said that the shepherd needed to go after a single stray lamb, and bring it back to the flock. So why is most of the world's population still wandering in the wilderness?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Those are excellent questions, MightyCow.
C.S. Lwis made the case that is ones sincerity that matters. In The Last Battle, there was a minor character who did not worship Aslan, because he was raised a Telmarine, and they worhip Tash. He was admitted into Aslan's land because he was sincere in his desire to worship Tash. Nevermind that Tash was rather demonic. It's more complicated than that, but you get the point.
Actually, the enitre subject is much more complicated than to be answered just like that. But since most (or all) people are incapable of finding out those answers for themselves, God has given us an easy way out. That would be Jesus for us Christians. I'm not sure what is required of others, if it isn't just sincerity, but I imagine that God gives all of us an equal chance at salvation.
Maybe this will help: The Bible says there is only one sin that is unforgivable, and that is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit is made distinct from the Father and the Son, that says to me that the Holy Spirit must be represented in different ways for different people.
So my point is that placing all your eggs in one basket (happy Easter!) does not put you at risk of getting the wrong answer on this test we are all taking.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Resh: could you take a look at some of the questions I've posted?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
fugu: Windmills, my man.
Resh: You're in serious need of a t-shirt that says, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sorry fugu. Ok, tell me about the transistion from single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms. Was it as Darwin said must happen; the smallest, most incremental steps imaginable? So, was there once a two-celled organism? How did that happen? Is there any evidence for it having happened, besides the obvious one that it had to happen, because here we are?
JT, did you want to comment on anything I said, or are you just throwing out random complements?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Just to say that I read a book once that I'm not sure I fully understood and that was probably mostly unsupportable conjecture that disproved every single one of your arguments.
But I feel confident that every word of it was pure truth, and my opinion will remain unswayed even in the face of unmistakable logic. Mainly because I'm not able to distinguish between unmistakable logic, tenuous leaps of faith, and rationalizations.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Resh- for transition between unicellular and multicellular organisms, check out dicty.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Those are excellent questions, MightyCow.
C.S. Lwis made the case that is ones sincerity that matters. In The Last Battle, there was a minor character who did not worship Aslan, because he was raised a Telmarine, and they worhip Tash. He was admitted into Aslan's land because he was sincere in his desire to worship Tash. Nevermind that Tash was rather demonic. It's more complicated than that, but you get the point.
Actually, the enitre subject is much more complicated than to be answered just like that. But since most (or all) people are incapable of finding out those answers for themselves, God has given us an easy way out. That would be Jesus for us Christians. I'm not sure what is required of others, if it isn't just sincerity, but I imagine that God gives all of us an equal chance at salvation.
Maybe this will help: The Bible says there is only one sin that is unforgivable, and that is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit is made distinct from the Father and the Son, that says to me that the Holy Spirit must be represented in different ways for different people.
So my point is that placing all your eggs in one basket (happy Easter!) does not put you at risk of getting the wrong answer on this test we are all taking.
That was nice. I don't agree (obviously), but very well said.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Resh: I've read a lot of Lewis, but I didn't realize that any major faiths have started accepting his stories as holy books. I was under the impression that he was simplifying things to quite a degree, in order to tell a good story. Lots of the religious people I know or have heard from think that there are a whole mess of sins that will get you sent to hell.
Also, every organism besides unicellular ones have been two-celled organisms at one time. You and me included.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's quite a bit of evidence for how the single-cell multi-cellular transition happened.
For instance, there are some organisms which aren't clearly single-cell or multi-cellular (they're usually classified as the former, because its viewed as the less restrictive category). Some single-celled creatures that eat dung, for instance, behave individually until food in their area grows short. As the 'group' notices that happening (actually, each individual is reacting independently in response to chemicals deposited by each individual, creating collective effects), they coalesce into a blob. That blob moves for a ways, moving along chemical gradients generated by individual reactions to the environment. That blob then grows a stalk; the head of the stalk 'pops' off and is blown a distance, where the process starts over. The body of the stalk dies. Whether an organism is present in the head or the body is determined by a number of criteria, ultimately coming down to where it started in the blob + the environment.
So despite these acting most of their lives like single-celled organisms, we have them acting cohesively and coherently, having functional differentiation, and dying for the genetic furtherance of the 'whole'.
