Wrong-way evolution of the creationist movement

[alonzomourning23]

By Patrick Chisholm | csmonitor.com

WASHINGTON – Christian fundamentalists often have been accused of wanting to alter the laws and institutions of the United States. Actually it is usually the other way around; most of the time they only try to prevent America's laws and institutions from being radically altered. One example is their battle to stem the banning of Christmas symbols and celebrations.

But there is one area where many Christian fundamentalists do indeed want to impose radical change: the teaching of Biblical creationism vs. evolution in public schools.


After losing favor since the Scopes trial 80 years ago, the creationist movement seems to be making inroads again. In Dover, Pa., school administrators recently ordered biology teachers to declare in class that "Darwin's theory... is a theory, not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." In an Atlanta suburb in 2002, stickers were placed on textbooks stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact ..." Then, last month, a judge ruled the stickers unconstitutional.

In 1999, the Kansas state board of education voted to remove most references to evolution from state education standards, a decision that was reversed two years later.

According to a CBS poll conducted last fall, two-thirds of Americans favor teaching creationism in public schools together with evolution, and 37 percent want to totally replace the teaching of evolution with creationism.

But saying evolution is a theory is like saying the earth revolving around the sun is a theory. Or that plate tectonics (continental drift) is a theory. Or that things are made of atoms is a theory. Just because such things are not apparent to the human eye doesn't mean they aren't factual.

Evolution is a fact. Because it involves time periods spanning hundreds or thousands of generations, evolutionary change happens much too slowly for humans to perceive.

And in some cases, natural selection happens plenty quickly enough for us to perceive. Through mutations, new strains of antidote-resistant viruses are always emerging. The same holds true for pesticide-resistant insects. There is also the famous example of the peppered moth near Manchester, England. Starting out with light-colored wings, they were camouflaged as they rested on tree trunks of the same color. But as industrial pollution made the trees dark, birds picked off the light-colored moths. Mutant moths born with black wings survived, reproduced, and multiplied.

Through observing a petri dish of bacteria, evolution can even be observed in a matter of hours. Adding a certain antibiotic kills the vast majority of the bacteria, but some of them are immune and go on to mass-reproduce.

To take a human example, it is revealing that Nepalese Sherpas are generally much better at climbing Mt. Everest than anyone else. It is not just because of skill, but because their bodies seem to have adapted genetically to the extreme environment, according to scientists. How did this adaptation take place? Not because God decided one day to give all Sherpas a better oxygen-processing capability than other populations, but because of natural selection: the people whose bodies could not process oxygen in a high-altitude environment failed to survive to reproduce.

So evolution is happening right before our very eyes. Evolution is as elementary as the earth as round; for someone to try to convince me otherwise is like someone trying to convince me that the earth is flat.

Suppressing the teaching of evolution or presenting it as a controversial "theory" would be a huge step backward in education. Save creationism for Sunday school.

That said, there may be room for a concept called intelligent design - as long as it is not hijacked and distorted by the Biblical creationists. Advancements in science have enabled the observation of tinier things and more complex phenomena. Michael J. Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, points to the example of complex engines that power the motion of certain bacteria. Behe states that if one of the many dozens of parts that comprise the engine is taken away, the whole engine fails completely. He argues that it is difficult to imagine how something could have been constructed gradually through evolution, given that the engine does not work until all the parts have been assembled. One theory is that an intelligent designer played a role. To be sure, it in no way refutes evolution, which easily explains how most other biological phenomena were designed.

If science cannot explain how certain biological components were constructed - a big if - then that point could be made in class. It would be up to students to draw their own conclusions as to how such things came about, just as it is up to them to draw their own conclusions as to what causes gravity. (Science still doesn't have a good answer. Could it be God?) But teaching that everything was created some 6,000 years ago, in six days, would be foolhardy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0223/p25s01-cogn.html

[bmulligan]

Stupidity revealed are the people who confuse the vulgar vernacular "theory" with the scientific connotation of the word "Theory". I'm suprised they didn't bother to explain the difference in the article somewhere.

[MrBadExample]

Public school should be for evolution theory and Sunday school for creationism. Intelligent Design is just a way to get god in classrooms again. "Well, we don't know exactly what caused this so it might be god." It might also be Zeus, the Boogey Man or Bigfoot. You can't prove that Bigfoot didn't create the universe so why not teach that too.

The fact that we as a society are still arguing about evolution makes me wonder if we're devolving now.

[camoor]

Public school should be for evolution theory and Sunday school for creationism.

I'm all for teaching philosophy in public schools - even if only for the "AP" kids. You can make your deist "clockwork god" theories right along side that of the dogmatist and strict materialist views of the world in a philosophy course. Also - then maybe the christians will realize that their views aren't science.

I know I have high hopes. I guess we should be glad that Bush hasn't attacked Socrates for being a "homo pagan" (hey, his favorite philosopher is Jesus for crying out loud)

[oleander]

I'm not sure I understand the article....he seems to use the fact that evolution occurs to state that evolution is the way that life originated on earth...am I misinterpreting?

[ElwoodCuse]

The fact that we as a society are still arguing about evolution makes me wonder if we're devolving now.

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind and sails
Are we not men?
We are DEVO

[alonzomourning23]

I'm not sure I understand the article....he seems to use the fact that evolution occurs to state that evolution is the way that life originated on earth...am I misinterpreting?

Basically, he's saying that evolution is a fact, and most likely works on its own and is the origin of life. But, if science can't explain everything (which he isn't sure about), then it's possible god does play a stabilizing role somewhere, but the driving force is still natural selection/evolution, not god. He doesn't believe creationism is correct in any sense though. He's distinguishing from creationism and intelligent design.

[Quillion]

You can't prove or disprove "Intelligent Design". But at least it allows for science not to be wrong.

Some big dude in the sky sat down for like a week and built everything six thousand years ago? Baloney.

A universal conciousness set into play a series of seemingly random events that resulted in complex thinking beings? Possibly. Neither provable or unprovable.

Why not? It's a "theory" that at least concedes that 2000 years of science isn't wrong.

[eldad9]

I for one am sick of the way schools are trying to pass off the heliocentric viewpoint as fact. It is only a theory, and the church has spoken out against it (and in fact, has executed more than one scientist for supporting it).

[Ikohn4ever]

I find it funny that they are afraid of showing IMAX movies dealing with Evolution in the South. One is about Darwin and another is about Volcanos. Things are getting really out of hand fast. You start giving people an inch and they take a mile.

[eldad9]

I find it funny that they are afraid of showing IMAX movies dealing with Evolution in the South. One is about Darwin and another is about Volcanos. Things are getting really out of hand fast. You start giving people an inch and they take a mile.

Nobody's "afraid". Unfortunately, choosing these movies would just not be a good decision in today's market.

[Ikohn4ever]

Nobody's "afraid". Unfortunately, choosing these movies would just not be a good decision in today's market.

yeah you are right it would be poor economic move, plus I am sure there would be atleast one protestor

[Duo_Maxwell]

yeah you are right it would be poor economic move, plus I am sure there would be atleast one protestor

There's always at least one protestor to most every movie somewhere.

[elprincipe]

"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.

[camoor]

"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.

Ladies and Gentleman, may I present the lone protestor :D

[zionoverfire]

"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.

All the evidence we have for gravity is that it exists not why it exists. With evolution we can see that is occurs and show what leads to its occurance. That is the difference between scientific theory and fact. Keep in mind that while the theory of evolution is scientific fact the Darwinian theory of evolution is a theory.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.

[dcfox]

"evolution is a fact" - I stopped reading past that point, ridiculous. Even the theory of gravity is not a "fact", and there is a lot less evidence that the theory of evolution is "fact" than that.

Gravity is only a theory?? You sir have opened my eyes to the truth. From now on I will no longer be a slave to gravity.

[camoor]

It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.

I'm sure Nietzsche would enjoy this joke :)

[camoor]

Gravity is only a theory?? You sir have opened my eyes to the truth. From now on I will no longer be a slave to gravity.

Havent you played Smugglers Run?

Up down up down ABAB ---> Gravity off!

Take that Newton!!

[sblymnlcrymnl]

It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.
I'm sure Nietzsche would enjoy this joke :)

:D

[Kayden]

Does this mean we need to put stickers on all the copies of the Bible that say, "God is only a theory." :-k

[masta0031]

Does this mean we need to put stickers on all the copies of the Bible that say, "God is only a theory." :-k

or maybe "fairy tail"?

[masta0031]

It's like creationist are intentionally trying to impede man's progress. Like they can become their own evidence against evolution.

very interesting way of looking at it. Im really not on either side of this argument. i really doubt religion has any answers, but since the begining of man there has always been religion, weather it be budda, jehova, or a pet rock.

we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

the only peace i (personally) have found on this subject is to admit that i really dont know. its always best not to worry to much about it and just go with the flow.

At the same time, I dont think any decision should be based on what some book says...no matter how old it is.

[MrBadExample]

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

The purpose of evolution is the propagation of the species.

[Kayden]

The purpose of evolution is the propagation of the species.

Wooooooooo life = SEX!
:bouncy::bouncy::bouncy::bouncy:

[sblymnlcrymnl]

That's the purpose of evolution (and in fact life in general) but some can't accept life without a personal "higher" purpose.

[alonzomourning23]

very interesting way of looking at it. Im really not on either side of this argument. i really doubt religion has any answers, but since the begining of man there has always been religion, weather it be budda, jehova, or a pet rock.

we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

the only peace i (personally) have found on this subject is to admit that i really dont know. its always best not to worry to much about it and just go with the flow.

At the same time, I dont think any decision should be based on what some book says...no matter how old it is.

Found this quote a few days ago, pretty much sums up my beliefs:

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
-John McCarthy

and this quote sums up my opinion on creationism, the way most believe in it anyway:
"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind."
-William Clifford

[shipwreck]

I am a creationist. I also believe in adaptation, but not to the extent of beings evolving into other creatures. I honestly don't care what schools teach on the subject because usually by the time it is being taught, most individuals have a good idea what their beliefs are. From my experience, evolution has always been taught as a theory, so I don't quite understand the problem there. I know when I was presented with this material, I had no problem distinguishing between what I think is fact and theory that I don't believe in.

