Creationism v. Evolution - There's STILL a Debate??

[quote name='JSweeney']:-({|=

VS topics don't tend to get locked if they actually **GASP** stay on topic.
[/QUOTE]

It was on topic, but hey it was yours so that was your right.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']I'm sorry, but the Hitchhiker's Guide, as interesting a read as it is, has no bearing on anything. It is not a work of science, or theology, nor philosophy.
Even mentioning it in the context of the argument doesn't add anything.[/QUOTE]

It was more a comment on how the discovery of extraterrestrial life would/will severely impact the worldview of the traditional creationist.
 
[quote name='atreyue']It was more a comment on how the discovery of extraterrestrial life would/will severely impact the worldview of the traditional creationist.[/QUOTE]

Don't take it personaly he's been like this for weeks. I saw you point and it was enjoyable to read something in this thread that was not beaten to death in last weekend's creationist argument.
 
[quote name='SatchmoKhan']I am finishing my Ph.D. in evolutionary biology and I can tell you first hand that there is essentially no debate on this matter in the scientific community. We do argue over details of the mechanics of how it works, but no legitimate biologists argue that evolution is not a fact.[/QUOTE]

You mean there is no debate in the biological community. Is that because biologists have low standards for "facts" or because evolution is a strong theory?

I mean, I'm sure there is essentially no debate over the existence of god in the religious community either, but that doesn't make the existence of god a fact.
 
[quote name='chunk']You mean there is no debate in the biological community. Is that because biologists have low standards for "facts" or because evolution is a strong theory?

I mean, I'm sure there is essentially no debate over the existence of god in the religious community either, but that doesn't make the existence of god a fact.[/QUOTE]

The difference is the religious community is not based on fact, but rather faith.
 
[quote name='chunk']You mean there is no debate in the biological community. Is that because biologists have low standards for "facts" or because evolution is a strong theory?

I mean, I'm sure there is essentially no debate over the existence of god in the religious community either, but that doesn't make the existence of god a fact.[/QUOTE]

:whistle2:k

I'm pretty sure you mean christian religious community.

Even within this community the conception of god varies so greatly that one sect's christian god is not recognizeable with another's (IE deist god vs compassionate conservative god vs liberal jew Jesus god...)

The other difference is that biologists have a proven track record of producing results from their scientific theories. Christian orthodoxies have a proven track record of being on the wrong side of practically every significant scientific discovery within the past 2000 years.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']The difference is the religious community is not based on fact, but rather faith.[/QUOTE]

That is exactly what I was trying to point out. So the question is how big is that difference? In other words, to what extent does the biological community base its studies on fact because it is by this measure that we can interpret the degree of factual significance implied by the lack of debate.
 
[quote name='chunk']That is exactly what I was trying to point out. So the question is how big is that difference? In other words, to what extent does the biological community base its studies on fact because it is by this measure that we can interpret the degree of factual significance implied by the lack of debate.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "completely".
 
[quote name='camoor']:whistle2:k

I'm pretty sure you mean christian religious community.

Even within this community the conception of god varies so greatly that one sect's christian god is not recognizeable with another's (IE deist god vs compassionate conservative god vs liberal jew Jesus god...)

The other difference is that biologists have a proven track record of producing results from their scientific theories. Christian orthodoxies have a proven track record of being on the wrong side of practically every significant scientific discovery within the past 2000 years.[/QUOTE]

No I meant the religious community at large. The reason I gave that example is because the disagreement over the existence of god in the religious community is probably comparable to the disagreement over the existence of evolution in the biological community. The basic concepts are pretty well agreed upon in both communities, but, as you point out, the details are in enough disagreement to get differing results. Perhaps the god issue is a little more diverse, but it is the closest example I can think of that provides a fairly pure reference of low factual standards (at least in terms of science). In any case, I was just giving a bearing by which SatchmoKhan could measure the factual standards of the biological community.

It is obviously expected that religious groups don't have anything to boast of in terms of science. Likewise, the various sciences don't have any contributions to theology either.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what the track record of results are from evolutionary biology. I wonder how these results compare with those of the religious community (or even the christian community).

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "completely".[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a crude estimate. You mean to say that there is no fact that is stronger than what is typically accepted in the biological community? That all things accepted as fact in the biological community are the "best" facts in existence? I'm curious if SatchmoKhan would agree, since he apparently has his phd in evolutionary biology.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "completely".[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a crude estimate. You mean to say that there is no fact that is stronger than what is typically accepted in the biological community? That all things accepted as fact in the biological community are the "best" facts in existence? I'm curious if SatchmoKhan would agree.
 
