rojse
RF Addict
Let's look for something is far more common than a coherent adult.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution?
- Thread starter MarvelousWorksofGod
- Start date
Let's look for something is far more common than a coherent adult.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
The dinosaur - bird transition is one of my favorite examples of evolution.
InB4Feduccia
Just you wait. Someone is bound to link to a source misrepresenting him.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Ah Feduccia and the BAND camp...
They are a 'fun' bunch, and keep those who work on avian evolution on their toes.
wa:do
That was caused by the interbreeding of species following the Great Flood, wasn't it?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Indeed. The earliest bird fossil dates from the early-Cretaceous period, which creation scientists date at approximately 2600 B.C. It is believed to be a transition between Archaeopteryx (3000 B.C.), and the more modern fossil birds Hersperonis and Ichthyornis (2100 B.C.).
DID YOU NAME IT?!!!
(edit Sorry about the quality, I didn’t do this one I just googled for it. Here is one with better quality if you speak German - nannten Sie es?!. Actually it is even funnier if you don’t speak German, or maybe I am just sick.)
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You forgot the quotation marks around "creation scientists".
gnomon
Well-Known Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX1dBJyOifshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IHqkOXtKik
Mr. Hicks tying it all together.
Mr. Hicks tying it all together.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
The reason why Evolution is a theory and not a Law is exactly because it is not without flaw people. You all need to start acting the part of proper scientific observers instead of pedantic preachers because people take exception to being talked down to when you can't show yourself to be completely correct.
Evolution is unable to explain the onset of life satisfactorily (quantum physics has some interesting things to say on the topic: more on that later) and what drives the engine of change (natural selection) is still up in the air. It is obvious that natural selection can result in change over time, but is that all that results in change over time? We don't know. Other problems stem from scientists not being a unified front on all the various additional theories regarding how natural selection works: like punctuated equilibrium (only under extreme circumstances does ecosystem shift sufficiently to prompt major changes in species selection); not all scientists agree that this must be or is in fact the case.
Now as far as literal biblical creationism is concerned: I think most people will agree that the time-scale presented has to be off (there is just too much evidence to the contrary, and too much human interference in the meaning of the Bible for its "literal truth value" to be preserved); I always tended to think of all of the non-law passages (thou shalt/thou shalt not do "X") were parables/mythological stories (look how way cool our ancestors were way back when).
But if you consider that one of the latest theories arising out of quantum physics is that we "self-selected" the structure of the universe to be life-sustaining/supporting and that "random quantum fluctuations" would tend to select life-sustaining arrangements because the universe is so structured, is then the idea of a creation really so far fetched?
MTF
Evolution is unable to explain the onset of life satisfactorily (quantum physics has some interesting things to say on the topic: more on that later) and what drives the engine of change (natural selection) is still up in the air. It is obvious that natural selection can result in change over time, but is that all that results in change over time? We don't know. Other problems stem from scientists not being a unified front on all the various additional theories regarding how natural selection works: like punctuated equilibrium (only under extreme circumstances does ecosystem shift sufficiently to prompt major changes in species selection); not all scientists agree that this must be or is in fact the case.
Now as far as literal biblical creationism is concerned: I think most people will agree that the time-scale presented has to be off (there is just too much evidence to the contrary, and too much human interference in the meaning of the Bible for its "literal truth value" to be preserved); I always tended to think of all of the non-law passages (thou shalt/thou shalt not do "X") were parables/mythological stories (look how way cool our ancestors were way back when).
But if you consider that one of the latest theories arising out of quantum physics is that we "self-selected" the structure of the universe to be life-sustaining/supporting and that "random quantum fluctuations" would tend to select life-sustaining arrangements because the universe is so structured, is then the idea of a creation really so far fetched?
MTF
Alceste
Vagabond
Can you give me an example of a scientific "law" please? Just to clarify what it is you're comparing the flawed "theory" of evolution to?
You are referring to something outside the scope of evolutionary theory as a "flaw" in ToE. Is it a "flaw" that string theory doesn't account for the mating behavior of dung beetles? Is penecillin "flawed" because it doesn't heal viral infections?
Been reading Stuart Kauffman by any chance? Me too - just getting into "At Home in the Universe"
If that's what you're talking about, he's a complexity theorist, though, not a quantum physicist. If not, I'd be interested to know more about your sources.I find the religious idea of creation far-fetched. The free, unconstrained, non-dogmatic musings of informed individuals on the subject of the origins of life are very interesting to me, even when I disagree. But there is no force on earth that will persuade me that the Bible (or the Koran, or the Talmud, or the Oddysey, or Macbeth, or any other famous old work of human literature) has anything of value to contribute to the discussion. The men who wrote these books - however wise they may have been - did not possess the level of understanding of the universe we can now find in just about any high school graduate (provided they didn't graduate from a religious school).