[camoor]

we've needed these gods to give us a reason to why we're alive. haveing no reason is a scary thought to most people. thinking that no matter what they do in there lives the only thing you amount to in the end is a little bit of carbon left from what used to be your corpse isnt a really nice thought, and due to this there will always be religion.

since evolution offers no real purpose it is much harder to acept, even though logicaly more sound, than that mythical higher being.

Evolution is pretty easy to accept, it follows logic and can be empirically demonstrated.

It's much harder to trust something other then your base senses. However why not - your base senses were designed so that you could run around in grasslands eating deer, antelope, and buffalo. Is it such a far-out idea that your senses lie to you as a result of being part of a hard-wired survival mechanism? Or that they only give you pieces of the existence puzzle?

Regardless of my second paragraph, if you pick up any 2000 year-old book full of magic, demi-gods, and contradictory rules and accept all of it as the straight-up truth, then you are taking the easy way out.

[zionoverfire]

I am a creationist. I also believe in adaptation, but not to the extent of beings evolving into other creatures.

adaptation is esentially evolution, the only difference is evolution states that after numerious adaptation the adapted animals will reach a point where they are no longer be able to reproduce with the species they came from, thereby creating a new species. Evolution and Darwinian evolution are not the same thing.

[elprincipe]

adaptation is esentially evolution, the only difference is evolution states that after numerious adaptation the adapted animals will reach a point where they are no longer be able to reproduce with the species they came from, thereby creating a new species. Evolution and Darwinian evolution are not the same thing.

"Adaptation," or natural selection, is a far, far cry from the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection merely says that existing characteristics in species will become more prevalent if the carriers of those genes are more successful at reproducing than the carriers of other genes. Not only is this just common mathematical sense, but it's been pretty well demonstrated in many cases, including the moth study in Industrial Revolution-era England that someone mentioned.

The Theory of Evolution, OTOH, claims that random mutations within species lead to new characteristics and these are then thrown into the mix, with some of these mutations ending up having beneficial characteristics to reproduction, thus being selected through natural selection. There are a lot of rather difficult questions with regard to this theory, and if someone wants to get into a more detailed (but hopefully mature) discussion of evolution I'm willing to throw some out that I feel are more than legitimate reasons to not accept the Theory of Evolution as a proven fact.

[zionoverfire]

"Adaptation," or natural selection, is a far, far cry from the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection merely says that existing characteristics in species will become more prevalent if the carriers of those genes are more successful at reproducing than the carriers of other genes. Not only is this just common mathematical sense, but it's been pretty well demonstrated in many cases, including the moth study in Industrial Revolution-era England that someone mentioned.

The Theory of Evolution, OTOH, claims that random mutations within species lead to new characteristics and these are then thrown into the mix, with some of these mutations ending up having beneficial characteristics to reproduction, thus being selected through natural selection. There are a lot of rather difficult questions with regard to this theory, and if someone wants to get into a more detailed (but hopefully mature) discussion of evolution I'm willing to throw some out that I feel are more than legitimate reasons to not accept the Theory of Evolution as a proven fact.

Evolution:
The change in the frequency of alleles between one generation and the next.
http://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Please stop confusing Evolution and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

But this topic is near dead and if you would like to throw out your problems with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution or even problems you have with the idea of genetic mutation or natural selection please feel free. Perhaps they will keep this topic alive for another page or 2.

[Kayden]

Evolution:
The change in the frequency of alleles between one generation and the next.
http://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Please stop confusing Evolution and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

But this topic is near dead and if you would like to throw out your problems with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution or even problems you have with the idea of genetic mutation or natural selection please feel free. Perhaps they will keep this topic alive for another page or 2.

When I was in school Darwin's theory of evolution and evolution were used interchangably.... I guess thats what I get for going to public school... could someone differentiate?

Zion, that link isn't very helpful.

[zionoverfire]

When I was in school Darwin's theory of evolution and evolution were used interchangably.... I guess thats what I get for going to public school... could someone differentiate?

Zion, that link isn't very helpful.

:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.

[Kayden]

:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.

So... evolution is akin to a editing a single line of code where Darwinian Evolution is totally recompiling a database?

More or less the same, but on a larger, prolonged scale.

[alonzomourning23]

:oops: Yes the link doesn't seem to work, oh well I cited the source.:lol:

Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are often used interchangably and so people often blur the two together.

Basically evolution is simply the change in genetic makeup (genes, allels) over a period of time. The Darwinian Theory of evolution uses the combination of mutation and natural selection to suggest that all life on the planet came from a common ancestor.

Considering the similarity of embryo's in the womb, considering that even bacteria have 60% of their dna in common with humans, that is a fairly safe assumption.

[zionoverfire]

So... evolution is akin to a editing a single line of code where Darwinian Evolution is totally recompiling a database?

More or less the same, but on a larger, prolonged scale.

No, evolution in it's basic form doesn't not include mutation it is simply the change in distribution of alleles or genes.

[zionoverfire]

Considering the similarity of embryo's in the womb, considering that even bacteria have 60% of their dna in common with humans, that is a fairly safe assumption.

I'm simply trying to demonstrate that basic evolution is scienctific fact and that it is the same as adaptation. Keep in mind that gravity is a fairly safe assumption but we still talk about the theory of gravity.

[Kayden]

No, evolution in it's basic form doesn't not include mutation it is simply the change in distribution of alleles or genes.

All those changes over time would surely cause mutations...

[zionoverfire]

All those changes over time would surely cause mutations...

That would be part of the theory of evolution.;)

Keep in mind that taking short term evidence and extending it into long term situations is one of the ways in which you get theories.

Oh and also the changes don't cause mutations, the mutations propigated from the individual to the species cause the changes, you've got it backwards.

[alonzomourning23]

There was an experiment done with fruit flies in a lab. They started with one population and split them up, and bred them for certain things. After about 100 generations they ended up with two similar looking flies, but they could not interbreed and were different species. I'll try to find it.

[zionoverfire]

There was an experiment done with fruit flies in a lab. They started with one population and split them up, and bred them for certain things. After about 100 generations they ended up with two similar looking flies, but they could not interbreed and were different species. I'll try to find it.

And there are numerious cases of bacteria and viruses in which minor mutation occured in the genetic code giving rise to new diseases, it's not that we don't have information that proves that mutation occurs it is simply that we cannot prove that all life originated from the same source unless we build a time machine.

[Kayden]

That would be part of the theory of evolution.;)

Keep in mind that taking short term evidence and extending it into long term situations is one of the ways in which you get theories.

Oh and also the changes don't cause mutations, the mutations propigated from the individual to the species cause the changes, you've got it backwards.

What? Uh....
Like one freak occurance and then the rest adapt to it? (Born with 6 fingers and then the rest follow suit?)

[zionoverfire]

What? Uh....
Like one freak occurance and then the rest adapt to it? (Born with 6 fingers and then the rest follow suit?)

If there is a mutation in the genetic code of one individual and it is advantagious, then assuming that individual survives and reproduces by natural selection the gene will be propigated into the genetic pool of the entire species. There are some genes that aren't beneficial but are not harmful, infact most mutations don't do anything and in these cases they go unnoticed. In the case of 6 fingers this trait is considered undesirable by humans and so it decreases your odds of reproduction.

[elprincipe]

Here's a page that has some unanswered questions:

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/questions.php

I should note that this was just after a short search because I just don't have the time for more, and that I feel some of the questions on said page are rather dumb. Some, however, are good questions that haven't been adequately answered by evolutionists.

I'd like a good explanation of how human beings came to be at this point in time, an extremely complicated animal, using evolution patterns that have actually been observed. Does anyone actually believe that evolution in humans has been observed throughout human history? If not, do you realize that such a slow pace would make it pretty unlikely that humans could have evolved the complexities that we show in the time life is thought to have existed?

Here are another couple basic evolutionary questions.

1. If evolution occurs via mutation and then nautral selection, how do recessive genes exist? One mutation making a recessive gene would never make this gene manifest itself. Why would it be selected for?

2. If only one organism has a particular mutation, which obviously would pretty much have to be true given the random nature of such mutations, there is only a partial chance that it would be passed on. As per my question above, have you taken this into account as to how long these mutations would theoretically take to change things? That's roughly doubling the time...not to mention how did something like going from asexual to sexual reproduction work?

I've got plenty more.

[zionoverfire]

Well for your first question if not for evolution how did human and all other life come to be on this planet? Did the Dinosaurs exist? and if they did why can't we find fossels of humans from the same time period? If you wish to claim that evolution is false I would be interested to see what you believe instead.

But for your other questions:
1. Selection does not create mutation, mutation occurs on its own. This means that a gene does not have to be beneficial to be propigated, it is simply more likely to become inherent in the majority or entire population if it is beneficial. In fact plenty of harmful genes are present in the population and continue to exist because while harmful the individuals still live long enough to reproduce. Look at alzheimers and hutchunson's disease there are plenty of other diseases that are the result of genetics and some are recessive genes. It is a misnomer that natural selection is responsible for all genetic change. If a mutation does not hinder your ability to reproduce then it does not fall under the scope of natural selection.

2. Doubling? We are talking much more than that, but do keep in mind how long a million years is, let along 1 billion, besides remember each lifeform has the potential for a beneficial mutation, that is a lot of beings over a very long period of time, infact the odds of no mutation having ever occured is quite close to zero. As far as the whole sex thing goes, some species are cabable of both asexual and sexual reproduction, it's not a chasm that seperates all life into 2 catagories, some fairly advance plants like strawberries are capable of both.

[MrBadExample]

For the creationists:

1. Why do humans still have a tail bone?

2. Why do some whales have leg bones?

3. Why do we have an appendix?

[onetrackmind]

I know very little about this topic but all i can say is this is by far one of the most interesting threads i've ever read.

[Kayden]

For the creationists:

1. Why do humans still have a tail bone?

2. Why do some whales have leg bones?

3. Why do we have an appendix?

I read in a science magazine that some people have extra muscles in their arms. They are very small from lack of use, but monkeys have the same ones and they use them when climbing trees. Humans have a lot more extra parts than just tailbones. Although, some people are born with nubby little tales.