Furthermore, there's nothing 'different' from the basic operation of single-celled organisms going on. Single-celled organisms are all about responding to the chemistry of the surrounding environments; its only the results of the particular chemical setup that are a little unusual.
However, there's no problem seeing how it happened. The crawling along the ground probably came first, when the 'scatter' response to too high a density of the organisms happened to be tuned such that they went in the same direction. Then it started becoming advantageous to first react by moving all to the same place to trigger a stronger scatter response and get a longer distance. Then some mutation led certain of those in such a formation to produce a substance the organism didn't like, causing the building of the stalk to get away from that substance, which allowed bits of the group to be carried away by the wind, and eventually there was selection for ones that, when furthest away from the substance-to-be-avoided, changed in such a way that they were more easily carried away by the wind.
There've been very nice computer simulations, and the entire thing can take place with just simple interactions with two chemicals. Its not nearly as complicated as it sounds.
We see similar behaviors all over the place. Many theoreticians have started questioning the idea of a hard line between single-cell and multi-cellular organisms. Some organisms we think of as single-celled cooperate as much as organisms we think of as multi-cellular.
Furthermore, as much as it seems like plants and animals are different from the above, they really aren't at the level of cells. Its all a dance of responses to chemicals that are constantly being created/channeled/et cetera by cells.
Going back to the examples, there are also organisms that act like multi-cellular organisms nearly all the time . . . except under certain conditions, typically ones of stress, when they break up into clumps of one or a few cells that go off every which way.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Thanks rollainm.
MightyCow, I don't think I implied anything like what you're refuting. I'm just saying something that Lewis said, and I tend to agree with him. But most of what I know about Lewis' theology is not based upon his fiction, which I imagine is what you are most familiar with, being as how most of his writings would probably look to you like the ramblings of some brainwashed dupe.
I appreciate your imput, JT. Oh look, you finished all your applesauce, yes you did! Big boy!
Very nice, fugu. No wonder you kept insisting on me addressing your post. You clearly know what you're talking about. How about the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction?
Posted by Feer (Member # 9846) on :
For any of those who were wondering, if any. My friend, whose arguments lead me to start this thread, actually got more information on his stance then I did for mine.
But I learned allot, and I thank you guys for giving me more views on this stuff.
Thanks
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That swishing sound you hear is the goalposts moving.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I appreciate your imput, JT. Oh look, you finished all your applesauce, yes you did! Big boy!
Funny you should mention applesauce, since it's you who's asking to be spoonfed.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Thanks rollainm.
MightyCow, I don't think I implied anything like what you're refuting. I'm just saying something that Lewis said, and I tend to agree with him. But most of what I know about Lewis' theology is not based upon his fiction, which I imagine is what you are most familiar with, being as how most of his writings would probably look to you like the ramblings of some brainwashed dupe.
Actually, I think Lewis was obviously a very intelligent, well-spoken writer, and I respect his views a lot more than many I've come across. Just because I don't find his religious beliefs compelling doesn't think I look down on his intelligence. I try to judge a person's smarts by how he expresses himself and what he has to say.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hang on, though - Lewis presented the hoary old false trilemma as though it were both a new argument, and any good. But any moderately clever person must certainly have seen the huge, gaping hole in it. So aren't you forced to the conclusion that Lewis was either being deliberately dishonest in an intellectual argument, or else he was determined to be not-very-bright when it came to seeing holes in what he believed? Neither one seems worthy of very much respect to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Kinda like macroevolution? Not a shred of experimental evidence?
quote: It is this thoery for which no experimental evidence exists. It is entirely hypothetical.
I have told you in threads now twice that macroevolution has been created in labs.
quote:That swishing sound you hear is the goalposts moving.
haha
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Lewis presented the hoary old false trilemma as though it were both a new argument, and any good. But any moderately clever person must certainly have seen the huge, gaping hole in it. So aren't you forced to the conclusion that Lewis was either being deliberately dishonest in an intellectual argument, or else he was determined to be not-very-bright when it came to seeing holes in what he believed?
*giggle* Are you saying Lewis was obviously a liar, an idiot, or a God? Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
More of this, KoM? Saying he's wrong, but without explaining just how? You see, I've heard the supposed refutation of the trilemma. And much like my syllagism about abortion, I see poeple asserting thier refutaions, but the only people who find those refutaions compelling are people who already disagree with the original argument.
I remember you telling me that, Sam. I don't remember you having anything worthwhile to say to back up that patently false assertion. Now if fugu explains it, I might listen. He seems to know what hes talking about.