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Actually... it's because there are no such things as "laws" in biological science. "Laws" are for mathmatics/physics.
I don't preach... I do try to teach.
Actually, that is the role of Abiogenesis, Organic Chemistry and yes, physics has been helping to show how molecules came together to form the first living things.
Not really... mutation, selective pressure and so on are rather well studied.
Well no... we know that there are aspects of change that are not purely natural selection... genetic drift... bottle necks, founder effects and so on are also well studied.
So what?
Evolution has been shown to work both under punctuated equilibrium (dramatic fast changes) and under gradualism (especially molecular evolution).
It isn't an either / Or situation. One does not prevent the other from happening.
Biologists like to debate little details about particular cases... this can often be mistaken for uncertainty about the factual nature of evolution. In reality it's just an excuse to have a good debate over details.
Yes, because, while I'm no expert on physics... I think you are misinterpreting that bit of physics.
wa:do
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Only technically true: Biology prefaces all its "laws" as being conditionally true. But that doesn't change the fact that the body of evidence supporting Evolution would be insufficient for chemistry or physics to warrant its placement in the body of scientific Law.
Good for you.
Possible, Probable, and what actually happened are three separate and distinct things. There are a whole host of hypotheses (all basically untested) on how life could have come about on earth from purely inorganic material. Sure it has been shown that amino acids can spontaneously form from geologic processes, but getting them to become self-replicating is a non-trivial task to actually explain.
... You aren't getting what I am saying. There are lots of things that are well-studied. What we don't know is if what we know is a comprehensive set of knowledge about how life started or how it achieved its current form.
And I am well aware that natural selection by itself regardless of form could provide the engine of change for evolution to take place regardless of whether gradualism or punctuated equilibrium is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that scientists should stop making so public their discord.
Alceste: I've read some articles about Kauffman, but also the Anthropic Principle as well (looks at the origin of the universe). To get the gist of grab the wikipedia article on the topic; I can't post links yet.
Painted Wolf: Nope not misinterpreting anything. Some rather creative quantum cosmologists got together and came to the conclusion that the universe (as finely tuned as it is) with intelligent beings acting as observers influencing the result of events and the fact that time runs both directions for the universe observer effects would retroactively alter the state of the universe at the beginning.
Rather interesting possibility. I don't actually believe any entity created the universe (the Big Bang is a pretty good explanation for the time being), but if you are here to tell me that there is no mystery to reality and that the deep structures of reality are soon to be privy to our complete understanding, well then I am going to have to completely disagree with you. I think it is hubris to think we are even close to understanding the complete picture, and as such I am willing to accept a much wider set of explanations for events.
Edward Teller once stated that if you take what we don't know about the universe and divide it by what we do know, then you get a VERY large number possibly infinity (and no this isn't actually internet urban legend; he used to say things like this at his lunch time talks; which may dad was invited to more than one of). We argue from positions of nearly absolute ignorance.
What this means is that for those things we do understand well I am very firmly on the side of science, but when it comes to those things that we don't understand well I am very firmly on the side of keeping my mind open and hearing all the various possibilities.
MTF
Good for you.
Possible, Probable, and what actually happened are three separate and distinct things. There are a whole host of hypotheses (all basically untested) on how life could have come about on earth from purely inorganic material. Sure it has been shown that amino acids can spontaneously form from geologic processes, but getting them to become self-replicating is a non-trivial task to actually explain.
... You aren't getting what I am saying. There are lots of things that are well-studied. What we don't know is if what we know is a comprehensive set of knowledge about how life started or how it achieved its current form.
And I am well aware that natural selection by itself regardless of form could provide the engine of change for evolution to take place regardless of whether gradualism or punctuated equilibrium is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that scientists should stop making so public their discord.
Alceste: I've read some articles about Kauffman, but also the Anthropic Principle as well (looks at the origin of the universe). To get the gist of grab the wikipedia article on the topic; I can't post links yet.
Painted Wolf: Nope not misinterpreting anything. Some rather creative quantum cosmologists got together and came to the conclusion that the universe (as finely tuned as it is) with intelligent beings acting as observers influencing the result of events and the fact that time runs both directions for the universe observer effects would retroactively alter the state of the universe at the beginning.