[Kayden]

Here's a page that has some unanswered questions:

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/questions.php

I should note that this was just after a short search because I just don't have the time for more, and that I feel some of the questions on said page are rather dumb. Some, however, are good questions that haven't been adequately answered by evolutionists.

I'd like a good explanation of how human beings came to be at this point in time, an extremely complicated animal, using evolution patterns that have actually been observed. Does anyone actually believe that evolution in humans has been observed throughout human history? If not, do you realize that such a slow pace would make it pretty unlikely that humans could have evolved the complexities that we show in the time life is thought to have existed?

Here are another couple basic evolutionary questions.

1. If evolution occurs via mutation and then nautral selection, how do recessive genes exist? One mutation making a recessive gene would never make this gene manifest itself. Why would it be selected for?

2. If only one organism has a particular mutation, which obviously would pretty much have to be true given the random nature of such mutations, there is only a partial chance that it would be passed on. As per my question above, have you taken this into account as to how long these mutations would theoretically take to change things? That's roughly doubling the time...not to mention how did something like going from asexual to sexual reproduction work?

I've got plenty more.


I don't think you really understand the full reproductive process. I'll keep it simple and as correct as possible. The genetic patern of any living being is stored in its DNA or chromosomes. When two life forms reproduce, they pool together their chromosomes. The new life form doesn't take these as-is, however. The human genome has, I believe, 13 pairs of chromosomes, 13 from each parent. Parts are swapped between to pairs of chomosomes and changes are made. These changes occur for several reasons. The most important of them, is varience. If you know the effects of inbreeding, then you know why this is important. If the chromosomes where passes on without change, the chances of spreading very harmful recessive traits increases. Recessive traits are exactly what they sound like. Blue eyes are a recessive trait, its possible for two people with brown eyes to have children with blue eyes. Say B is brown and b is blue. Bb would say your parrents had the genes for both brown and blue eyes. They have two sets because this information is encoded on two separate chromosomes (13 pairs= two code sets).
...B..|.b.
B|BB|Bb|
b|Bb|bb|

Don't know what that means? Its simply a vissual representation of a childs chances to get blue eyes. The top Bb would be the choromosomes from one parent and the Bb on the side would be from the other. Since people have 26 chromosomes, 13 pairs, when reproducing, parents only give their children 13, or one of each chromosome from their pairs. Theres a 50/50 chance the parents could give either B or b. If each parent gave B, then the child would be BB, or have brown eyes. If only one gave B, the child would still have brown eyes. This is because blue is a recessive trait, meaning, if there is a chromosome for brown, blue will be overridden. Only if both parents give the b gene will the child have blue eyes. Where did the Bb for the parents come from? Well, maybe the grand parents had blue eyes, that for sure would give the parents at least one b gene. As long as the b gene was passed on, the blue eye trait could remain dormant for generations. You could have 6 generations of brown eyes and then blue.

So... the short answer to your question would be... recessive genes exist because there are also dominant genes. People don't get one gene for everything, they get 2. One from each parent. In actuallity, there are 4 different combinations for every set of chromosomes... (Interesting fact, there are 67,108,864 [4^ 13] possible chromosome pairings for every 'normal' child. There are more if you count single X/Y or XXY, but these occurances are rare and seldom live long.)

As for how to propogate these changes, you're right. The odds of these changes being put forward are slim, unless they are a domoant trait. Then the odds are 50/50 or better. It could be 100% if the carrier was double dominant. Meaning, both chromosome responsible for the given trait are dominant. Given enough time, the trait would spread. If you're thinking along the lines of humans, its very easy to see how evolution would be foolish. A single human lives for about 70 years and can have, on average, 5-10 offspring. Any differences would either be weeded out with medicine, abortion, or other things, like noone desires to procreate with the mutant. Mutations in humans are hard to see because even though we live a long time, we don't have as many offspring. However, if you want proof, how can you tell someone is from Japan or China? Both regions were known for their desire to remain detached. Hell, Japan has only been open to the world for 150 years or so.
If you look at things like insects, or bateria, you can see the course of adatation and evolution occur much quicker.

I think a lot of creationist find evolution so hard to believe because they tend to be rather narrow minded to begin with and fail to look at things beyond a human vantage point.

Humans as we know them have been around for anywhere between 40-10 millions years, depending or your source. Most higher mammals have been how they are now for many millions of years and have changed little. This is because higher mammals live longer and reproduce less. Think about a MMORPG. When do you level faster, as a level 1 or a level 60? Humans are about level 60. We're pretty damn specialized and its going to take a lot of work to upgrade us any more.... However, to get to this point, IE bacteria, fish, lizards, simple mammals, etc, took considerably less time because lower forms live for less time and reproduce several hundred times more than humans. One fish in one year can make thousands of eggs. The chances for change are much greater, and the benefits/costs of changes are readily apparant. The first fish to grow legs could run out of the water, pretty handy deveopment in a time were 99% of all live was aquatic. He'd run to shore, survive and breed His 1000 kids would all run to shore, survive and breed. Their 1,000,000 would survive, run to shore and breed.

The ability of a mutation to perpetuate is all relative to how great an advantage it presents.


If you want a more modern example, a lot of people in Africa have a form of sycle cell anemia. So? Well, anemia is a disease where you have very thin blood and bleed easily. This comes from your bloodcells being weak and rupturing. This sounds like a bad thing until you think about how many blood born illnesses there are in Africa. Ebola and malaria for example. When these diseases infect their already weak bloodcells, they self destruct and prevent the virus from spreading.


Uh... I didn't mean to type that much.

[alonzomourning23]

I don't think you really understand the full reproductive process. I'll keep it simple and as correct as possible. The genetic patern of any living being is stored in its DNA or chromosomes. When two life forms reproduce, they pool together their chromosomes. The new life form doesn't take these as-is, however. The human genome has, I believe, 13 pairs of chromosomes, 13 from each parent. Parts are swapped between to pairs of chomosomes and changes are made. These changes occur for several reasons. The most important of them, is varience. If you know the effects of inbreeding, then you know why this is important. If the chromosomes where passes on without change, the chances of spreading very harmful recessive traits increases. Recessive traits are exactly what they sound like. Blue eyes are a recessive trait, its possible for two people with brown eyes to have children with blue eyes. Say B is brown and b is blue. Bb would say your parrents had the genes for both brown and blue eyes. They have two sets because this information is encoded on two separate chromosomes (13 pairs= two code sets).
...B..|.b.
B|BB|Bb|
b|Bb|bb|

Don't know what that means? Its simply a vissual representation of a childs chances to get blue eyes. The top Bb would be the choromosomes from one parent and the Bb on the side would be from the other. Since people have 26 chromosomes, 13 pairs, when reproducing, parents only give their children 13, or one of each chromosome from their pairs. Theres a 50/50 chance the parents could give either B or b. If each parent gave B, then the child would be BB, or have brown eyes. If only one gave B, the child would still have brown eyes. This is because blue is a recessive trait, meaning, if there is a chromosome for brown, blue will be overridden. Only if both parents give the b gene will the child have blue eyes. Where did the Bb for the parents come from? Well, maybe the grand parents had blue eyes, that for sure would give the parents at least one b gene. As long as the b gene was passed on, the blue eye trait could remain dormant for generations. You could have 6 generations of brown eyes and then blue.

So... the short answer to your question would be... recessive genes exist because there are also dominant genes. People don't get one gene for everything, they get 2. One from each parent. In actuallity, there are 4 different combinations for every set of chromosomes... (Interesting fact, there are 67,108,864 [4^ 13] possible chromosome pairings for every 'normal' child. There are more if you count single X/Y or XXY, but these occurances are rare and seldom live long.)

As for how to propogate these changes, you're right. The odds of these changes being put forward are slim, unless they are a domoant trait. Then the odds are 50/50 or better. It could be 100% if the carrier was double dominant. Meaning, both chromosome responsible for the given trait are dominant. Given enough time, the trait would spread. If you're thinking along the lines of humans, its very easy to see how evolution would be foolish. A single human lives for about 70 years and can have, on average, 5-10 offspring. Any differences would either be weeded out with medicine, abortion, or other things, like noone desires to procreate with the mutant. Mutations in humans are hard to see because even though we live a long time, we don't have as many offspring. However, if you want proof, how can you tell someone is from Japan or China? Both regions were known for their desire to remain detached. Hell, Japan has only been open to the world for 150 years or so.
If you look at things like insects, or bateria, you can see the course of adatation and evolution occur much quicker.

I think a lot of creationist find evolution so hard to believe because they tend to be rather narrow minded to begin with and fail to look at things beyond a human vantage point.

Humans as we know them have been around for anywhere between 40-10 millions years, depending or your source. Most higher mammals have been how they are now for many millions of years and have changed little. This is because higher mammals live longer and reproduce less. Think about a MMORPG. When do you level faster, as a level 1 or a level 60? Humans are about level 60. We're pretty damn specialized and its going to take a lot of work to upgrade us any more.... However, to get to this point, IE bacteria, fish, lizards, simple mammals, etc, took considerably less time because lower forms live for less time and reproduce several hundred times more than humans. One fish in one year can make thousands of eggs. The chances for change are much greater, and the benefits/costs of changes are readily apparant. The first fish to grow legs could run out of the water, pretty handy deveopment in a time were 99% of all live was aquatic. He'd run to shore, survive and breed His 1000 kids would all run to shore, survive and breed. Their 1,000,000 would survive, run to shore and breed.

The ability of a mutation to perpetuate is all relative to how great an advantage it presents.


If you want a more modern example, a lot of people in Africa have a form of sycle cell anemia. So? Well, anemia is a disease where you have very thin blood and bleed easily. This comes from your bloodcells being weak and rupturing. This sounds like a bad thing until you think about how many blood born illnesses there are in Africa. Ebola and malaria for example. When these diseases infect their already weak bloodcells, they self destruct and prevent the virus from spreading.


Uh... I didn't mean to type that much.

