Question for people that believe in evolution

[Vile Atheist]

LOL you just get worse. Richard Dawkins isn't qualified either, are you going to tell me he doesn't know what he is talking about either. Get real.

I wasn't aware one required qualifications to have an opinion regarding religion. Regarding evolution, he's more than qualified.

 

[footprints]

I wasn't aware one required qualifications to have an opinion regarding religion. Regarding evolution, he's more than qualified.

Dawkins is a zoologist with an interest in biology. And one shouldn't even speak of religions unless they have some basic knowledge which is more than general knowledge or common gossip. LOL you just want your cake and eat it too.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Dawkins is a zoologist with an interest in biology. And one shouldn't even speak of religions unless they have some basic knowledge which is more than general knowledge or common gossip. LOL you just want your cake and eat it too.

Are you claiming to have ultimate authority on who gets to voice their opinion and who doesn't?

If you are willing to claim your disinformation on evolution is merely your opinion, that's quite alright. To claim it as fact is just dishonest. Especially after you admit you aren't qualified to speak on such matters.

 

[footprints]

Useless, even though it is by Lenski, and describes in detail what was done in the experiment, and backs up what Alceste says?

And you accuse others of rejecting evidence out of hand? You're a clown.

The basic knowledge in the Wiki knowledge and that provided by you aligns. The post offered by you a little more in detail but still many things are missing which have to be taken on face value.

The knowledge I referred to in Wiki in the first paragraph is missing from Lenski's page. This now has the probability of being correct or incorrect as Lenski's page doesn't say. Your say so doesn't cut it.

 

[footprints]

Are you claiming to have ultimate authority on who gets to voice their opinion and who doesn't?

If you are willing to claim your disinformation on evolution is merely your opinion, that's quite alright. To claim it as fact is just dishonest. Especially after you admit you aren't qualified to speak on such matters.

LOL you are definately getting worse.

I do not speak of facts, I speak of probability of facts.

Just like I pointed out Dawkins is not a biologist and by your analogy not allowed to speak on such matters. People who live in glass houses, really shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since February 24, 1988.

The first paragraph of the article for clarification's sake.

I assume you're still on about the "nearly identical populations" bit.

Yet if you look on the timeline on the Lenski site I provided, they're clearly from the same source.

And if you bother to click on the other links on his page, that's further backed up here:

Source of Founding Strain

 

[Vile Atheist]

LOL you are definately getting worse.

I do not speak of facts, I speak of probability of facts.

Just like I pointed out Dawkins is not a biologist and by your analogy not allowed to speak on such matters. People who live in glass houses, really shouldn't throw stones.

Great. So long as you say you're not claiming anything factual.

Dawkins, for the record, is just as entitled as anyone to voice his opinions on religion or any other subject. It's something we call "freedom of speech" where any S.O.B. can say anything he wants, qualified or unqualified.

But when something is claimed as fact - and it is not; it's merely opinion - that is dishonest. You are more than entitled to voice your ramblings on any public venue. Just don't claim they're fact.

That is why Dawkins (or anyone else for that matter) needs to be qualified to speak on matters of biology (which he is) and not when voicing his opinion on religion. When speaking of biology, it's implied that he's making factual claims. When speaking of religion, it's implied he is simply regurgitating his opinion (that may or may not be supported by facts).

 

[DarkSun]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

First of all, just to clear up some misunderstanding on what evolution actually is, here is a post I've made in an earlier which very briefly summarises the theory in the simplest terms.

But before I do, it might be important to understand that evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, of matter or of life on earth. The theory of evolution describes how life changed through the generations after life had begun.

The order goes:

1, The Big Bang: The point at which energy "somehow" came to exist. No one really knows exactly how.
2. Stellar nucleosynthesis: Hydrogen atoms group together over billions of years into condensed hunks of matter, eventually forming stars. The incredibly pressure of the star provides the energy for the hydrogen to fuse into larger atoms. All known matter is derived from stars.
3. Abiogenesis theory: once the matter has congregated on a huge rock, or planet, under the volatile conditions, the matter somehow arranges itself in such a way as to form a cell. This continues to happen until the cell becomes self-replicating.
4. Evolution: SEE BELOW.

