This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Evolution.

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Patrick R., Apr 28, 2008.

  1. Patrick R.

    Patrick R. Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    That depends on their claims in question. For example, should any evolutionary biologist believe that the vertebrate eye is so "complex" that it couldn't of formed through nature? If it is so "complex", then why do we have blind spots? The blood vessels and nerves are in front of the photoreceptors which screens some of the incoming light. What about our genome? How is it complex when much of our DNA has no purpose at all, less then 2% of our DNA codes for proteins. Transposons are hazardous DNA sequences with no known function, however, if they insert themselves into functional genes, it may become damaged. Transposons are known for causing disease in humans and mice.

    It is biological evidence like this that cast doubt on a creator and especially "intelligent design". In science, you take all the facts together and try to make a theory. To say earths biodiversity is to complex to have evolved isn't a very good theory. A better explanation is that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, gradually evolving novel characteristics with different functions and design. Some of these characters are selected, because they give an advantage to an organism. Other traits appear in future generations by chance alone, this is genetic drift, another mechanism of modern evolutionary synthesis.
     
  2. derek

    derek Grey Eminence

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    18,777
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Edinburgh, U.K.
    Indeed, but having a creator does not necessarily imply said creator is perfect at creating.
     
  3. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Endogenous retroviruses in DNA provide strong evidence in support of evolution.
     
  4. Blowtus

    Blowtus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Straya
    I think most peoples interpretation of 'Creationism' is a relatively literal reading of Genesis...
     
  5. OldScratch

    OldScratch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    That is the only way I have heard that term formally utilized - although "creation" mythology is found in other belief systems than the Semitic of course. And in America, Creationism is so popular and firmly believed in some circles, that entire museums to this Evangelical Christian assertion exist, complete with dinosaur mock-ups living merrily alongside man, etc. The length to which they go to "scientifically support" this Creationism assertion is admirable...but their conclusions are much less so.
     
  6. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    everybodys just so confused because we didnt origionate on this planet in the first place
     
  7. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It is interesting to note, if nothing else, that circadian rhythm returns to a 25 hour cycle when humans are sensory deprived. The peculiar thing about this is that Mars has a 25 hour day.
     
  8. Patrick R.

    Patrick R. Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    What are you talking about????? Are you Tom Cruise?
     
  9. Patrick R.

    Patrick R. Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    So this contrast with intelligent design?
     
  10. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I just think its an interesting theory and if it offends the senses of the self proclaimed intelligence... all the better.

    Then when you sit and think about it... it is one of the long term, possible plans or rather ideas that is currently takeing place in scientific circles. Which brings the question to me... is it that far fetched ?

    Cause I still say we stand out like a sore thumb compared to all other species.
     
  11. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    No, it's not far-fetched at all, unless you consider the overwhelming fossil and molecular evidence, of course.
     
  12. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    cheers mate. an important clarification.
     
  13. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    The greater problem is in calling it science. "Intelligent Design", i.e., the coy campaign to keep "God-talk" to a wink short of silent, proves this. What people are typically upset about is this which is the most popular, perhaps the ONLY, attempt to introduce non-science into science classes at high school...and desired explicitly because of an ideological conflict with the basis of biology (evolution), not because they just think it's just such clearly vital science that it should be taught---it evolution wasn't taught, or even discovered, there would be no massive ID movement in the US.

    It's easy to think people are annoyed by the incoherent blabber and pathetic arguments of creationism, but typically that doesn't bother them any more than 'alien abduction' belief...insofar as it's a private idiocy it's just laughable, all that people are worked up over is the misrepresentation of it which is counterproductive to education, and an insulting misleading claim as to what constitutes science.

    This at least is the overwhelming consensus of the popular skeptical community leaders I've heard speak on the matter: they're mostly not anti-theists, just anti...deceptive lies about science.
     
  14. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    PBS's NOVA's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial was a very good summation of the intelligent design "controversey".
     
  15. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ironically many believers also understand evolution. The two extremes should not tie all to a stereo type, as is typically the case. Science doesnt have it all tied down yet, neither does the mysterical world of creationism.

    Thats why I think we came from another place...... lol
     
  16. BlackMetalWhiteGuy

    BlackMetalWhiteGuy Manly Man!

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
    Many Creationism / ID supportors don't understand evolution, they just think they do. If people generally understood evolution as well as they thought they did, I wouldn't hear questions like "well if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and my ex-girlfriend wouldn't have some idiot from her evolutionary anthropology class ask "if bipedalism is so adaptive for humans, why don't tigers do it, since they're endangered?"

    Then there was that guy on the Colbert Report who knew evolution was a lie because the entire concept of evolution (according to him) was "a group of monkeys fell out of a tree, lost all their hair and started walking upright and talking." Obviously this is completely stupid and not at all what scientists actually believe, but it was true as far as he knew and he didn't feel any regret in using this logical fallacy to justify his believe in Creationism, because it apparently makes more sense.
     
  17. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    If scientists understood evolution as good as some think they do they would stop exploring it. What they have now is a few bones, & fossils that have at times been mistakenly dated, some "reconstructions" and widely accepted "suggestions" that they were human ancestors, only later to be found to be more closely resembling apes. So they start over again, with another small pile of bones and make more suggestions, often disagreeing amoungst themselves. Homo sapien still pops out of the blue and scarely resembles their suggested ancestral reconstructions. Also if scientific types were as smart as they claim they wouldnt take some satire on a quick sum of their theories so much to heart that they actually thought the rest of the sceptical world actually believed it was all that simple........

    Should I stock up on beer and chips to prepare for the sideshow for stating that which is not my fault ?
     
  18. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    this suggests to me you have very little appreciation for all the research on evolution in the last 150 years, even if you do, unlike many people, at least understand what evolution does entail.

    let's stipulate for sake of argument that no fossils exist or have been found. I for one don't care about archeology, so that's just a great way to save myself a boring debate.

    what have you to say about the molecular evidence? (something which I predict many more people on this forum are schooled in than geology/paleontology/archeology/dating methods/etc.)
     
  19. BlackMetalWhiteGuy

    BlackMetalWhiteGuy Manly Man!

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Cooperstown and Oswego, NY
    One of the big problems facing science is that the fossil record is extremely bare, in comparison to the amount of life that actually flourished. Additionally, dating hasn't always been a fool proof practice because like any other form of science, it can be proven false. In fact, no theory can even be accepted as scientific, unless stated in a way that research could prove it false. This is why the psychological predictions of Freud are considered pseudo-science, as opposed to actual science. Radio dating on the other hand, is something that can be physically measured and the same applies to molecular science. However, difficulties associated with figuring out how to accurately measure them will in all likelihood produce error that may later be recognized and controlled for with better technology and research that better applies a more accurate understanding of the laws of physics. Consequently, nearly all fields of science are always under review, which is an essential part of the scientific process. If we honestly expected every explanation to be 100% accurate the first time through, it wouldn't be science, now would it?
     
  20. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'm not in disagreement that we most likely evolved and I dont believe in a supreme being, however Im not in total disagreement with them either. Seems both sides come up with interesting evidence from time to time.

    I still find man to be a phenom compared to all other species, if science didnt as well, they would not have dedicated so many decades trying to figure it out and still not able to explain it. We go from little apes to highly efficent environment consumers and the Sabretooth Tiger becomes the stupid house cat thats sitting here annoying me now.
     

Share This Page