You sure you don't live in toronto? My science and technologies professor gave a very similar lecture a few hours ago, down to the blue eye and sickle cell anemria examples (except he used the connection between sickle cell anemia and malaria). Though when you started talking about human evolution you went a bit off. Modern humans haven't been around 10-40 million years, the use of higher/lower animals is questionable (lizards, turtles, birds etc often live very long lives, but their intelligence is dwarfed by a rat, which lives about 1 year in the wild, 2.5-5 in captivity, I assume you are saying the more intelligent ones are higher). Also, humans have evolved very rapidly in comparison to many fish, reptiles etc, but not when compared to bacteria and the like.

[Kayden]

You sure you don't live in toronto? My science and technologies professor gave a very similar lecture a few hours ago, down to the blue eye and sickle cell anemria examples (except he used the connection between sickle cell anemia and malaria). Though when you started talking about human evolution you went a bit off. Modern humans haven't been around 10-40 million years, the use of higher/lower animals is questionable (lizards, turtles, birds etc often live very long lives, but their intelligence is dwarfed by a rat, which lives about 1 year in the wild, 2.5-5 in captivity, I assume you are saying the more intelligent ones are smarter). Also, humans have evolved very rapidly in comparison to many fish, reptiles etc, but not when compared to bacteria and the like.

Thats why I said 10-40 million years... theres a lot of speculation and theory. It seems every month, someone finds a skeleton that totally alters the model for human ancestery. As for Toronto... never been... maybe he's a CAG and ripped me off...

As for what I meant by 'higher' lifeforms... I was refering more along the lines of evolution-wise. Sharks and allogators are two of the most evolved, yet ancient, creatures on the planet. I was speaking more of newts and gekos, simple types like them.

Reguarding the evolution rate of fish and other lizards... perhapse the reason they don't evolve very fast now is because they have hit a plateau. The basic design of a fish is very simple. Maybe they quickly branched out in the first few million years and have just been refining ever since. Almost like martial arts. They've been around for ages, formed off common priciples and have changed little over the years.

[alonzomourning23]

Thats why I said 10-40 million years... theres a lot of speculation and theory. It seems every month, someone finds a skeleton that totally alters the model for human ancestery. As for Toronto... never been... maybe he's a CAG and ripped me off...

As for what I meant by 'higher' lifeforms... I was refering more along the lines of evolution-wise. Sharks and allogators are two of the most evolved, yet ancient, creatures on the planet. I was speaking more of newts and gekos, simple types like them.

Reguarding the evolution rate of fish and other lizards... perhapse the reason they don't evolve very fast now is because they have hit a plateau. The basic design of a fish is very simple. Maybe they quickly branched out in the first few million years and have just been refining ever since. Almost like martial arts. They've been around for ages, formed off common priciples and have changed little over the years.

umm..... I'd be shocked if you could find one scientist who thinks its 10-40 million years. The timeline for the earliest human is usually 2.5-6 million years ago (depending on where you draw the line, on a side not an increasing amount of scientists believe chimps are human, which may push the timeline back a bit more though I don't really know), with modern humans (homosapiens) appearing 100-200k years ago.

You seem to agree with the idea of "the great chain of being", an idea put forth by the catholic church, and adhered to by pre darwin evolutionary theorists. Evolution is more of a tree, with branches going off in random directions.

[Kayden]

umm..... I'd be shocked if you could find one scientist who thinks its 10-40 million years. The timeline for the earliest human is usually 2.5-6 million years ago (depending on where you draw the line, on a side not an increasing amount of scientists believe chimps are human, which may push the timeline back a bit more though I don't really know), with modern humans (homosapiens) appearing 100-200k years ago.

You seem to agree with the idea of "the great chain of being", an idea put forth by the catholic church, and adhered to by pre darwin evolutionary theorists. Evolution is more of a tree, with branches going off in random directions.

Thats what I meant! I couldnt figure out why I wanted to say 100 million.... I was thinking 100-40 thousand xD

I was trying to say more like a tree... but when they first branched off is when they did the most changing, after that point they stayed the same for the most part.

[camoor]

I think some people here are arguing against the theory of evolution for the sole reason they can't stand the thought that their sacred book contains stories that are not meant to be read literally (despite the numerous contradictions therein). The same types impeded scientific advance in the Muslim world of the late tenth century and were persecuting Galileo in the 17th century.

Although Kayden and Alonzo, y'all sure know your biology :lol:

[dmpolska]

Democrats are the only "Wrong-way evolution." ;)

[elprincipe]

Well for your first question if not for evolution how did human and all other life come to be on this planet? Did the Dinosaurs exist? and if they did why can't we find fossels of humans from the same time period? If you wish to claim that evolution is false I would be interested to see what you believe instead.

It's not so much that I don't believe evolution couldn't be true, just more of I'm not nearly convinced that it has been proven beyond any doubt, enough that people call it "fact". Given the myriad of questions surrounding evolution and that some of these questions, I feel, have very weak to nonexistent responses from people claiming the Theory of Evolution to be fact, I don't see why, barring further evidence, I should believe in evolution any more than I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Come back when there is some more convincing evidence. I doubt we'll be close to the answer for some time to come, however.

[zionoverfire]

It's not so much that I don't believe evolution couldn't be true, just more of I'm not nearly convinced that it has been proven beyond any doubt, enough that people call it "fact". Given the myriad of questions surrounding evolution and that some of these questions, I feel, have very weak to nonexistent responses from people claiming the Theory of Evolution to be fact, I don't see why, barring further evidence, I should believe in evolution any more than I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Come back when there is some more convincing evidence. I doubt we'll be close to the answer for some time to come, however.

I see, well like you said the Theory of Evolution is a theory, the problem becomes that most of the really important and neat stuff in science is theory: gravity, quantum mechanics, black holes, evolution, and quite a lot of it would be rather difficult to prove under todays scientific standards. But I must say there is far more evidence that supports the theory of evolution than there is in support of the Loch Ness Monster, but if you don't want to belive in it no one is forcing you to, except the US school system :rofl:.

[camoor]

It's not so much that I don't believe evolution couldn't be true, just more of I'm not nearly convinced that it has been proven beyond any doubt, enough that people call it "fact". Given the myriad of questions surrounding evolution and that some of these questions, I feel, have very weak to nonexistent responses from people claiming the Theory of Evolution to be fact, I don't see why, barring further evidence, I should believe in evolution any more than I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Come back when there is some more convincing evidence. I doubt we'll be close to the answer for some time to come, however.

So you're saying that the theory of evolution has as much validity as the dubious "proofs" of the Loch Ness monster?

No wonder it's so easy for you to believe in magical carpenters, talking snakes, and super apples that can boost your intelligence.

[alonzomourning23]

So you're saying that the theory of evolution has as much validity as the dubious "proofs" of the Loch Ness monster?

No wonder it's so easy for you to believe in magical carpenters, talking snakes, and super apples that can boost your intelligence.

Most of the questions asked by creationists, often due to their lack of education in evolution, are questions that have already been answered. Basically every question that elprincipe's page linked to has been answered, though unless you've study evolution in depth, which probably none of us have, you likely don't know it off the top of your head. Another thing is the argument that "well we find it to be lacking in evidence", so instead they cling to a theory that has no physical evidence, just scriptural evidence. One of the main questions (not so much evolution but origin of the universe) is where everything came from. The problem here is they simply take one step back, while the big bang theory does not explain the absolute beginning of everything, neither does god. Either god or an explosion started everything (or something that hasn't been suggested or accepted as possible yet), but nothing explains what was there to create the environment that an explosion or god occured in.

Though I don't think elprincipe is religious, which makes his opinions odd when compared with the general views of nonreligious people.

[chunk]

Most of the questions asked by creationists, often due to their lack of education in evolution, are questions that have already been answered. Basically every question that elprincipe's page linked to has been answered, though unless you've study evolution in depth, which probably none of us have, you likely don't know it off the top of your head. Another thing is the argument that "well we find it to be lacking in evidence", so instead they cling to a theory that has no physical evidence, just scriptural evidence. One of the main questions (not so much evolution but origin of the universe) is where everything came from. The problem here is they simply take one step back, while the big bang theory does not explain the absolute beginning of everything, neither does god. Either god or an explosion started everything (or something that hasn't been suggested or accepted as possible yet), but nothing explains what was there to create the environment that an explosion or god occured in.

Though I don't think elprincipe is religious, which makes his opinions odd when compared with the general views of nonreligious people.

Just because an answer is given, that doesn't make it satisfactory or scientific. The biological sciences are at least 150 years behind the physical sciences and I would say that evolution is probably the weakest link in the biological sciences.

Controlled experiments are a essential part of science and they are practically nonexistent when it comes to evolution. Seriously, how many of those "answers" are backed by controlled experiments instead of spinning an explanation to fit uncontrolled data. Having a plausible explanation doesn't make it a correct explanation.

I think that part of the problem is that evolution is viewed as some kind of alternative to religious thought, which it is not. Fanatical atheists feel a need a trumpet that evolution has somehow put to rest religious thought, when it is really very lacking in scientific terms.

It is like evolution avoids scientific scrutiny, simply because of its potential as an alternative to religious thought. Opponents rightfully point out that it is lacking in evidence. The same doesn't apply to some alternative theories because they aren't purely scientific and, therefore, don't depend solely on physical evidence. In other words, evolution is a scientific theory, so it must be supported with physical experimental evidence. On the other hand, theories which are not strictly scientific can be supplemented with nonphysical reasoning and evidence.

Now, whether a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific theory is debateable, but the criticism of evolution is certainly not unwarranted. There is a reason why good scientific theories are universally accepted and if evolution wants the same respect then it has to meet the same standard.

I will admit that I am religious, but before you write me off as some kind of religious zealot you should know that I wasn't always religious. At one time I was an atheist and I didn't find evolution to be a sound theory then either. In fact, I know biologists who are atheists who don't buy into the theory of evolution. So don't believe everything your teacher says when they claim that evolution is a theory accepted by all biologists.

[alonzomourning23]

Just because an answer is given, that doesn't make it satisfactory or scientific. The biological sciences are at least 150 years behind the physical sciences and I would say that evolution is probably the weakest link in the biological sciences.