If you want to read up on these completely different theories, then here are some links:

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Introduction to evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would be good if you refrained from mixing up these theories in the future, because science does not consider them to be the same thing.

Mickiel, let's say the date was 200,000BC, and let's just assume people were still alive, but in primitive conditions. Ignore whatever the Bible says, this is just a hypothetical situation.

Now, let's say you had three male children: one grew to be tall and muscular, the second grew to be slightly stocky and hairy, and the third was small but agile. Furthermore, it would be fair to say that these children would not be exact replicas of you, right?

This is because of variation within a species. Every life form on the planet is going to have children with slightly different traits to them (but let's not go into why, okay?). Because of this fact, there is variation in a species.

Now let's say it suddenly became cold, and food became scarce. Now let's say, hypothetically, your tall and muscular child was able to survive because his longer limbs enabled him to conserve energy, so he didn't need to eat as much, despite the lack of food. At the same time, your slightly hairy and stocky child was better equipped to stay warm, despite the cold. But. Let's say the small and agile child died in the cold because he didn't have these advantageous traits.

This is called natural selection. The small and agile child did not have the traits required to survive in the environment, so he died, leaving this other two children to survive. This is an example of one of the basic postulates of evolution: that because organisms within a species will have slightly different characteristics, the organism with the best traits suited to help it survive will live on, while the people with the inferior traits will die.

Now let's say that your first son died younger than normal because of heart failure, leaving your second son to live on (the hairy and stocky one). And let's say your hairy and stocky child had children, two who were short, hairy and stocky, and one who was slightly taller. Now let's say that the one who was slightly taller died in the cold environment, and that the remaining two children had kids: one who was the same size as their parents, the second who was even smaller and slightly stockier, and the third who was even stockier than his parents, but about the same height. Let's say only the third child survived. Let's say he had kids. All of whom resembled him to an extent, but each with their own traits.

In comparison, you, the father, look like you do now.

This is how evolution works. It does not say that people "magically transform". It says that because of differences in your offspring, and because some of those differences are beneficial for life, the child with the best genes suited to survive, will survive, and pass on those genes. In all, evolution is the net sum of all inheritable adaptations.

So. In summary:

1. There is variation of traits within a species.
2. This variation of traits are because of differences in genes (DNA).
3. Species will compete for limited resources in a brutal world.
4. The species who is most successfully able to reproduce will do so, and carry on their genes.
5. Natural selection: the organism within a species who has the traits best suited for survival, will carry on their traits, while the organism with inferior traits will die out. As generations progress, only the beneficial traits come to exist, and species gradually change.
6. Proof of this lies in all of the different races of people on Earth. The theory of evolution explains why every race has slightly different traits.

Here are some sources of proof for evolution:

Reflective question: if we are not all related to some common ancestor (as the theory suggests), then why do we have so many homologies between species? Did God get lazy?

 

[Alceste]

I am not incorrect Alceste, either the evidence you offered me is, or you are.

Yes it is wikipedia for gods sake, your choice of where to offer evidence from to support your view, which really didn't support your veiw at all. Personally I wouldn't trust anything from Wiki, albeit you did.

Are you being intentionally thick? Bloody Wikipedia is not "the evidence" I gave you. The Lenski experiment which is the topic of the wikipedia article is "the evidence" I gave you.

Anyway, Contentius Maximus has linked you the the Lenski team's website. All the "raw data" you requested is there. So get to work and be sure to let us know your conclusions.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I wasn't aware one required qualifications to have an opinion regarding religion. Regarding evolution, he's more than qualified.

Some opinions have more merit than others.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Evidence itself can be a perception.