[quote name='chunk']It is obviously expected that religious groups don't have anything to boast of in terms of science. Likewise, the various sciences don't have any contributions to theology either.[/QUOTE]

Of course not. There's no place for facts or truth in religion. Just like there's no place for baseless beliefs and blind faith in science.
 
[quote name='chunk']No I meant the religious community at large. The reason I gave that example is because the disagreement over the existence of god in the religious community is probably comparable to the disagreement over the existence of evolution in the biological community.[/QUOTE]

How so? Why are they comparable? I don't think so, and I think you should do a better job convincing me that they are equal.

[quote name='chunk']The basic concepts are pretty well agreed upon in both communities, but, as you point out, the details are in enough disagreement to get differing results.[/QUOTE]

What are the basic concepts? Can you prove that they are well agreed upon? Keep in mind that one's status as "religious" does not necessitate a belief in creationism. Who are the contrary thinkers in this case? Biological researchers? Any non-creationists, regardless of intellectual caliber? All secular beings? I'm not sure of the population at hand here (which makes it all the more difficult to believe that the basic concepts are agreed upon).

[quote name='chunk']Perhaps the god issue is a little more diverse, but it is the closest example I can think of that provides a fairly pure reference of low factual standards (at least in terms of science). In any case, I was just giving a bearing by which SatchmoKhan could measure the factual standards of the biological community.

It is obviously expected that religious groups don't have anything to boast of in terms of science.[/QUOTE]

Empirical research capabilities aren't the exclusive domain of anyone; why don't proponents of creationism even try?

[quote name='chunk']Likewise, the various sciences don't have any contributions to theology either.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what the track record of results are from evolutionary biology. I wonder how these results compare with those of the religious community (or even the christian community).[/QUOTE]

What track record? Is this more empty hyperbole? Please elaborate.

myke.
 
[quote name='chunk']Likewise, the various sciences don't have any contributions to theology either.[/QUOTE]

Hi, I'm Johann Gutenberg, inventor of the printing press. I guess I could be considered a scientist of sorts, certainly a mechanical engineer. And I contributed nothing to theology. The reason anyone can read scripture for themselves instead of having to take the church's word for it? Oh go on; I'm sure that's not that big a deal.
 
Chunk, I don't understand how you can even compare the scientific and religious communities. Simply being a community does not mean that what you think or how you arrive at those thoughts is valid. Whether or not you like it, evolution is a fact. The (intelligent) discussion is about whether it's the only truth or if there's a higher principle guiding the law of evolution. Your statements about the religious community's beliefs are baseless within the context of this discussion. Much like the comic community's conclusions on who would win in a fight between the Hulk and Superman, no matter how heartfelt those convictions would be. Neither have any real relation to reality.
 
I've only read the first page so far, but I'll simply say this:

I believe in both creationism and evolution. I believe that God created the world and life itself, but there is no doubt in my mind that living things have constantly been evolving since they were created.

I was raised attending a Christian school and church, so maybe that has something to do with it, but I no longer affiliate myself with any one religion. I have felt the presence of God (not necessarily Christianity's version of God, just God) and I know he... it... something is out there.

It comes down to this- Those who believe need no convincing. Those who do not, no amount of convincing can change their minds.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How so? Why are they comparable? I don't think so, and I think you should do a better job convincing me that they are equal.

What are the basic concepts? Can you prove that they are well agreed upon? Keep in mind that one's status as "religious" does not necessitate a belief in creationism. Who are the contrary thinkers in this case? Biological researchers? Any non-creationists, regardless of intellectual caliber? All secular beings? I'm not sure of the population at hand here (which makes it all the more difficult to believe that the basic concepts are agreed upon).[/quote]

If you don't think so then fine. Maybe they aren't. It was just an example meant to make it easier to understand what I'm talking about because some people in this forum keep complaining that my arguments "don't make any sense". It doesn't matter whether or not they are equal.

To give an analogy, it is as if I asked the question, "Is that car red, like that rock?". You see, even if the rock isn't red the question still stands. Likewise, the comparison between various religions on the issue of god and various biologists on the issue of evolution doesn't really matter because the variation among religions on the issue of god isn't essential to what I was asking. The essence of what I was asking is "how does agreement among the biological community on evolutionary theory relate to its factualness?"

That being said, I won't do a better job of convincing you they are equal because it isn't necessary for the topic at hand and it would just create a tangent. However, if you like I will go into a full explanation regarding why their equivalence isn't necessary (just ask). Boy you sure know how to miss a point.

[quote name='mykevermin']Empirical research capabilities aren't the exclusive domain of anyone; why don't proponents of creationism even try?[/quote]

Why are you asking me why creationist proponents do what they do? How would I know? Its like me asking you why clowns wear red noses.