Well, MightyCow, by your criteria, surely you place him in nearly as much esteem as I do. He was brilliant.
I don't get the goalpost thing. I must be missing something
Pre-emptive retort: "That's the understatement of the week!" *high-fives; ass-slapping*
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hahahahaha! Except you have to make them all start with the same letter. Deceiver, dunce, or deity?
quote:That swishing sound you hear is the goalposts moving.
I think that's a little unfair. Fugu did say to list off any steps Resh had questions about, and the evolution of sexual reproduction seems tricky until you find out that (like the borders between single-cell and multi-cell organisms) the dividing line isn't so clear. I know I had several questions I needed answered before I could accept the theory, because I used to believe strongly in a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm glad that people took the time to explain things. On the other hand, it's possible that Resh is just trying to score points and this is the beginning of goalpost-moving behavior. We'll see.
It's late and I'm tired, but I'll throw out a few comments. There are species which reproduce both sexually and asexually. For example, yeast cells can exist in a haploid state and reproduce asexually by budding; diploid yeast cells can bud too. However, yeast does sometimes mate, generally when it's under stress. When life is good, there's no reason to mess with a set of genes that works. But when things are tough, it's a good time for sexual reproduction because shuffling genetic information opens the door for a yeast cell that's better adapted to that environment. Of course, you might also end up with a daughter cell that's worse-off than the parent. It's a gamble.
Mating occurs when one of the haploid cells fuses with another haploid cell to form a diploid cell. There are two different types of haploid cells, and opposite types mate with each other, sort of like the yeast's version of male and female cells. The "sex" of a yeast cell is controlled by just a few genes, and some wild-type strains can actually switch from one to the other during cell division. Essentially, these cells have inactive copies of both sets of sex genes, and an active copy of one or the other. They can remove the active gene set and put in a copy of the other set, thereby switching sex.
Once mating has occurred, the diploid cells can undergo meiosis to form spores consisting of new haploid cells.
So, part of the answer is that in some organisms, asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction happen together. The evolution of sex wasn't a sudden leap from asexual to sexual reproduction, but rather sex probably developed as sort of an emergency mechanism for recombination used when the organism is threatened. Eventually, it became the primary means of reproduction in many species because genetic recombination is so very, very useful.
[ April 10, 2007, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think Lewis was an intelligent man who wrote some great books. That doesn't mean that I agree with his theology.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Lewis presented the hoary old false trilemma as though it were both a new argument, and any good. But any moderately clever person must certainly have seen the huge, gaping hole in it. So aren't you forced to the conclusion that Lewis was either being deliberately dishonest in an intellectual argument, or else he was determined to be not-very-bright when it came to seeing holes in what he believed?
*giggle* Are you saying Lewis was obviously a liar, an idiot, or a God?
Heh.
quote: I think Lewis was an intelligent man who wrote some great books. That doesn't mean that I agree with his theology.
And yes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lewis presented the hoary old false trilemma as though it were both a new argument, and any good. But any moderately clever person must certainly have seen the huge, gaping hole in it.
That's fair - that's how I feel about people who blather on about Invisible Pink Unicorns, FSMs, and teapots circling Mars.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, what's the gaping hole in the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *giggle* Are you saying Lewis was obviously a liar, an idiot, or a God?
Brutal Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Out of interest, what's the gaping hole in the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy?
As used in the original letter to the Kansas School Board? There's really not a gaping hole.
As commonly used now as another version of the teapot (also as used now), the same thing that's wrong with the teapot analogy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And what is wrong with the teapot?
quote:More of this, KoM? Saying he's wrong, but without explaining just how?
I beg your pardon, was I speaking to you? Anyway, the problem with the trilemma is threefold: First, it leaves out the option of 'legend'; second, it takes the Gospels as - you should excuse the expression - gospel truth; and third, it applies just as much to Joseph Smith, in whose prophet-hood you do not believe.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It also ignores the historical groups of early Christians, some of whom had direct contact with Jesus, who didn't believe any of the three options.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei:
quote:That swishing sound you hear is the goalposts moving.
I think that's a little unfair. Fugu did say to list off any steps Resh had questions about, and the evolution of sexual reproduction seems tricky until you find out that (like the borders between single-cell and multi-cell organisms) the dividing line isn't so clear.... On the other hand, it's possible that Resh is just trying to score points and this is the beginning of goalpost-moving behavior. We'll see.