I would agree if there wasn't such a large consensus echoing the same understanding in various fields of science unless you subscribe to some sort of conspiracy theory but...even if you did that would mean everyone was/is on the conspiracy. But again, this is another reason why the data that is made avalable is there to be scrutanized and challenged (falsified). If you're not in a position to do so then you're just offering your opinion.

So can science so what is your point?

True, but the difference is science welcomes the change. Remember? This goes to the whole (Scientific Method). Those that argue for creationism, intelligent design appear not to be willing to change their preconceived views even in light of so much evidence to the contrary.

The bible et al weren't.

You might be right. People back then weren't using the bible in a scientific way. If you did you were probably labeled a heretic. Shucks, you might have been stone to death for using "magic"....

The Quran on the hand did, science and Islam are fairly tightly linked. One of the first proposers of scientific theory was Islamic.

I can pretty much agree here but my point was neither should be used in that way because they have been shown to be wrong. But if you cruise around the net you'll find lots of people touting the so-called "science" in the bible (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml).

Everybody is a freethinker Penguin, get over yourself. If I weren't a freethinker we wouldn't even be talking now.

"get over yourself".....What did I do to deserve that?

Look, you know what I meant. Yes we are all "free thinkers" (in a sense) but some can't think past their dogmatic views. Consider the family who believes the "Lord will provide" so they deny their loved one basic medical care from a doctor or hospital. Consider the creationist who knows very little to nothing of what the ToE says but contantly attacts it. Consider the myriad of protest and laws we have against same sex marriages and gay/lesbian rights in this country...This is not the mind of a freethinker. This is the mentality of a person or people rot with dogmatic presuppositions who believe everyone should believe what they believe.

Okay so you are telling me things you don't believe. Ok I will buy it.

No just telling you the evidence contradicts what you may believe. It certainly contradicts what creationist believe.

If I were on trial, I would just simply tell the truth. If I were guility I would say so, If I were innocent I would say so, if there were mitigating circumstances I would say so. As I understand human perception,

No problem here. I can understand that.

even if I said I was innocent and was alleged guility, I would understand the human process behind this and accept it as part of my present reality.

I can understand that as well.

I most certainly wouldn't want the jury to change their opinion if the evidence presented was wrong, even if this went in my favour of being released, and I would have to tell the jury that it was wrong.

Wait, I missed something here. If evidence in your favor showed you were not guilty of the crime you are on trial for you "wouldn't" want the jury to change their minds? I think you clearly stand alone on this one. I've known no one who has taken that position.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Some opinions have more merit than others.

I agree. But we're not talking about the merit of Dawkins' opinion. We're talking about his qualifications to give that opinion.

He isn't a philosopher nor a theologian, no. But he makes persuasive arguments that make sense and he backs them up with legitimate facts (pointing to statistics, etc). The ultimate point I make is one doesn't need to give qualifications to give their opinion because when one gives an opinion, it's implied that they are not speaking in factual terms. It's implied their view is subjective. The argument I'm making is that nobody needs qualifications to state their opinion.

When someone discusses a topic like science, it isn't implied that an opinion is given, but that there is actual evidence to back up whatever claims are made. And hence someone needs to be qualified in order to speak in factual terms. In science, this is usually in the form of a relevant degree and/or teaching and lab experience. For the humanities, it could be charity/volunteer work. For just about any field or topic, there is some possibility of qualification, usually in the form of experience.

On the topic of evolution/biology/philosophy of science, Dawkins qualified to speak in factual terms.

When footprints admits he isn't qualified to interpret the data others have provided him, you have to wonder what he's doing wasting energy typing inane comments on this - and other - threads, instead of actually getting educated so that he is qualified to examine this data and give an informed response.

 

[Vile Atheist]

As an aside, I always love it when people try to say Dawkins is unqualified to speak of evolution when they can't refute a damn thing he says on the subject. If he's so unqualified and he's just an old British man, rambling about how a monkey is our uncle, then he should be easy to refute, no?