[quote name='mykevermin']What track record? Is this more empty hyperbole? Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about the tremendous influence religion has had on society at large. For better or worse I'm sure you would agree that religion has had a major impact on society as we know it. Don't you agree?

I mean, if you think about some of the most significant political events in history you find that many, if not most, have religious underpinnings/impetus (ex. the holocaust, founding of usa, the way europe is divided into nations, etc.).

So I would say that religion certainly has a track record for making some kind of impact and I'm curious as to what kind of impact evolutionary theory has had on anything.

[quote name='jmcc']Hi, I'm Johann Gutenberg, inventor of the printing press. I guess I could be considered a scientist of sorts, certainly a mechanical engineer. And I contributed nothing to theology. The reason anyone can read scripture for themselves instead of having to take the church's word for it? Oh go on; I'm sure that's not that big a deal.[/QUOTE]

That is indirect. If you want to talk about indirect effects then the religious community has plenty of contributions to science. What do you think motivated Isaac Newton and Leonard Euler to study science? I'll give you a hint, it ends with heology.

Or if you want to go further back then what about the cult of the Pythagoreans? Certainly their contributions to science are tremendous.

[quote name='atreyue']Chunk, I don't understand how you can even compare the scientific and religious communities. Simply being a community does not mean that what you think or how you arrive at those thoughts is valid.[/quote]

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

[quote name='atreyue']Whether or not you like it, evolution is a fact. The (intelligent) discussion is about whether it's the only truth or if there's a higher principle guiding the law of evolution. Your statements about the religious community's beliefs are baseless within the context of this discussion. Much like the comic community's conclusions on who would win in a fight between the Hulk and Superman, no matter how heartfelt those convictions would be. Neither have any real relation to reality.[/QUOTE]

As I stated above, the only reason I mentioned the religious community was because it was the first thing that came to mind to illustrate the question I was posing. If it were another day of the week I might have picked the biker community instead of the religious community. I was in no way suggesting that the ideas of the religious community are relevant to the factual content of evolution and I have no idea how you could interpret that from my comments.

In any case, SatchmoKhan was suggesting that the agreement in the biological community is what lends credence to the notion of evolution as fact and this line of reasoning is what I was calling into question.
 
I say we let creationism be taught in addition to evolution.

BUT

Using their same argument they should teach every major religion's creation theory. Then again, why not every religion, still practiced or not. See we could have entire classes devoted to just this... wait a second, maybe we already do? Mythology classes anyone? Oh wait that's right, christianity only THINKS that it isn't mythology...
 
[quote name='chunk']
To give an analogy, it is as if I asked the question, "Is that car red, like that rock?". You see, even if the rock isn't red the question still stands. [/QUOTE]

Anyone ever hear that Lewis Black routine about "If it weren’t for my horse, I wouldn’t have spent that year in college"
 
[quote name='camoor']Anyone ever hear that Lewis Black routine about "If it weren’t for my horse, I wouldn’t have spent that year in college"[/QUOTE]

It wasn't a red horse was it? Those things have magical powers.:D

It seems everytime I think the evolution topics are just about to die some mind humor comes my way.

Just remember kiddies green cars and red rocks can look the same when you are color blind.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']It comes down to this- Those who believe need no convincing. Those who do not, no amount of convincing can change their minds.[/QUOTE]

So it goes with most things in life.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Just remember kiddies green cars and red rocks can look the same when you are color blind.[/QUOTE]

Wait! Color blind people can tell the difference between cars and rocks? Oh, I've got some rocks to sell...
 
I can't believe people are still discussing evolution with chunk. I could understand if he at least had his facts straight about what everything is, but he doesn't.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Wait! Color blind people can tell the difference between cars and rocks? Oh, I've got some rocks to sell...[/QUOTE]

I do hope you got it? Chunk makes a stupid post I follow it up with an equally large hole. Yes? No? :D
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I can't believe people are still discussing evolution with chunk. I could understand if he at least had his facts straight about what everything is, but he doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Well, he's crafty, although I'm not convinced its intentional. He's not getting facts wrong, per se, only because he isn't presenting facts. He's saying things that just aren't proven, or detailed enough in his conversation to further discuss. Take this for example

No I meant the religious community at large. The reason I gave that example is because the disagreement over the existence of god in the religious community is probably comparable to the disagreement over the existence of evolution in the biological community. The basic concepts are pretty well agreed upon in both communities, but, as you point out, the details are in enough disagreement to get differing results. Perhaps the god issue is a little more diverse, but it is the closest example I can think of that provides a fairly pure reference of low factual standards (at least in terms of science). In any case, I was just giving a bearing by which SatchmoKhan could measure the factual standards of the biological community.
Click to expand...