Controlled experiments are a essential part of science and they are practically nonexistent when it comes to evolution. Seriously, how many of those "answers" are backed by controlled experiments instead of spinning an explanation to fit uncontrolled data. Having a plausible explanation doesn't make it a correct explanation.

I think that part of the problem is that evolution is viewed as some kind of alternative to religious thought, which it is not. Fanatical atheists feel a need a trumpet that evolution has somehow put to rest religious thought, when it is really very lacking in scientific terms.

It is like evolution avoids scientific scrutiny, simply because of its potential as an alternative to religious thought. Opponents rightfully point out that it is lacking in evidence. The same doesn't apply to some alternative theories because they aren't purely scientific and, therefore, don't depend solely on physical evidence. In other words, evolution is a scientific theory, so it must be supported with physical experimental evidence. On the other hand, theories which are not strictly scientific can be supplemented with nonphysical reasoning and evidence.

Now, whether a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific theory is debateable, but the criticism of evolution is certainly not unwarranted. There is a reason why good scientific theories are universally accepted and if evolution wants the same respect then it has to meet the same standard.

I will admit that I am religious, but before you write me off as some kind of religious zealot you should know that I wasn't always religious. At one time I was an atheist and I didn't find evolution to be a sound theory then either. In fact, I know biologists who are atheists who don't buy into the theory of evolution. So don't believe everything your teacher says when they claim that evolution is a theory accepted by all biologists.

Examples of controlled evidence, off the top of my head, would include bacteria, fruit flies (taking 1 species, splitting them into 2 populations, ending up with 2 different species that cannot interbreed). Also while not experiments, dogs, cats (even look at a siamese cat in the 50's vs today), rats (domestic ones vs wild ones are relatively obvious, particularly in the varity of domestic colors), ferrets etc. Other examples would be viruses, bacteria, how some european populations developed resistance to bubonic plague (A receptor on cells that plague used to attach to is not there), and as mentioned earlier, african populations (mainly sub saharan) with partial defense against malaria due to mild sickle cell anemia. That defense against malaria is becoming less and less prevalent in african americans whose ancestors had it. Those are all evolution, some completely man controlled (dogs, cats, rats and ferrets), some which are witnessed in labs and throughout the world (bacteria, virus), some leading to major differences (cats, fruit flies, bacteria etc.), some major differences but still the same species (dogs, wolves etc).

My school never really touched on evolution heavily, didn't even mention creationism, but evolution was just mentioned in passing (it was a catholic school though), basically when it was required in biology but that was it. Creationism wasn't even suggested in religion classes. Essentially, creationism doesn't garner much support in MA. Though I would like someone to find me a respectable, non religious (basically so their religious views don't create a conflict of interests, don't really care if they believe in god or are christian or not) biologist who does not believe in evolution.

Evolution, in some rapidly producing animals (I've seen articles showing observed evolution of plants but I don't know anything about them), bacteria and viruses, is proven, in laboratories and the wild it can be proven. Evidence is strong genetically (mitchondrial eve, worst possible name to give her as she wasn't even the first (only the last) who could hold that title), being a good genetic example, where one womens mitochondrial DNA exists in the entire population that exists today, despite being the fact she was one of many female humans in existence at that time), it is strong in fossils as well, as you can see gradual changes in many animals over periods of time, features being closer to the animal that exists currently being newer fossils (compare an australopithicus with a homo sapien, and compare a homo erectus with a homo sapien).

But you missed my point, my point was not the strength of evolution. My point was that people run from one theory (evolution), claiming it lacks evidence, but then run to the hypothesis of creationism (if we're going to be technical that is all it is, since it needs to be well substantiated and have actual evidence to be a theory), which has no evidence whatsoever.


I think that part of the problem is that evolution is viewed as some kind of alternative to religious thought, which it is not. Fanatical atheists feel a need a trumpet that evolution has somehow put to rest religious thought, when it is really very lacking in scientific terms.

That may be true, if only fanatical atheists held it. As it stands, this is a ridiculous statement. Most evolutionists, pre and post darwin (darwin himself being religious when he originally professed evolution, only becoming an atheist later when his daughter died so young)

It is like evolution avoids scientific scrutiny, simply because of its potential as an alternative to religious thought. Opponents rightfully point out that it is lacking in evidence. The same doesn't apply to some alternative theories because they aren't purely scientific and, therefore, don't depend solely on physical evidence. In other words, evolution is a scientific theory, so it must be supported with physical experimental evidence. On the other hand, theories which are not strictly scientific can be supplemented with nonphysical reasoning and evidence.

Only things that can be tested in labs have valid evidence? Ok, guess heliocentrism isn't proven, out goes the earth being round, gravity, knowledge of galaxies etc. None of these can be tested in labs, but there is plenty of evidence.


Now, whether a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific theory is debateable, but the criticism of evolution is certainly not unwarranted. There is a reason why good scientific theories are universally accepted and if evolution wants the same respect then it has to meet the same standard.

It is accepted throughout much of the educated world (in terms of nations as a whole, not just certain sections), america being one of the few holdouts. Even the catholic church has little opposition to it now, with Pope John Paul II comparing the argument over evolution to the one facing Galileo, that evolution is not incompatable with religion. He leaned towards support of evolution, but never (at least publicly) stated agreement or support with either side.

“[N]ew findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypthesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” Pope John Paul II

[chunk]

Examples of controlled evidence, off the top of my head, would include bacteria, fruit flies (taking 1 species, splitting them into 2 populations, ending up with 2 different species that cannot interbreed). Also while not experiments, dogs, cats (even look at a siamese cat in the 50's vs today), rats (domestic ones vs wild ones are relatively obvious, particularly in the varity of domestic colors), ferrets etc. Other examples would be viruses, bacteria, how some european populations developed resistance to bubonic plague (A receptor on cells that plague used to attach to is not there), and as mentioned earlier, african populations (mainly sub saharan) with partial defense against malaria due to mild sickle cell anemia. That defense against malaria is becoming less and less prevalent in african americans whose ancestors had it. Those are all evolution, some completely man controlled (dogs, cats, rats and ferrets), some which are witnessed in labs and throughout the world (bacteria, virus), some leading to major differences (cats, fruit flies, bacteria etc.), some major differences but still the same species (dogs, wolves etc).

I didn't say that there weren't any examples of controlled experiments. But there is hardly any compared to the scope which the theory proports to explain.

You're examples that aren't controlled experiments don't mean anything. All they show is that life changes over time, a process that was recognized long before the theory of evolution. The fact that they are consistent with evolutionary theory is meaningless. It could simply mean that evolutionary theory is nebulous enough to be consistent with almost anything.

You say that they are all due to evolution, but in most cases you have no evidence of that. They could be due to entirely different mechanisms. You don't know because they aren't part of a controlled experiment. That is very basic science, but evolutionary proponents don't seem to care. I have a few guesses as to why they don't care, but I won't bring it up because it will take the focus away from the topic at hand.

My school never really touched on evolution, didn't even mention creationism, but evolution was just mentioned in passing (it was a catholic school though). Creationism doesn't garner much support in MA. Though I would like someone to find me a respectable, non religious (basically so their religious views don't create a conflict of interests, don't really care if they believe in god or are christian or not) biologist who does not believe in evolution.

Whoa. How do religious views create a conflict of interest any more than atheistic views do? No matter how you slice it, ANY preconceived notions create a conflict of interest when it comes to discovery.

In any case, my former boss is the man you are looking for (an atheist biologist who does not believe in evolution).

Evolution, in some rapidly producing animals (I've seen articles showing observed evolution of plants but I don't know anything about them), bacteria and viruses, is proven, in laboratories and the wild it can be proven. Evidence is strong genetically (mitchondrial eve, worst possible name to give her as she wasn't even the first (only the last) who could hold that title), being a good genetic example, where one womens mitochondrial DNA exists in the entire population that exists today, despite being the fact she was one of many female humans in existence at that time), it is strong in fossils as well, as you can see gradual changes in many animals over periods of time, features being closer to the animal that exists currently being newer fossils (compare an australopithicus with a homo sapien, and compare a homo erectus with a homo sapien).

But you missed my point, my point was not the strength of evolution. My point was that people run from one theory (evolution), claiming it lacks evidence, but then run to the hypothesis of creationism (if we're going to be technical that is all it is, since it needs to be well substantiated and have actual evidence to be a theory), which has no evidence whatsoever.

No you're missing the point that creationism is not a scientific theory. So it isn't that people are running from a weak scientific theory to an even weaker one. It is that people are running from a weak scientific theory to a nonscientific theory.

As you said earlier, it's not that there is no evidence for creationism. It is just that the evidence is primarily scriptural and not scientific.

Now if you don't accept scriptural evidence as authoritative then that is fine, but certainly you would agree that, in the extreme, a large body of scriptural evidence (even if interpreted from a purely anthropological viewpoint) is more authoritative than an infinitesimal amount of physical evidence. For example, there isn't really much physical evidence that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, but there is tons of anthropological evidence (most of it coming from religious writings) and, despite the lack of a good scientific theory, it is generally accepted that they were in fact slaves in Egypt.

So then the question is at what point does adding physical evidence become enough to trump scriptural evidence? Well that depends on how strict you are about your science and whether or not you give scriptural evidence more weight than its pure anthropological value. If you are a very strict scientist then you will require a great deal of physical evidence to trump the scriptural evidence. On the other hand, if you are a very loose scientist then you might be convinced by almost anything.

However, the beauty of science is not that a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific one, but that a strong scientific theory can be agreed upon by everyone, regardless of religious or political or personal point of view.

So the way I see it, there is no need for evolutionary proponents to try to push the theory. The only reason they need to is because the theory isn't strong enough to stand on its own two legs. If evolution were as sure as they make it out to be, then it would be irrefutable and everyone would inevitably agree.

Look at heliocentrism. No one came along to save that one from religious boogiemen. Nevertheless, it became an accepted fact. If evolution is a valid scientific theory then it will transcend social biases on its own.

That may be true, if only fanatical atheists held it. As it stands, this is a ridiculous statement.