 

[Jose Fly]

Unlike you Jose I do not pretend to be an expert,

You've done nothing but act as if you're an expert in evolutionary biology. Several threads now are overrun with your unsubstantiated assertions about evolution, yet here you are admitting that you're not an expert in it.

that is why I would need the full set of data, to see where the facts start and end and where the power of suggestion takes over. I would further need as was stated the full detailed knowledge of e.coli so I could make a direct comparison.

What are you waiting for then? Get to work.

To you it wouldn't make sense, on this subject you accept everything on a blind faith value.

Yeah, when you see things happen right before your eyes, that's "blind faith"...and when you study a field of science and work in it for 15 years, it's all just "blind faith"....

 

[Jose Fly]

As an aside, I always love it when people try to say Dawkins is unqualified to speak of evolution when they can't refute a damn thing he says on the subject. If he's so unqualified and he's just an old British man, rambling about how a monkey is our uncle, then he should be easy to refute, no?

RichardDawkins.com

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, author and outspoken atheist....

...Career
University of California, Berkeley, assistant professor of zoology, 1967-69; Oxford University, Oxford, England, lecturer in zoology and fellow of New College, 1970-90, reader in zoology, 1990-95; Evolutionary biologist and the Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford University; Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in May, 2001.​

Right up there with footprints' qualifications, I'm sure...

 

[Vile Atheist]

Right up there with footprints' qualifications, I'm sure...

Don't be silly. He's going to give us his expert analysis soon enough and we will be in awe.

 

[footprints]

The first paragraph of the article for clarification's sake.

I assume you're still on about the "nearly identical populations" bit.

Yet if you look on the timeline on the Lenski site I provided, they're clearly from the same source.

And if you bother to click on the other links on his page, that's further backed up here:

Source of Founding Strain

Contentius, I looked at the time line when no other evidence to support your cliam was evident. I do not just look at half information, I look at all available.

I am not going to look at any more evidence which you offer me, clearly at this point in time you are operating in a blind faith mode. I am not interested in power of suggestions only hard core evidence.

 

[footprints]

Great. So long as you say you're not claiming anything factual.

Dawkins, for the record, is just as entitled as anyone to voice his opinions on religion or any other subject. It's something we call "freedom of speech" where any S.O.B. can say anything he wants, qualified or unqualified.

But when something is claimed as fact - and it is not; it's merely opinion - that is dishonest. You are more than entitled to voice your ramblings on any public venue. Just don't claim they're fact.

That is why Dawkins (or anyone else for that matter) needs to be qualified to speak on matters of biology (which he is) and not when voicing his opinion on religion. When speaking of biology, it's implied that he's making factual claims. When speaking of religion, it's implied he is simply regurgitating his opinion (that may or may not be supported by facts).

I will not claim probability of facts as facts, this I will leave for subjective people to do.

You just get worse. Even an educated opinion is an opinion. A theory is just an opinion. Sometimes, even educated people are too close to what they are seeing and have to step away to see things more clearly and gain a different perception before they can go forward. Get over it.

 

[Tristesse]

I will not claim probability of facts as facts, this I will leave for subjective people to do.

You just get worse. Even an educated opinion is an opinion. A theory is just an opinion. Sometimes, even educated people are too close to what they are seeing and have to step away to see things more clearly and gain a different perception before they can go forward. Get over it.

Really? so, Einstein's theory of relativity is just an opinion.

 

[footprints]

Are you being intentionally thick? Bloody Wikipedia is not "the evidence" I gave you. The Lenski experiment which is the topic of the wikipedia article is "the evidence" I gave you.

Anyway, Contentius Maximus has linked you the the Lenski team's website. All the "raw data" you requested is there. So get to work and be sure to let us know your conclusions.

Alceste, is it me who is intentionally thick or is it you. Did I offer your evidence or did you.

What, do you mean the link you put in your post was put there by somebody else! Bloody hell, I didn't know people could do that in this forum, thanks for the warning.