It's just...empty. There is nothing to it, and little to argue. The only direction you can take here is clarification ("could you specify what you mean by...?" or "What in the fuck are you trying to say?"), rather than direct refutation.

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, he's crafty, although I'm not convinced its intentional. He's not getting facts wrong, per se, only because he isn't presenting facts. He's saying things that just aren't proven, or detailed enough in his conversation to further discuss.

It's just...empty. There is nothing to it, and little to argue. The only direction you can take here is clarification ("could you specify what you mean by...?" or "What in the fuck are you trying to say?"), rather than direct refutation.

myke.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, a fairly large number of people use similar 'logic' in their arguments in this forum on a regular basis irregardless of their leanings. Sometimes I wonder if a thread shouldn't be started just to address this issue.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Unfortunately, a fairly large number of people use similar 'logic' in their arguments in this forum on a regular basis irregardless of their leanings. Sometimes I wonder if a thread shouldn't be started just to address this issue.[/QUOTE]

This is the Vs. forum, what some of you seem to forget is that it was started to reduce flamewars about politics on this site. It was never created with the intent of producing intelligent debate.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']This is the Vs. forum, what some of you seem to forget is that it was started to reduce flamewars about politics on this site. It was never created with the intent of producing intelligent debate.[/QUOTE]
But on the other hand, the board description does include the phrase "mature discussion."

Not that this is a new viewpoint or that it's going to add to the conversation, but I don't see how this is fair. Intelligent design hasn't been proven in any capacity and can't be, and there's nothing beyond the Christian majority that could even begin to justify why this should be taught in schools and other theories on the beginnings of life can't be.

I just think it's a damn shame that this fight still hasn't gone away. I thought that the issue had been settled years ago, but I get the feeling that the debate won't vanish until someone proves that there is no God.
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']But on the other hand, the board description does include the phrase "mature discussion."
I just think it's a damn shame that this fight still hasn't gone away. I thought that the issue had been settled years ago, but I get the feeling that the debate won't vanish until someone proves that there is no God.[/QUOTE]

Yes "mature" as in you shouldn't cry when your ego gets stomped on.;)

Oh we don't need to prove anything about god, we just have to wait 30 years until the right wing fanatics have a change of the guard who will have a whole different set of things to protest against.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I do hope you got it? Chunk makes a stupid post I follow it up with an equally large hole. Yes? No? :D[/QUOTE]

Yes, I got it. :D
 
Way back when Chunk wanted to know what kind of debate exists in the biological community about evolution, so here goes an explanation.

The definition of evolution is merely "change over time", this is something that anyone can observe in nature. The way it is seen is that evolution is a scientific fact, having been consistently and repeatedly observed to occur. Darwin did not come up with the "theory of evolution", evolution had been studied prior to Darwin. Darwin came up with the "theory of natural selection" to explain the observed evolution.

The mechanism(s) of how it works (natural selection, neutral theory, etc.) and their importance are debated within the scientific community. To use an analogy to physics this is like how physicists look at gravity, they all agree that gravity is a scientific fact, but there is debate over the mechanisms underlying its occurance.
 
[quote name='SatchmoKhan']Way back when Chunk wanted to know what kind of debate exists in the biological community about evolution, so here goes an explanation.

The definition of evolution is merely "change over time", this is something that anyone can observe in nature. The way it is seen is that evolution is a scientific fact, having been consistently and repeatedly observed to occur. Darwin did not come up with the "theory of evolution", evolution had been studied prior to Darwin. Darwin came up with the "theory of natural selection" to explain the observed evolution.

The mechanism(s) of how it works (natural selection, neutral theory, etc.) and their importance are debated within the scientific community. To use an analogy to physics this is like how physicists look at gravity, they all agree that gravity is a scientific fact, but there is debate over the mechanisms underlying its occurance.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, what Chunk fails to mention is that we've posted that months ago in a different evolution topic on this same board. His problem with evolution comes from some apperent gap in evidence with is so large as to make it more of a conjecture than a scientific theory based on scientific evidence.
 
:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Can't we just lock any topic based on evolution/creationism, republicans/democrats or abortion/prolife?

You always get the same 5 people throwing around the same tired, worn thin arguements.

"You can't teach evolution because you cant prove it, its not fact, theres no way to know its really real" and then they have the audacity to turn around and say you MUST 'teach' creationism... How is God anymore factual than the damned Boogie Man? Anyone that claims to see the Boogie Man is probably a scared child... conversely... anyone that claims to have seen God is probably hispanic and staring at muffins too long... :lol:

Aliens aren't real! Spend time believing in something worthwhile.... like ghosts! :roll:
 
[quote name='Kayden']:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Can't we just lock any topic based on evolution/creationism, republicans/democrats or abortion/prolife?