It doesn't seem so ridiculous to me. Most of the fanatical atheists that I know are more hellbent on destroying religion than anything else. I'm not saying that all atheists are like that, but in my experience the fanatical ones are. Perhaps I just know weird people. How would you describe the fanatical atheists that you know?

Only things that can be tested in labs have valid evidence? Ok, guess heliocentrism isn't proven, out goes the earth being round, gravity, knowledge of galaxies etc. None of these can be tested in labs, but there is plenty of evidence.

It doesn't need to be in a lab to be a controlled experiment. You can walk (or at least sail) around the globe to prove that it is round. You can also look at satellite pictures among other things. Most importantly, you can compare these to a nonround object.

Similarly for heliocentrism and gravity.

However, as of yet no one can evolve a gorilla into a man to prove the origin of homosapiens. Where is the control? Tell me, what does it look like when a homosapien doesn't evolve from a gorilla compared to when it does? Sure you can say what you might imagine it would look like, but you can't test whether your intuition is correct. That isn't science. Science is about controlled experiments.

(I won't touch galaxies except to say that astronomy has its own problems.)

It is accepted throughout much of the educated world (in terms of nations as a whole, not just certain sections), america being one of the few holdouts. Even the catholic church has little opposition to it now, with Pope John Paul II comparing the argument over evolution to the one facing Galileo, that evolution is not incompatable with religion. He leaned towards support of evolution, but never (at least publicly) stated agreement or support with either side.


I wasn't talking about being accepted by the world at large. I was talking about being accepted by me and other likeminded individuals. I don't give a damn what the Pope says or anybody else. The theory is scientifically lacking.

[alonzomourning23]

I didn't say that there weren't any examples of controlled experiments. But there is hardly any compared to the scope which the theory proports to explain.

You're examples that aren't controlled experiments don't mean anything. All they show is that life changes over time, a process that was recognized long before the theory of evolution. The fact that they are consistent with evolutionary theory is meaningless. It could simply mean that evolutionary theory is nebulous enough to be consistent with almost anything.


The fact that life changes over time is not accepted by many creationists (outside of some man made ones such as dogs), and was not accepted before evolution to many on religious grounds. Every species that exists has always existed is what some, and most before evolution became prominent, believed. Fossils called it into question, but all the did was change it from "all that ever existed exists" to "all that exists today has always existed". And if you believe that things change over time, then that is evolution. The idea of evolution is not darwins, and had existed long before, but he made it acceptable.

You say that they are all due to evolution, but in most cases you have no evidence of that. They could be due to entirely different mechanisms. You don't know because they aren't part of a controlled experiment. That is very basic science, but evolutionary proponents don't seem to care. I have a few guesses as to why they don't care, but I won't bring it up because it will take the focus away from the topic at hand.

Again, what evidence do we have of heliocentrism? Of plate tectonics?


Whoa. How do religious views create a conflict of interest any more than atheistic views do? No matter how you slice it, ANY preconceived notions create a conflict of interest when it comes to discovery.

Atheism is not a worldview outside of a lack of god, and I said nonreligious, meaning not devout, likely not atheist. Someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible is clearly at a conflict of interest, someone who doesn't care about the bible one way or another has much less of a conflict.


No you're missing the point that creationism is not a scientific theory. So it isn't that people are running from a weak scientific theory to an even weaker one. It is that people are running from a weak scientific theory to a nonscientific theory.

As you said earlier, it's not that there is no evidence for creationism. It is just that the evidence is primarily scriptural and not scientific.

Now if you don't accept scriptural evidence as authoritative then that is fine, but certainly you would agree that, in the extreme, a large body of scriptural evidence (even if interpreted from a purely anthropological viewpoint) is more authoritative than an infinitesimal amount of physical evidence. For example, there isn't really much physical evidence that the Jews were slaves in Egypt, but there is tons of anthropological evidence (most of it coming from religious writings) and, despite the lack of a good scientific theory, it is generally accepted that they were in fact slaves in Egypt.

So then the question is at what point does adding physical evidence become enough to trump scriptural evidence? Well that depends on how strict you are about your science and whether or not you give scriptural evidence more weight than its pure anthropological value. If you are a very strict scientist then you will require a great deal of physical evidence to trump the scriptural evidence. On the other hand, if you are a very loose scientist then you might be convinced by almost anything.

Evidence always trumps scripture, no matter how small. Scientifically, scriptural evidence is worth zilch. A true scientist, when faced with no scientific evidence but a pile of scriptural evidence, will say there is no basis to the hypothesis. Scripture may provide historians where to look, to see if there is a basis (ie. noah's flood texts originated from a summarian text, but in a less religious, and more realistic, way). Scriptural evidence will never get beyond "well, this place might exists, we really don't know, there isn't evidence to the contrary but there isn't evidence for it" without historical evidence to back it up. Now, what you call scriptural may differ. Biblical texts are rarely taken in their current state, due to the amounts of translations that have occured. Now ancient scriptural texts from the time of the event have much value. Basically, scripture is valuable when referring to history, worthless when referring to biological science.

The israelites as slaves in egypt is accepted among the common population, but very much debated among scholars and archeologists. Though there is much debate over whether the exodus happened, and it almost certainly didn't happen in the way the bible suggests (even if you remove the divine aspects of it), this view is strongly favored by archeologists. Even some liberal rabbi's and jewish scholars have expressed their doubt, stating that there has been almost no evidence found to suggest that it happened in the way the tora states, if at all. Now part of the problem is the way egyptians kept records, they never recorded defeats, only victories, so finding egyptian hyroglyphics is highly unlikely even if they did exist. But still, there isn't really any evidence to suggest the exodus occured. Here's a link about a prominent rabbi who expressed this view http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=8301

However, the beauty of science is not that a weak scientific theory is better than a nonscientific one, but that a strong scientific theory can be agreed upon by everyone, regardless of religious or political or personal point of view.

That's not true, science does not require agreement from the uneducated.

So the way I see it, there is no need for evolutionary proponents to try to push the theory. The only reason they need to is because the theory isn't strong enough to stand on its own two legs. If evolution were as sure as they make it out to be, then it would be irrefutable and everyone would inevitably agree.

Look at heliocentrism. No one came along to save that one from religious boogiemen. Nevertheless, it became an accepted fact. If evolution is a valid scientific theory then it will transcend social biases on its own.

Shhhhhh....... don't tell that to copernicus, kepler, galileo, giordano bruno etc. Also, I also probably shouldn't mention the 25% of americans who think that the sun revolves around the earth (I can post the study if you want, I made a topic in the off topic forum making fun of them)



It doesn't seem so ridiculous to me. Most of the fanatical atheists that I know are more hellbent on destroying religion than anything else. I'm not saying that all atheists are like that, but in my experience the fanatical ones are. Perhaps I just know weird people. How would you describe the fanatical atheists that you know?

I see many more religious people hellbent on destroying atheism. Though I don't like most atheists, they often tend to be rebellious young idiots whose beliefs have little duration. Most older atheists are not like that. I have just as little respect for religious fanatics. They shut their eye to anything that could possibly disagree with them, and lash out just as violently at any supposedly "dangerous" knowledge. That being said, I was friends with, and very much respected, a very devout evangelical. But, he also believed in a sharp distinction between science/religion, and church/state. His ideas of how the secular should be run were as liberal as mine (pro gay marriage, evolution, no church interference in government, no bible texts in courts etc.), but his views on religion was very conservative. That being said, atheists make up a very small portion of evolution supporters, and this has no basis in this argument.


It doesn't need to be in a lab to be a controlled experiment. You can walk (or at least sail) around the globe to prove that it is round. You can also look at satellite pictures among other things. Most importantly, you can compare these to a nonround object.

Similarly for heliocentrism and gravity.

However, as of yet no one can evolve a gorilla into a man to prove the origin of homosapiens. Where is the control? Tell me, what does it look like when a homosapien doesn't evolve from a gorilla compared to when it does? Sure you can say what you might imagine it would look like, but you can't test whether your intuition is correct. That isn't science. Science is about controlled experiments.

Homosapiens and gorillas are two separate beings, that branched apart about 5-7 million years ago. The species that they branched off into have long gone extinct, they are descendents of them.

I wasn't talking about being accepted by the world at large. I was talking about being accepted by me and other likeminded individuals. I don't give a damn what the Pope says or anybody else. The theory is scientifically lacking.

There aren't many theories with more evidence than evolution, which is why in biology the agreement is nearly universal. There may be arguments as in how or why, but there is little in whether evolution occurs. My opinion? Most of creationist supporters are reading a book, they're going to keep quoting that book no matter what evidence is presented. As long as they stay locked up in their own world, and realize in a secular state religion cannot be taught in school (which is what creationism is, especially in its current state) I don't care. Elprincipes link to the creationist website earlier is a perfect example, the questions asked in it are due to ignorance, science had provided answer to the vast majority. He didn't even attack the evidence, the guy had no idea it existed, or simply didn't understand what it was (ie. he thought genes were blended, he didn't understand dominant and recessive). You want to provide scientific evidence fine, I'll listen to you. These people don't. Not to make assumptions about you, but you don't see to even fully understand how evolution is supposed to work, but I can't be certain. Just going on a few odd comments. You do seem to really a lot of what the general population things, and common wisdom, a very poor way to approach knowledge.

Here's an idea. I've said why there is plenty of evidence to back it up, you keep insisting it is lacking. State how it is lacking, poke as many hole into it as you can. As it is, all you are saying is unless we can actually witness it (and we can in fast reproducing species) there isn't evidence to support it. You keep saying theories and evidence aren't enough, theories I'd agree with but evidence not being enough I find to be grasping at straws. With your logic anything we can't physically witness (plate tectonics we can't witness) does not have valid scientific support. But again, evolution in quickly reproducing species is witnessed.

[chunk]

The fact that life changes over time is not accepted by many creationists (outside of some man made ones such as dogs), and was not accepted before evolution to many on religious grounds. Every species that exists has always existed is what some, and most before evolution became prominent, believed. Fossils called it into question, but all the did was change it from "all that ever existed exists" to "all that exists today has always existed". And if you believe that things change over time, then that is evolution. The idea of evolution is not darwins, and had existed long before, but he made it acceptable.