Rather interesting possibility. I don't actually believe any entity created the universe (the Big Bang is a pretty good explanation for the time being), but if you are here to tell me that there is no mystery to reality and that the deep structures of reality are soon to be privy to our complete understanding, well then I am going to have to completely disagree with you. I think it is hubris to think we are even close to understanding the complete picture, and as such I am willing to accept a much wider set of explanations for events.
Edward Teller once stated that if you take what we don't know about the universe and divide it by what we do know, then you get a VERY large number possibly infinity (and no this isn't actually internet urban legend; he used to say things like this at his lunch time talks; which may dad was invited to more than one of). We argue from positions of nearly absolute ignorance.
What this means is that for those things we do understand well I am very firmly on the side of science, but when it comes to those things that we don't understand well I am very firmly on the side of keeping my mind open and hearing all the various possibilities.
MTF
Alceste
Vagabond
I don't think anybody's saying that. We are talking simply about the biological mechanisms by which things that live in our own biosphere can become so diverse, though, not every infinitesimal snippet of potential data in the entire universe. We know a great deal about our own planet. Yes, new things are discovered every day, but it is entirely due to the fact that we know so much about evolution that we are even aware of the wealth of things we have yet to discover. You actually need to know quite a lot just to know what you don't know. This is where religious explanations for the mysteries of life fall off the knowledge train. They don't say "WOW! What a vast amount of information there is still to discover", they say "Dammit, something else has been discovered - where can I squeeze my God into this new information?" Tragically, if just it can't be done, the whole discovery is very often discarded a la baby + bathwater.
I had a glance at the wiki article on Anthropic Principle - can you please be more specific? It appears to be pure speculation, not empirically-based understanding. Not really my bag, to be honest. I can come up with my own unfounded speculations - I only need the clever people for informing me of things that are very likely to be objectively true.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Hardly. Evolution is one of the most tested and well supported theories in all scientific history. It is the cornerstone of biology, genetics, medicine and other fields.
Gravity is less understood than evolution is.
Then it's a good thing that there has been a lot of research into this area. Just a couple of examples for you...
Artificial molecule evolves in the lab - life - 08 January 2009 - New Scientist
Scientists create artificial self-replicating RNA! - Science News
I think biologists know that what we know is a comprehensive set of knowledge about how life achieved it's current form. How life started is getting less and less fuzzy every year.
Science operates in the light of day... not hidden under rocks. That is why it works so well.
Anyone who wants science to be hidden from the public either doesn't understand science or has some creepy plans.
And some other rather creative cosmologists got together and called "bollocks" on that conclusion.
It's fun mental gymnastics... but little else.
I'm not going to tell you anything of the sort. There is no way we will ever understand everything and mystery has a very important place in my life.
However, I'm not going to just accept any explanation for events... my mind is not so open that my brain will fall out. Critical thinking is a very handy skill.
wa:do
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Just because you don't want to take the time to see exactly why we're correct doesn't mean we can't show it. We've shown it, it's up to you to listen or not. But if you don't want to listen, remember that the problem is with you, not us.You're right, although considering evolution doesn't even claim to explain such things, I don't think that's even relevant.
No, it's not. Again, just because you haven't taken the time to understand it doesn't mean it's not there. Mutations and natural selection are the engines of change.
What are you babbling about? Mutation and natural selection are responsible for changes in life and therefore evolution. That's what any real scientist knows because it's a fact supported by immense amounts of data.
Would you mind rewriting this so that it at least makes a tiny bit of sense?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Biology doesn't have laws. It has theories, which are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. Theories explain facts.
Who cares how life came about? We're talking about evolution, which has nothing at all to do with how life came about, only what happened after it appeared.
Actually, we do know that evolution is a comprehensice set of knowledge about how life achieved its current forms.
Huh? What are you talking about, "making so public their discord"? There is sometimes disagreement, and then tests are done.
What does the anthropic principle have to do with anything?
Who said that? I think you need to slow down and not go off on tangents involving strawmen. Until someone says anything close to that, you should probably just leave it alone, and stick to what is being said.
That's great. So are the rest of us here. What's your point?
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
a)Childish ... seems like a variation to the argument: "I simply don't understand it so it cant be true".
Two tips:
1)do not take your personal opinion or emotions as fundations for absolute or objective truth.
2)do not take the limits of your brain to understand something as evidence for somethings impossibility
b)Then we had a pssssss....
Well ... i am not sure what exactly you are talking about as evoluton has nothing to do with a single first particle. But nevertheless i might ask an obvious question....
Pssss: where did that gigantic, ultracomplex, not understandable, eternal, complicated god come from ?
c)What are your views?
Well my view is that people should spend at least "some" time trying to understand what they then might actually debate. Debating (and criticicing) something you dont understand is .. childish.