You always get the same 5 people throwing around the same tired, worn thin arguements.

"You can't teach evolution because you cant prove it, its not fact, theres no way to know its really real" and then they have the audacity to turn around and say you MUST 'teach' creationism... How is God anymore factual than the damned Boogie Man? Anyone that claims to see the Boogie Man is probably a scared child... conversely... anyone that claims to have seen God is probably hispanic and staring at muffins too long... :lol:

Aliens aren't real! Spend time believing in something worthwhile.... like ghosts! :roll:[/QUOTE]

Wow telling everyone to stop, then adding fuel to the fire.:applause:
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Wow telling everyone to stop, then adding fuel to the fire.:applause:[/QUOTE]

I was just giving examples of the crap people keep slinging about...








;)
 
[quote name='Kayden']Anyone that claims to see the Boogie Man is probably a scared child... conversely... anyone that claims to have seen God is probably hispanic and staring at muffins too long[/QUOTE]

Just wait til the hispanics put down their muffins con pollo and start to get on the internet. Then you're gonna be in trouble hombre.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Just wait til the hispanics put down their muffins con pollo and start to get on the internet. Then you're gonna be in trouble hombre.[/QUOTE]

Hey, its only sterotyping if its not always true. :lol:
 
[quote name='Kayden']:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Can't we just lock any topic based on evolution/creationism, republicans/democrats or abortion/prolife?

You always get the same 5 people throwing around the same tired, worn thin arguements.

"You can't teach evolution because you cant prove it, its not fact, theres no way to know its really real" and then they have the audacity to turn around and say you MUST 'teach' creationism... How is God anymore factual than the damned Boogie Man? Anyone that claims to see the Boogie Man is probably a scared child... conversely... anyone that claims to have seen God is probably hispanic and staring at muffins too long... :lol:

Aliens aren't real! Spend time believing in something worthwhile.... like ghosts! :roll:[/QUOTE]

Close the topic because you don't like it, or others like it? Where did you learn that kind of talk, gamefaqs?

myke.
...you are beyond a shadow of a doubt my least favorite CAG. I'd kinda like to make you a trophy in that honor.
 
[quote name='Kayden']
"You can't teach evolution because you cant prove it, its not fact, theres no way to know its really real" and then they have the audacity to turn around and say you MUST 'teach' creationism... How is God anymore factual than the damned Boogie Man? Anyone that claims to see the Boogie Man is probably a scared child... conversely... anyone that claims to have seen God is probably hispanic and staring at muffins too long... :lol:

Aliens aren't real! Spend time believing in something worthwhile.... like ghosts! :roll:[/QUOTE]

This is one of the chief problems. Advocacy of the evolution theory should not necessarily mean that the existence of a monotheistic god is denied, and same goes vice-versa.

Aliens, ghosts, gods, and boogie men - I leave the possiblility of existence open to all of them. Should they be taught in beginner-level science classes? No. Colligiate-level mythology, philosophy, advanced physics, and comprehensive religion courses would be the appropriate forum.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Close the topic because you don't like it, or others like it? Where did you learn that kind of talk, gamefaqs?

myke.
...you are beyond a shadow of a doubt my least favorite CAG. I'd kinda like to make you a trophy in that honor.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying close it because I don't like it. I'm saying close it for the same reason we lock threads that get off topic, spam threads, and threads with porn/excessively inappropriet material. It quickly becomes an eyesore to have a bunch of shit just laying around. Threads like these often lead to flame wars or long winded bitch sessions about how someones being repressed for their views. Granted, this is the versus forum and everything pretty much turns out like that eventually... Its just stupid to keep bring up the same battles with the same people, the same "facts", the same opinions, the same everything every fucking week. There are only so many times you can read chunk's post before your brain starts to weep and then slowly ooze out your ear.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, he's crafty, although I'm not convinced its intentional. He's not getting facts wrong, per se, only because he isn't presenting facts. He's saying things that just aren't proven, or detailed enough in his conversation to further discuss. Take this for example

It's just...empty. There is nothing to it, and little to argue. The only direction you can take here is clarification ("could you specify what you mean by...?" or "What in the fuck are you trying to say?"), rather than direct refutation.[/QUOTE]

If you notice, the reason I'm not presenting facts on that particular topic is because it is offtopic to what I was trying to discuss. I'm having a very difficult time trying to communicate with some people here. If I say what I mean in its purest form I get people complaining, "your argument doesn't make sense". On the other hand, if I supplement what I am trying to say with various anecdotes and analogies then I get people attacking the analogies themselves. For example, I had no intention of discussing religion in this thread, but I mentioned it as an analogy to help make my argument more understandable. The result was that I got 10 people trying to argue whether my analogy was a true statement regarding religion. So in an attempt to bring things back to what I was trying to discuss I refrain from arguing about the facts of religion. It is empty because I wasn't saying anything about it. In other words, I'm intentionally avoiding direct refutation on that topic because I wasn't making a statement about that topic.

