Evolution? How?

thunder,
Professional educators worldwide classify evolution, natural selection, and adaptation as science.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Why would they teach evolution and not creation if they both are both religions?

Simple, because they are not both religions.

0 Replies

Thunder_runner wrote:

Quote:

Why would they teach evolution and not creation if they both are both religions?

Been lurking for a while to see where this forum was going. I missed a few pages but it still looks like the same subjects are being dissected. Thunder_Runner, don't feel bad if the scientista feel that what they believe in is not a religion. They claim the religious ones are narrow minded, but have they looked in the mirror lately. As they passionately expound on their THEORIES and believe them as fact they claim it is not a religion. But as Noah Webster puts it
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Rolling Eyes

They will probably dismiss this because Noah Webster was a Christian and there fore was stupid and didn't know anything.

0 Replies

No, rather, that definition does not apply to science because it relies upon replicability and predictive capacity rather than faith . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, rather, that definition does not apply to science because it relies upon replicability and predictive capacity rather than faith . . .

Precisely. Let me know as soon as someone replicates a tenet of the evolutionary hypothesis. MACRO evolution, not adaptation.

0 Replies

I have not stated that a theory of evolution is proven, on a "macro" or on a "micro" level. I am simply pointing out that religion relies upon faith that one knows the unknowable, and that scientific investigation establishes standards of demonstrable evidence. But you have your fun, don't let me stop you.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:
No, rather, that definition does not apply to science because it relies upon replicability and predictive capacity rather than faith . . .

Precisely. Let me know as soon as someone replicates a tenet of the evolutionary hypothesis. MACRO evolution, not adaptation.

There is no difference whatever between what you choose to call macro and micro evolution. The mechanisms which enable bacteria to develop resistance to medicines are the same ones that created all species on Earth. The difference, I guess, is that in any case where generations are short enough to make evolution in-your-face visible, you name it and declare it to be an invalid example.

The basic theory of evolution consists of only two principles:

1. In large populations over long periods of time, those genes which confer a survival advantage tend to dominate the gene pool.
2. Mutation serves as a mechanism for the introduction of new traits into the gene pool.

Now be sure to engage in a lot of name calling and irrelevant jibes, and not address any of our actual arguments.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Now be sure to engage in a lot of name calling and irrelevant jibes and not address any of our actual arguments.

Sorry about the name calling; er, did I call someone a name?

I suppose that my belief in adaptation makes me an evolutionist? What a first! An evolutionist who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Who would have thought?

What a lot of highly intelligent folks don't realize is that the Bible was written, not for the genius, but for the common man. The fact that you are warp speed ahead in intellect over me and my friend Joe Sixpack does not mean that the Bible is to be discounted. It may be harder for you to understand because you will have to come down to my level. But I assure you it would be worth it.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Now be sure to engage in a lot of name calling and irrelevant jibes and not address any of our actual arguments.

Sorry about the name calling; er, did I call someone a name?

I suppose that my belief in adaptation makes me an evolutionist? What a first! An evolutionist who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Who would have thought?

What a lot of highly intelligent folks don't realize is that the Bible was written, not for the genius, but for the common man. The fact that you are warp speed ahead in intellect over me and my friend Joe Sixpack does not mean that the Bible is to be discounted. It may be harder for you to understand because you will have to come down to my level. But I assure you it would be worth it.

Fabulous. Now how about addressing anything that I said in my post?

0 Replies

Sorry, Brandon. I was making this (perhaps oversimplified) connection:
Micro Evolution = Adaptation
Macro Evolution = Speciation
Perhaps my definitions are incorrect. If so, I stand to be enlightened. I thought this thread was started by a member who believed in creation and was questioning the evolutionist. I think I understand the evolutionist arguments quite well. What I'm trying to add is a reason to look at the Bible.

0 Replies

Problem is this...

If I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, I'll look to it.

If I don't, I won't.

Either way, I'm predisposed, and I'm not likely to be moved from one camp to the other.

There are 145 pages of posts on this thread (and dozens of other similar threads) to demonstrate this. Every time the subject comes up it reveals a lot more about human nature, belief, and discourse (especially online discourse) than it does about evolution and/or religious tenets.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Micro Evolution = Adaptation
Macro Evolution = Speciation
Perhaps my definitions are incorrect. If so, I stand to be enlightened.

Brandon9000 wrote:

There is no difference whatever between what you choose to call macro and micro evolution. The mechanisms which enable bacteria to develop resistance to medicines are the same ones that created all species on Earth. The difference, I guess, is that in any case where generations are short enough to make evolution in-your-face visible, you name it and declare it to be an invalid example.

The basic theory of evolution consists of only two principles:

1. In large populations over long periods of time, those genes which confer a survival advantage tend to dominate the gene pool.
2. Mutation serves as a mechanism for the introduction of new traits into the gene pool.