I think we are getting into the problem that the word "evolution" means too many different things. Yes of course evolution in the simplest sense means change, but the theory of the origin of species put initially put forth by darwin is what is commonly referred to with the term "evolution".

I think you would be surprised to find that life changing over time is accepted by many of them. However, life can change over time without new species originating. Many of them believe that life changed, but new species did not originate. Now of course, things get slippery because how do you define a species.

In any case, there is very little in the way of controlled experiments that proves anything about how the current species of earth originated.

What has been shown is small changes that satisfy a few technical definitions for species. However, there is very little evidence (in terms of controlled experiments) to show that the same mechanisms could account for the variety of life on earth.

There is a huge difference between showing that two fruitflies are incapable of breeding and showing that amebas could produce men. One has scientific support, the other is pure speculation.


Again, what evidence do we have of heliocentrism?


Well it depends what you mean by heliocentrism. Certainly we understand the way our solar system works. We sent a probe to mars and brought back rocks. We sent another probe into space. We can observe the difference. It is a controlled experiment.

Now if you mean how do we know that the sun is the center of the solarsystem and not the earth then I would say it is all in the definition of center. We have demonstrated with controlled experiments that considering the sun at the center is a noninertial frame of reference. So if by center you mean noninertial frame of reference, then yes we have have controlled experiments to prove it (see space travel above).

Atheism is not a worldview outside of a lack of god, and I said nonreligious, meaning not devout, likely not atheist. Someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible is clearly at a conflict of interest, someone who doesn't care about the bible one way or another has much less of a conflict.

Agreed, but everybody cares about something. I would believe someone who admits bias and promises to try to be impartial over someone who claims to be completely disinterested in everything.

Evidence always trumps scripture, no matter how small. Scientifically, scriptural evidence is worth zilch. A true scientist, when faced with no scientific evidence but a pile of scriptural evidence, will say there is no basis to the hypothesis. Scripture may provide historians where to look, to see if there is a basis (ie. noah's flood texts originated from a summarian text, but in a less religious, and more realistic, way). Now, what you call scriptural may differ. Biblical texts are rarely taken in their current state, due to the amounts of translations that have occured. Now ancient scriptural texts from the time of the event have much value. Basically, scripture is valuable when referring to history, worthless when referring to biological science.

Well in the context of science of course all nonscientific evidence is meaningless. But in the search for truth science is not the whole picture.

In other words, it may be worthless in the context of biological science, but biological science cannot explain everything. So at times you must abandon biological science for something else. In these situations, something that was worthless in the context of biological science may now be useful.

I am basically saying that biological science is doing a very poor job of explaining how species originated. So it is reasonable to turn to something else.


That's not true, science does not require agreement from the uneducated.


I'm not saying that science requires agreement from anyone. What I am saying is that science is useful because it boils down to empirical experience which is irrefutable. If it were not for this property then science would not be as respected as it is (and in my opinion rightfully so).

So although science doesn't require agreement from the uneducated, its primary importance is because it commands agreement from the uneducated (among others).


Shhhhhh....... don't tell that to copernicus, kepler, galileo, Giordano Bruno etc.

That is my point entirely. Regardless of wordwide opposition and persecution (sometimes ending in execution) from the most powerful institution on earth the theories still became accepted.

If the church, at the apex of its power, along with popular opposition couldn't stop those scientific theories then it certainly can't stop a good scientific theory today. The only thing that evolutionary proponents have to fear is that evolutionary theory isn't up to snuff. Ironically it is survival of the fittest for scientific theories. :)

I don't like most atheists, they often tend to be rebellious young idiots whose beliefs have little duration. Most older atheists are not like that. I have just as little respect for religious fanatics. They shut their eye to anything that could possibly disagree with them, and lash out just as violently at any supposedly "dangerous" knowledge. That being said, I was friends with, and very much respected, a very devout evangelical. But, he also believed in a sharp distinction between science/religion, and church/state. His ideas of how the secular should be run were as liberal as mine (pro gay marriage, evolution, no church interference in government, no bible texts in courts etc.), but his views on religion was very conservative. That being said, atheists make up a very small portion of evolution supporters, and this has no basis in this argument.

I agree entirely and I think I probably believe similarly to your friend. However, regarding atheists, I feel that they may be partially responsible for the unwarranted promotion of evolutionary theory. I could be wrong, but I think it is at least worth discussing which is why I brought it up.

Homosapiens and gorillas are two separate beings, that branched apart about 5-7 million years ago. The species that they branched off into have long gone extinct, they are descendents of them.

Your missing the point. Look you are illustrating my point. You can't conduct a controlled experiment to determine whether or not you said is even true.

Convincing scientific evidence would be this:
1.a. Start with the common ancestor between men and gorillas.
2.a. Evolve gorillas.
1.b. Start with the common ancestor between men and gorillas.
2.b. Evolve men.

This is a controlled experiment that proves that men and gorillas can evolve from the same species. This is how they do it in physics, this is how they do it in chemistry, and this is how they do it in other branches of biology. This is how science is done. Anything else is not science.

If you can't do a controlled experiment like this then you can't state scientifically that gorillas and men evolved from the same species. You can conjecture that it might be true, but scientifically you don't have any evidence. And I'm not even considering the fact that just because something can happen that doesn't mean that it does happen.

There aren't many theories with more evidence than evolution, which is why in biology the agreement is nearly universal. There may be arguments as in how or why, but there is little in whether evolution occurs. My opinion? Most of creationist supporters are reading a book, they're going to keep quoting that book no matter what evidence is presented. As long as they stay locked up in their own world I don't care. Elprincipes link to the creationist website earlier is a perfect example, the questions asked in it are due to ignorance, science had provided answer to the vast majority. He didn't even attack the evidence, the guy had no idea it existed, or simply didn't understand what it was (ie. he thought genes were blended, he didn't understand dominant and recessive). You want to provide scientific evidence fine, I'll listen to you. These people don't. Not to make assumptions about you, but you don't see to even fully understand how evolution is supposed to work, but I can't be certain. Just going on a few odd comments.

Here's an idea. I've said why there is plenty of evidence to back it up, you keep insisting it is lacking. State how it is lacking, poke as many hole into it as you can. As it is, all you are saying is unless we can actually witness it (and we can in fast reproducing species) there isn't evidence to support it. You keep saying theories and evidence aren't enough, theories I'd agree with but evidence not being enough I find to be grasping at straws. With your logic anything we can't physically witness (plate tectonics we can't witness) does not have valid scientific support. But again, evolution in quickly reproducing species is witnessed.

Maybe there aren't many biological theories with more evidence than evolution, but it certainly isn't the case with science at large.

I'm not saying that I have any evidence, but I don't feel that you have presented any scientific evidence at all regarding the origin of species.

Simple organisms can evolve into new species. So what? How do we know that this can occur in large organisms?

We know that large organisms have mechanisms for stopping cancer. How do we know that they don't have similar mechanisms for stopping the mutations which supposedly lead to evolution?

Just a few weeks ago I was reading about a plant that is able to revert back to the genes of its grandparents, even though the genes of the parents (both DNA and RNA) had completely mutated. How do we know that large organisms don't have similar mechanisms?

It should be obvious that anything we can't physically witness doesn't have scientific support. That is what science is. Here is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Evolutionary theory definitely does #1 and #2. To a very limited extent it does #3. However, the predictions of other phenomena in the case of evolution are primarily qualitative and not quantitative. Forget about #4, to the best of my knowledge this has only been performed in a handful of cases in very limited circumstances.

Prediction is the primary test for a scientific theory and evolution doesn't make any predictions when it comes to large organisms. Everything is chalked up to environmental pressures so that no matter what the results are it is always assumed that the environmental pressures are whatever would have lead to those results.

The evidence that you present isn't really evidence. It is terribly easy to fit a wrong hypothesis to data that you already have. Especially when you can pick and choose which fossils are "meaningful", effectively throwing out all the data points that don't agree with your theory.

I concede that evolutionary scientists have a tougher job than scientists in other fields because if evolution does occur as they claim then it occurs very slowly. However, that doesn't give them a free pass.

What if gravity pulled at 9.8*10^-6 meters/second. Would Newton be off the hook when it came to experiments? Should we just take his word for it? Well we could just take his word, but then it wouldn't be science. Also, more than likely he probably wouldn't have paid attention long enough to develop a good theory and probably would have came up with something much more simplistic and erroneous.

Such is the case when it comes to evolution. They don't do experiments because experiments are too difficult, but that doesn't get them off the hook. On the contrary the fact that the experiments are hard to do makes the theory much more suspicious.

Don't get me wrong. I accept the evidence that there is. However, the evidence is meager and the claims are grandiose.

[alonzomourning23]

Before I respond, just want to point out that I added a bit to my post about the exodus (you responded while I was typing):

The israelites as slaves in egypt is accepted among the common population, but very much debated among scholars and archeologists. Though there is much debate over whether the exodus happened, and it almost certainly didn't happen in the way the bible suggests (even if you remove the divine aspects of it), this view is strongly favored by archeologists. Even some liberal rabbi's and jewish scholars have expressed their doubt, stating that there has been almost no evidence found to suggest that it happened in the way the tora states, if at all. Now part of the problem is the way egyptians kept records, they never recorded defeats, only victories, so finding egyptian hyroglyphics is highly unlikely even if they did exist. But still, there isn't really any evidence to suggest the exodus occured. Here's a link about a prominent rabbi who expressed this view http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=8301

Also, 25% of the american population believes the sun circles the earth.

[chunk]

Before I respond, just want to point out that I added a bit to my post about the exodus (you responded while I was typing):

The israelites as slaves in egypt is accepted among the common population, but very much debated among scholars and archeologists. Though there is much debate over whether the exodus happened, and it almost certainly didn't happen in the way the bible suggests (even if you remove the divine aspects of it), this view is strongly favored by archeologists. Even some liberal rabbi's and jewish scholars have expressed their doubt, stating that there has been almost no evidence found to suggest that it happened in the way the tora states, if at all. Now part of the problem is the way egyptians kept records, they never recorded defeats, only victories, so finding egyptian hyroglyphics is highly unlikely even if they did exist. But still, there isn't really any evidence to suggest the exodus occured. Here's a link about a prominent rabbi who expressed this view http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=8301

Also, 25% of the american population believes the sun circles the earth.