Do you have any suggestions on how I might structure my replies differently?

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']Way back when Chunk wanted to know what kind of debate exists in the biological community about evolution, so here goes an explanation.

The definition of evolution is merely "change over time", this is something that anyone can observe in nature. The way it is seen is that evolution is a scientific fact, having been consistently and repeatedly observed to occur. Darwin did not come up with the "theory of evolution", evolution had been studied prior to Darwin. Darwin came up with the "theory of natural selection" to explain the observed evolution.

The mechanism(s) of how it works (natural selection, neutral theory, etc.) and their importance are debated within the scientific community. To use an analogy to physics this is like how physicists look at gravity, they all agree that gravity is a scientific fact, but there is debate over the mechanisms underlying its occurance.[/QUOTE]

I think that defining evolution as "change over time" is way to broad to be useful. I mean almost everything in the known universe changes over time, but I think it is safe to say that when biologists refer to "evolution" they aren't talking about the same kinds of changes that occur in, for example, manufacturing technology, airplane design, theories of psychology, galaxies, fashion trends, or my checkbook.

However, you haven't really answered my question. I wasn't asking what kind of debate exists about evolution. I asked what you think that debate (whatever it may be) tells us about the factual content of the theory, if anything at all.

I will agree with you that the explanations for the mechanisms causing gravity and evolution are comparable. However, it seems to me that although the causes of both evolution and gravity are debatable, the effects of gravity are much clearer than those of evolution. What do you think about that?

Also, theories explaining the cause of gravity are not generally taught in basic science classes. If they are really comparable with theories explaining the cause of evolution then shouldn't theories such as natural selection also be removed from basic science curriculum?
 
Chunk,
To quote myself "Evolution can be defined as change over time."

You may say that definition is way too broad to be useful, but you are not considering it in the same context as biologists do. Evolution, by that definition, is treated as the fundamental basis and unifying theory of biology, and a fundamental idea for understanding all science.

A more appropriate comparison than gravity / physics is to compare evolution's place in biology to the role of plate tectonics in geology, which is taught in basic science classes. All geological studies can ultimately be traced to the processes of plate tectonics.

You may not say that is the same, but Lyell's "Principles of Geology" was a primary inspiration for Lamarck and later Darwin's thinking on evolution. The idea that small changes over long periods of time could result in the geography and structure of the continents inspired biologists to consider the effects of small changes over time in biological systems. That is where the theory of natural selection comes in, Darwin thought: if things in nature vary (which they do), those variations are passed on to offspring (which they are), and some variations are more successful in surviving than others (which they are) then you can have evolution occuring by "natural selection".

The only debate among biologists is how important nonrandom natural selection and purely random "neutral" evolution are in producing the observed evolution. This debate in no way means that the observed evolution is invalid nor should it be used to justify removing teaching evolution in school.

You also say that the effects of gravity are much clearer than evolution, I would have to disagree. On the small scale of objects falling to the ground gravity is easy to understand. How it results in the movement and interactions of planets and stars and how it works on the subatomic level, that is much less clear and much more difficult to grasp.

Evolution is the same. The small scale evolution seen in bacteria and viruses evolving resistance to drugs, changes in genes and morphologies (height, lengths of parts of animals), and the effects of selective breeding by humans are very clear when presented to anyone. The origin of new species and complex structures (like complex eyes, which by the way evolved at least 3 times independently) are more difficult for most people to grasp. But that does not mean it shouldn't be taught.

Like my first post said, evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive ideas. Leaving evolution out of the (science) classroom would be a travesty, hindering the thinking of future generations.

Sorry about the long post, hard to stop once I get going :)
 
[quote name='SatchmoKhan']Chunk,
To quote myself "Evolution can be defined as change over time."

You may say that definition is way too broad to be useful, but you are not considering it in the same context as biologists do. Evolution, by that definition, is treated as the fundamental basis and unifying theory of biology, and a fundamental idea for understanding all science.

A more appropriate comparison than gravity / physics is to compare evolution's place in biology to the role of plate tectonics in geology, which is taught in basic science classes. All geological studies can ultimately be traced to the processes of plate tectonics.

You may not say that is the same, but Lyell's "Principles of Geology" was a primary inspiration for Lamarck and later Darwin's thinking on evolution. The idea that small changes over long periods of time could result in the geography and structure of the continents inspired biologists to consider the effects of small changes over time in biological systems. That is where the theory of natural selection comes in, Darwin thought: if things in nature vary (which they do), those variations are passed on to offspring (which they are), and some variations are more successful in surviving than others (which they are) then you can have evolution occuring by "natural selection".