Thus, you stand corrected.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thus, you stand corrected.

An example of speciation replicated, please. I'm sure I missed it in my blind zeal. BTW, I learned the terms micro and macro from reading Scientific American. Their distinction, not mine.

0 Replies

The inherent problem lies in the definition of "species." Certainly we have seen organisms diverge from a common ancestor and become unable to reproduce due to physical inability. Look at the short history of artificial selection in dogs. In a very short time they have diverged to become thousands of species.

But a dog is still a dog, right? I suspect not. That is why the definition of 'species' must be clear. Not even all scientists agree with each other on the issue of speciation.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Thus, you stand corrected.

An example of speciation replicated, please. I'm sure I missed it in my blind zeal. BTW, I learned the terms micro and macro from reading Scientific American. Their distinction, not mine.

All evolution utilizes the same mechanisms. The mechanism which allows bacteria to adapt to medicines is the same one which has produced life on Earth from the first self-replicating molecule. There are people off digging up fossils, placing them in time sequence, etc., and that is a good thing, but the principles of evolution are so obvious as to be self-evident, once you understand them. 99% of the theory of evolution is simply:

1. Genes which offer a survival advantage come to dominate the gene pool. Genes which harm the host or help it less tend to be removed from the gene pool by death of the host.
2. New traits are constantly being introduced through mutation.

This would have to have the effect of producing animals which, as time passes, are more and more capable of functioning in the world. You can see it occur before your eyes for any species which has short enough generations, such as the way bacteria adapt to disease. Given enough generations and a large enough population, you can get all the life we see on Earth today from a one celled organism. These two mechanisms are clearly functioning in the world. How would this not be so?

0 Replies

fredjones wrote:

The inherent problem lies in the definition of "species." Certainly we have seen organisms diverge from a common ancestor and become unable to reproduce due to physical inability. Look at the short history of artificial selection in dogs. In a very short time they have diverged to become thousands of species.

But a dog is still a dog, right? I suspect not. That is why the definition of 'species' must be clear. Not even all scientists agree with each other on the issue of speciation.

Not fair, fredj.. You're making me think! I'll be back later. U2, Brandon

0 Replies

Dogs have not become separate species. It may be impossible (or at least highly unlikely) for a mastiff to mate with a Chihuahua, but either could reproduce with a medium-sized mongrel.

...and mating isn't the end-all and be-all. Dingos and the descendants of wolves mate readily -- but I don't think anyone would deny that they are different species.

Whatever that's got to do with anything...

0 Replies

I can't keep up with you guys. But I do love this forum!

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/gathering.gif

0 Replies

Quote:

held to with ardor and faith

Thats where our paths diverge. Anyone associated with science knows that theories are held very lightly in the hand lest some new data just blows it off. Thats why your definition applies not to the sciences that support evolution.
. If a murder is commited, the criminalist uses science to find EVIDENCE of the culprit and the crime. Its a basis of statistical certainty or reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Most scientists prior to Darwin were theists and actually used acounts from Genesis to support their hypotheses.Then, in a post Darwin world, we had a new and novel way to see things and a good way to explain all these different fossils in different layers.
Religion, despite all this evidence, stubbornly clings to a Genesis account or a more"Slicked" up one that they call Intelligent Design (which , even the IDers admit is just a pen name for Creationism without requiring that we mention who is the creator). Yeh, and you say that science is trying to foist a fraud

The old chestnut about "micro" v "macro" evolution is getting tiresome. Its been carefully and concisely defined by Mayr.
micro evolution is evolution AT or below the species level and macroevolution is th evolution of higher taxa. Whats so difficult or special? Rensch and Simpson's arguments asked that if macroevolution is just display of the evolutionary end members, then why isnt the fossil record full of evidence of gradualness. Darwins own argument was that the fossil record is just full of evidence of a haphazard record of preservation and is incomplete. Today, we sit almost 150 years after "Origins..." and we are beginning to see some closure on these gaps. Many new fossil beds have been serached and new finds are happening almost weekly and its happening so fast that "The treatise on vert paleontology" is almost 10 years behind.
The discussion of peripatric speciation recognizes that new species and higher taxa dont "split" off the line, they most often "bud" and peripatric speciation occurs so that the new line develops quickly due to a beneficial adaptive trait , whereas the original line just putts along and more often the fossils of the old and new line occur for a while in the strat record. The advantage is conferred onto an INDIVIDUAL which then provides the beneficial trait to a new population. Gradualism has been recognized in highre related taxa, and , as time goes on and molecular biology plays the lead role in evolution synthesis, Darwins position gets reinforced even more.
.

0 Replies

Any dog can mate with any other dog. Whether it is physically possible is beside the point (meaning whether it will fit without injury); artifical insemination will work.

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know