According to the article the only thing disputed is how many Israelites there were. This is no surprise to me as ancient number keeping was very approximate at times (especially when dealing with large numbers).

I would have to look into it, but if I had to guess I would say that the reason it is debated is probably because there is a lack of physical evidence, rather than there being evidence to the contrary. As I said, being that there isn't much physical evidence, most reasonable people would believe the written account.

In any case, it was just an example and I think you are veering off topic by nitpicking it. If you don't like it we can use another one. There isn't much physical evidence regarding the existence of jesus, but there are a lot of written accounts in the form of religious writings. So science is basically pretty silent regarding jesus. However, that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence.

Regarding the 25% of the american population. First of all, a poll like that really tells you more about the way it was worded than what the people actually believe. I'm sure if they worded the same thing differently they could have pushed that statistic anywhere from 0% to 100%.

Second of all. The sun does circle the earth. If you fix the center of your coordinate system at the earth then you will find that the position of the sun traces a circular shape. Of course this is not an inertia frame of reference, but that is a physical technicality which is probably beyond most people. Which celestial body circles which is really a matter of semantics.

[alonzomourning23]

What has been shown is small changes that satisfy a few technical definitions for species. However, there is very little evidence (in terms of controlled experiments) to show that the same mechanisms could account for the variety of life on earth.

There is a huge difference between showing that two fruitflies are incapable of breeding and showing that amebas could produce men. One has scientific support, the other is pure speculation.

Well, the similarity in embryos (not from amoebas of course, but other animals) to humans, and the fact that 60% of our DNA is shared by bacteria is evidence. Fossils also provide evidence of evolution. I think you have unrealistic expectations, if we only accepted what could be 100% absolutely observed, pretty much everything we know about ours, and the earths, past wouldn't be accepted.



Agreed, but everybody cares about something. I would believe someone who admits bias and promises to try to be impartial over someone who claims to be completely disinterested in everything.

No on is ever truly impartial. But a devoutly religious person is much more likely to look to scripture and their beliefs about god when doing scientific research, which is not something you want. Their religious views directly conflict, which is the problem.



Well in the context of science of course all nonscientific evidence is meaningless. But in the search for truth science is not the whole picture.

In other words, it may be worthless in the context of biological science, but biological science cannot explain everything. So at times you must abandon biological science for something else. In these situations, something that was worthless in the context of biological science may now be useful.

I am basically saying that biological science is doing a very poor job of explaining how species originated. So it is reasonable to turn to something else.

See, from my research there is massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution, and unless you start showing me the holes then I'm not going to think the suggestion otherwise is even reasonable.

But if science cannot explain it at the moment, then I simply say there is no valid explanation. Everything there is to know exists under science, obviously human science will never come even close to knowing that much, but everything is of the natural world, and can therefore be classified as science. The only truths in the bible, as far as I'm concerned, reflect human societies, beliefs etc. there is nothing that goes beyond human literature and societies that speak to truth in the bible. Since humans are themselves of the natural world (using only natural vs supernatural to describe things), even the bible is of the natural world.



I'm not saying that science requires agreement from anyone. What I am saying is that science is useful because it boils down to empirical experience which is irrefutable. If it were not for this property then science would not be as respected as it is (and in my opinion rightfully so).

So although science doesn't require agreement from the uneducated, its primary importance is because it commands agreement from the uneducated (among others).

The beliefs of the undeducated are important in how society is run, but utterly worthless when the validity of their beliefs is being debated. It should not even enter into discussion, unless it is a debate on sociology, psychology or related fields. But most of science is not irrefutable, but in this case most of the opposition is coming from outside the biological sciences and archeological community. If it were not for evolutions religious dilemmas, the debate on evolution would like be on how it occured, and not if it occured.


That is my point entirely. Regardless of wordwide opposition and persecution (sometimes ending in execution) from the most powerful institution on earth the theories still became accepted.

If the church, at the apex of its power, along with popular opposition couldn't stop those scientific theories then it certainly can't stop a good scientific theory today. The only thing that evolutionary proponents have to fear is that evolutionary theory isn't up to snuff. Ironically it is survival of the fittest for scientific theories. :)

Ok, lets look at the timeline though. Give the same timeline for evolution that heliocentrism had (once suggested by copernicus, as it had been suggested before), we are only at galileo, and we know how well his thinking fared, especially since it went against human perception and common sense. The earth being round was well accepted among the educated community in the 16th century and long before, go back to aristotle, and probably farther back (guessing here, I know it goes at least back to aristotle), and even aristotle knew the earth was round. But some of the religious community and much of the uneducated did not believe that, even during the time of columbus, about 2000 years later. Historically, ideas of religious importance have not been accepted among the public in the amount of time evolution has been around as an accepted theory among scholars. Again, evolution, moreso than heliocentrism/geocentrism, goes directly towards the nature and value of humans, nothing else has done that so clearly.

I agree entirely and I think I probably believe similarly to your friend. However, regarding atheists, I feel that they may be partially responsible for the unwarranted promotion of evolutionary theory. I could be wrong, but I think it is at least worth discussing which is why I brought it up.

The influence of atheists on anything is overstated. They represent such a small percentage of the population that their influence is negligable. Again, Darwin is claimed as an atheist, but he strongly believed in god when his Ideas of natural selection (he was the first evolutionist to really put forth a method of evolution that was accepted to any extent) were published. Afterwards, he actually became less of a darwinists in the sense he started having doubts over natural selection, that was when he was an atheist, and that is not the darwin that has influence today.


Your missing the point. Look you are illustrating my point. You can't conduct a controlled experiment to determine whether or not you said is even true.

Convincing scientific evidence would be this:
1.a. Start with the common ancestor between men and gorillas.
2.a. Evolve gorillas.
1.b. Start with the common ancestor between men and gorillas.
2.b. Evolve men.

This is a controlled experiment that proves that men and gorillas can evolve from the same species. This is how they do it in physics, this is how they do it in chemistry, and this is how they do it in other branches of biology. This is how science is done. Anything else is not science.

If you can't do a controlled experiment like this then you can't state scientifically that gorillas and men evolved from the same species. You can conjecture that it might be true, but scientifically you don't have any evidence. And I'm not even considering the fact that just because something can happen that doesn't mean that it does happen.

DNA is 98% similar to chimpanzees is a major one, archeological evidence another. But the level of evidence you want is available for nothing that has occured in the past. A lot can be said for wanting strong evidence, but you are holding up a standard that very little in science meets. We know nothing about our and the earths past if we hold to your standard, and we know nothing about anything that isn't directly observable.



Simple organisms can evolve into new species. So what? How do we know that this can occur in large organisms?

We know that large organisms have mechanisms for stopping cancer. How do we know that they don't have similar mechanisms for stopping the mutations which supposedly lead to evolution?

I think you're confused, besides the complexity there is no line between humans and flies. Obviously intelligence and the like, but they're both animals and subject to the same evolutionary forces, except it simply takes longer in humans. Those mutations are one of the reasons why when a disease enters a population that population will slowly develop resistance (think native americans), europeans did that with bubonic plague (a mutation only found in europeans), sub saharan africans have done that with sickle cell anemia and malaria. To develop a mechanism to stop genetic mutations (impossible) would require a genetic mutation in the first place. Genetic mutations occur, and are observable, in humans to this day, and are passed down from generation to generation. That's also why some people are more susceptable to certain genetic diseases

Genetic mutation causes rare form of parkinsons (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/10/28/parkinsons.php)
How genetic mutations cause color blindness (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/05/28/optics.php)
Genetic mutations cause lung cancer drug to work in some, not others (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/04/29/lung_cancer_drug.php)

You probably should look through other parts of the site too, those are all taken from the genomenewsnetwork.com. Unfortunately I'm not a geneticist, I may know the results of some important studies and the basics (such as dominant/ recessive), but any real argument as to how things occur results in me spending half my time on google.

Just a few weeks ago I was reading about a plant that is able to revert back to the genes of its grandparents, even though the genes of the parents (both DNA and RNA) had completely mutated. How do we know that large organisms don't have similar mechanisms?

Both my parents could have blue eyes, but the genes for brown eyes can still be carried from a few generations back, resulting in me recieving brown eyes (assuming the dominant/recessive genes match up)

It should be obvious that anything we can't physically witness doesn't have scientific support. That is what science is. Here is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Evolution has been proven in less complex species, there is plenty that is accepted as fact that lacks the fourth due to time constraints, distance, and ethical concerns. Again, if it was any other theory with this amount of evidence the debate wouldn't be here, and when the debate comes primarily from outside the scientific community that is problematic for your side.


The evidence that you present isn't really evidence. It is terribly easy to fit a wrong hypothesis to data that you already have. Especially when you can pick and choose which fossils are "meaningful", effectively throwing out all the data points that don't agree with your theory.

Well, evolution is not a hypothesis in any sense of the word, it is a theory. Creationism is the hypothesis. Evolution has no goal, no purpose besides to change to improve the chance of reproduction. Some lines lead nowhere, other continue to evolve, therefore some fossils are not meaningful in the sense they are not ancestors of what exists today (though that doesn't mean they aren't meaningful for other reasons, they still exert influence on the evolution of other species whose lines continue on).

I concede that evolutionary scientists have a tougher job than scientists in other fields because if evolution does occur as they claim then it occurs very slowly. However, that doesn't give them a free pass.

What if gravity pulled at 9.8*10^-6 meters/second. Would Newton be off the hook when it came to experiments? Should we just take his word for it? Well we could just take his word, but then it wouldn't be science. Also, more than likely he probably wouldn't have paid attention long enough to develop a good theory and probably would have came up with something much more simplistic and erroneous.

Such is the case when it comes to evolution. They don't do experiments because experiments are too difficult, but that doesn't get them off the hook. On the contrary the fact that the experiments are hard to do makes the theory much more suspicious.

Don't get me wrong. I accept the evidence that there is. However, the evidence is meager and the claims are grandiose.
There