It didn't read like goalpost moving at all to me, actually. My read on the situation was that Resh was surprised by fugu's level of expertise and the clarity of the explanation, and was asking the question about the development of sexual reproduction because he thought that he'd get a thorough, well articulated answer.
So Resh, what did you think of Shigosei's explanation of the development of sexual reproduction? Do you still need fugu to address it, or did Shig's answer do the job?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I remember you telling me that, Sam. I don't remember you having anything worthwhile to say to back up that patently false assertion. Now if fugu explains it, I might listen. He seems to know what hes talking about.
You must have also forgotten the summary counterpoints I made, and how they were backed up with links detailing the categorization, validity and observation of macroevolution.
You just ignored them, and ignored much of the same from others, and then wander into this thread making statements that seem to imply that you don't even have a working understanding of what macroevolution is.
But you have not at any time let this trivial detail stop you from being certain that it does not exist.
Now, got anything else to say about replicated macroevolution being a 'patently false assertion,' or do we get to move on from here?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You can do whatever you want, Sam.
I guess you weren't talking to me, KoM. But I was talking to you. Fair enough? But your objection to the options you believe are being left out are really not possible. Jesus most certainly was not a legend, and no one really doubts that the things that the gospels said that he said were never really said. There were many thousands of people who heard his words, and much of the gospel's content was considered common knowledge at the time.
And yes, the three choices do apply to Joseph Smith. And with all due respect to the Mormons -who seem to be doing something right because there are times that I wish I was a Mormon- I believe that Smith was either a Madman or was lying or decieved. In fact, that is really probably the only option that is not included as pertains to Jesus: He was deceived into believing that his words were true.
Mr Squicky, what did they believe? That he was not a liar, not crazy, and yet was not what he said he was? If you say they thought he was deceived, well, I'll have to accuse you of stealing my idea.
Shigosei's answer was adequate, Noemon, and as fascinating to me as Fugu's description of the little stalk monsters. The diversity of life here on Earth is amazing. You guys are proving your point very well, and I had no doubt that you would. That was why I wasn't really concerned with asking the question that fugu kept insisting that I ask. But I didn't want to hurt his feelings by ignoring him because he's been really nice and patient with me.
I already know how well the theory works; there have been extremely smart people working on it for many decades. But for those of you who took the paradigm shift ride with me on an older thread already know that I only think the theory works within a certain specific framework, and I don't believe that the framework accurately represents existence. So there's your goalpost getting moved. Explain the theory within the context of my paradigm (which I would really rather not have to explain again, but I will go and look for the thread so that I can link to it), and then you'll get your field goal.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
This was the thread, and what a thread it was! I ended up re-reading most of it. Very exciting. My first post on page five (where I'm linking) is where I start explaining the paradigm, but you may want go back a page or two. Hell, read the whole thread. It's great.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Mr Squicky, what did they believe? That he was not a liar, not crazy, and yet was not what he said he was?
You are aware that what made it into the Bible wasn't accepted by everyone and that there were other accounts of Jesus's life and ministry, right?
The canon for the Bible was put together by people who bought strongly into the idea that Jesus was divine, many of whom suppressed (sometimes violently) other versions. They eventually won out, but that doesn't mean that there weren't groups that believed differently.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's great in a "gee, Resh has a skull no more permeable than titanium" sort of way, I suppose. You're masturbating through the whole thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For the record, Tom's post refers to the last post on the last page, and not MrSquicky's post. Man that confused me (although I admit I am very tired).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I guess you weren't talking to me, KoM. But I was talking to you. Fair enough? But your objection to the options you believe are being left out are really not possible. Jesus most certainly was not a legend, and no one really doubts that the things that the gospels said that he said were never really said. There were many thousands of people who heard his words, and much of the gospel's content was considered common knowledge at the time.
Jesus quite possibly was a legend. I realise this is not something you are going to hear in Sunday School, but nevertheless, the evidence for his historicity is exceeding flimsy. And I most certainly do doubt that the gospels are an exact record of his words; for one thing, they contradict each other, and for another, they were copied for several centuries by half-literate monks notorious for miscopying and for inserting stuff they thought would sound good. You really should try not to extrapolate from "I believe X" to "Nobody believes not-X", it's rather rude.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Oh, well. I don't consider the explanation wasted. Maybe other people will find it useful or interesting.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)