You also say that the effects of gravity are much clearer than evolution, I would have to disagree. On the small scale of objects falling to the ground gravity is easy to understand. How it results in the movement and interactions of planets and stars and how it works on the subatomic level, that is much less clear and much more difficult to grasp.

Evolution is the same. The small scale evolution seen in bacteria and viruses evolving resistance to drugs, changes in genes and morphologies (height, lengths of parts of animals), and the effects of selective breeding by humans are very clear when presented to anyone. The origin of new species and complex structures (like complex eyes, which by the way evolved at least 3 times independently) are more difficult for most people to grasp. But that does not mean it shouldn't be taught.

Like my first post said, evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive ideas. Leaving evolution out of the (science) classroom would be a travesty, hindering the thinking of future generations.

Sorry about the long post, hard to stop once I get going :)[/QUOTE]

No reason to be sorry about the long post. I appreciate your well thought responses. Most of the jokers around here don't take anything seriously.

Anyway, I still think that that definition is too broad, even in the context of biology. Somebody else gave the same definition in another thread to which I replied: "then my beard evolves every morning". :D See what I mean? Perhaps you could comment.

Regarding natural selection, things do vary in nature, but not all kinds of biological variations are passed on to offspring (for example, my beard, my education, or my bad tooth). So the important variations may not be inheritable in all circumstances. In fact, it could be that in many situations the most important variations are not inheritable. Furthermore, the potential to evolve doesn't necessarily mean that something could evolve indefinitely. In other words, there could be limitations. To give an analogy, just because I can walk in baby steps that doesn't mean that I can walk out of a prison cell.

Also, I think you have misunderstood what I meant by "clear". I did not mean easy to understand or easy to see. When I said clear I meant testable and proveable. Gravity on planets, stars, and on the subatomic level can be measured very accurately and in many cases with controlled experiments. Evolution, while it may be a temping explanation in many circumstances, is much more difficult to prove by means of controlled experiment. Therefore, the veracity of the theory is not as clear because the proof is not as strong.

Regarding evolution in the classroom, I'm not necessarily opposed to it being taught, but I don't like how it is presented on equal footing with other theories which are much better established. It is sometimes said that the biological sciences are about 100 years behind the physical sciences and by not emphasizing that in the classroom a lower standard for scientific proof is impressed on the students which will hinder further scientific development of scientific rigour (both in the biological sciences and elsewhere).

I have a whole list of unanswered questions regarding evolution, actually. I'm curious what you will say to them. Will you address them if I post them here or if I PM them to you?
 
Hopefully this answers your questions better:

You are missing the point of variation. Though genetics wasn't around in Darwin's time we now understand that genes/DNA are the basis for the characteristics of all living things. There is some environmental input, but your genes determine what color (like that beard you mentioned) or what size or shape features take.

Also you are considering the wrong scale, evolution is not an individual process, it is a populational/generational event and it requires a significant period of time. So though your baby steps may not take you out of a prison cell, if there is a benefit to escaping the cell then perhaps characters may be selected for to allow your descendants to do so generations later. Given exceedingly long periods of time the potential to evolve is indefinite, changes through gradual evolution can allow a population to handle conditions that an individual cannot adapt to.

And I don't think the role of gravity in tying together and shaping the entire universe is testable, we just don't have the long periods of time or massive scale to do so. Controlled laboratory experiments can show the necessary actions that can then be applied to explain large scale phenomena. The same is the case for evolution.

Infection causing bacteria initially were very succeptable to penicillin, however over time our using the drug selected artificially for those bacteria that had a mutation protecting them from the drug. Over time the population evolves to a form where most bacteria are immune to penicillin now. That and many other types of small scale controlled experiments of evolution have been done. Though they are not publicized widely, there have been many observational studies of evolution in nature in action, done on everything from plants to insects to birds.

Biology does not have a lower standard of scientific proof. In all of science observational studies are accepted alongside controlled experiments. The controlled experiment is a useful tool, but most larger scale theories and principles simply cannot be studied in a controlled setting. Geology cannot actually observe the continents moving on a grand scale in a controlled experiment, but they can show small movements and compare rock layers and then extrapolate to help us understand the earth's structure. Things like black holes, supernovas, and quasars are only known by observation, not controlled experiments. Even physics cannot even claim to truely control their experiments, when they have shown that merely by observing subatomic interactions they alter them.

You can PM if you have more questions.
 
I just want to say something, very quick, very short, then I'll be on my way...............
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SHUT UP!!!!!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...you are beyond a shadow of a doubt my least favorite CAG. I'd kinda like to make you a trophy in that honor.[/QUOTE]

If there were ever a quote to put in someone's sig, this would be it.
 
[quote name='SatchmoKhan']You are missing the point of variation. Though genetics wasn't around in Darwin's time we now understand that genes/DNA are the basis for the characteristics of all living things. There is some environmental input, but your genes determine what color (like that beard you mentioned) or what size or shape features take.[/quote]

It is easy to say that, but Darwin's whole hand waiving argument could easily be invalidated if the variations which dominate survival were nonheritable.

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']Also you are considering the wrong scale, evolution is not an individual process, it is a populational/generational event and it requires a significant period of time. So though your baby steps may not take you out of a prison cell, if there is a benefit to escaping the cell then perhaps characters may be selected for to allow your descendants to do so generations later. Given exceedingly long periods of time the potential to evolve is indefinite, changes through gradual evolution can allow a population to handle conditions that an individual cannot adapt to.[/quote]

I wasn't considering the wrong scale. My comments were not regarding individuals, but populations. Even on the scale of populations there is no guarantee that small evolutionary changes can account for everything. Time is not a "Jack of Spades" which makes everything possible. As far as I know there is no experimental evidence backing up the idea that the potential to evolve is indefinite. It could very well be the variation of traits in a population (not just at a given time, but over generations) always remains within a certain sphere of variation and never exceeds those bounds (like the prison cell). To assume that the process is completely unbounded with neither a detailed theoretical model (that is a theory which can follow the process from one individual organism to the next) nor controlled experiments to verify that it actually is unbounded is shortsighed and unscientific in my opinion.

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']And I don't think the role of gravity in tying together and shaping the entire universe is testable, we just don't have the long periods of time or massive scale to do so. Controlled laboratory experiments can show the necessary actions that can then be applied to explain large scale phenomena. The same is the case for evolution.[/quote]

I agree, but the grandiose claims using gravity to explain things on the universal scale are not very important. There are other things which are testable which gravity does explain. The other stuff is secondary. In the case of evolution it seems that the primary importance isn't backed up by testable experiments, so it isn't as well justified.

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']Infection causing bacteria initially were very succeptable to penicillin, however over time our using the drug selected artificially for those bacteria that had a mutation protecting them from the drug. Over time the population evolves to a form where most bacteria are immune to penicillin now. That and many other types of small scale controlled experiments of evolution have been done. Though they are not publicized widely, there have been many observational studies of evolution in nature in action, done on everything from plants to insects to birds.[/quote]

Yeah, I don't really have any gripes with the small scale. In fact, on the small scale the theory isn't really anything other than common sense. What experimental evidence is there supporting the development of new traits? For example, there were initially some bacteria which already were immune to the penicillin, but what if we were talking about a trait which wasn't present at all in the initial population? I know what the theory says, but is there experimental evidence confirming the emergence of new traits? More importantly, are there any experiments which test the limitations of which kinds of new traits could emerge? We can't just assume that because one trait could emerge that any kind of trait could also emerge. We need both experimental verification that it actually happens and a theory to explain how it could happen.

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']Biology does not have a lower standard of scientific proof. In all of science observational studies are accepted alongside controlled experiments. The controlled experiment is a useful tool, but most larger scale theories and principles simply cannot be studied in a controlled setting. Geology cannot actually observe the continents moving on a grand scale in a controlled experiment, but they can show small movements and compare rock layers and then extrapolate to help us understand the earth's structure. Things like black holes, supernovas, and quasars are only known by observation, not controlled experiments. Even physics cannot even claim to truely control their experiments, when they have shown that merely by observing subatomic interactions they alter them.[/QUOTE]

Just because there are other fields which also share a low standard that doesn't mean that the high standard is unattainable. Supernovas, quasars, and even blackholes are not considered scientific fact to the same degree as things like relativity and quantum mechanics. There is even some debate in the cosmological community over whether blackholes exist at all.

Regarding controlled experiments in quantum mechanics, I don't see why the fact that observation changes results would remove the possibility of repeatable controlled experiments. Isn't that the whole purpose of a controlled experiment? By attempting to keep all things equal you isolate the cause. In other words, as long as you observe in the same way then it doesn't matter that your observations change the results. Then for good measure you repeat the experiment to ensure that your results aren't a fluke.

In any case, there are sciences which are performing repeatable controlled experiments and rigorous theoretical analysis. Don't you think that biologists should be challenged to meet the same standard, even from the time they are children?

[quote name='SatchmoKhan']You can PM if you have more questions.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for responding here. I thought that some others might like to read our conversation. I still have some questions which I haven't asked you. If you'd rather discuss via PM then just PM me. I don't care whether we discuss it here or via PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top