Evolution is Fact

[Moontanman]

I am willing to hear goku's rebuttal of evolutionary theory, he's listened to us and now it should be his turn, the only rules are he should present falsifiable theories not religious claims that are based on nothing but biblical writings with no basis in reality. Lets hear it goku......:phones:;)

[Pyrotex]

I am willing to hear goku's rebuttal of evolutionary theory, he's listened to us and now it should be his turn, the only rules are he should present falsifiable theories not religious claims that are based on nothing but biblical writings with no basis in reality. Lets hear it goku......:phones::eek:

You're absolutely right.

 

Fire away, goku. ;)

[Thunderbird]

I think he's suspended.

[Thunderbird]

So close to understanding the truth...WHY......WHY :phones:

[freeztar]

I think he's suspended.

 

Yup. His last post recieved an infraction for claiming "I just know that it is fact", which is against the forum rules (for obvious reasons). His total amount of infractions pushed him into automatic suspension. I'm sure he'll be back though...

[modest]

I think he's suspended.

 

Correct,

 

I do not believe goku comes here to persuade people against evolution. He most likely is feeling conflicted about his fundamental beliefs. This is something I feel an affinity toward as I went through the same thing. When it happened to me my pastor did his best to make me feel guilty for even asking questions that he could not answer. Fortunately I found people that could answer my questions.

 

At first I would not admit that the evidence which contradicted my faith was so compelling. I strongly suspect goku feels the same. He would not be here; he would not test his faith if he did not doubt. While he can’t admit it openly, his curiosity is obvious.

 

While I support goku in going through this process, I hope he understands his method is against the rules. He is continually making claims with no real attempt to support them.

 

Good luck goku,

 

-modest

[Moontanman]

Correct,

 

I do not believe goku comes here to persuade people against evolution. He most likely is feeling conflicted about his fundamental beliefs. This is something I feel an affinity toward as I went through the same thing. When it happened to me my pastor did his best to make me feel guilty for even asking questions that he could not answer. Fortunately I found people that could answer my questions.

 

At first I would not admit that the evidence which contradicted my faith was so compelling. I strongly suspect goku feels the same. He would not be here; he would not test his faith if he did not doubt. While he can’t admit it openly, his curiosity is obvious.

 

While I support goku in going through this process, I hope he understands his method is against the rules. He is continually making claims with no real attempt to support them.

 

Good luck goku,

 

-modest

 

Modest, dude! Goku didn't want to learn he wanted to teach and his frustration with this lists ability to refute his teachings resulted in his actions. If he comes back his agenda will not have changed I will admit he is subtle in his approach but it is still the same old sad song just sung in a slightly different way.

[modest]

Modest, dude! Goku didn't want to learn he wanted to teach and his frustration with this lists ability to refute his teachings resulted in his actions. If he comes back his agenda will not have changed I will admit he is subtle in his approach but it is still the same old sad song just sung in a slightly different way.

 

You may be right. I do not personally think this is the case, but I wouldn't rule it out.

 

However, it is inconsequential as far as the site rules are concerned - He is not following them.

 

-modest

[Galapagos]

Here are a couple of really good and relevant quotes from Darwin's Dangerous Idea http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Dangerous-Idea-Evolution-Meanings/dp/068482471X by Dan Dennett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_dennett :

The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudge-able, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might— hope against hope—have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other area of human knowledge. New discoveries may conceivably lead to dramatic, even "revolutionary" shifts in the Darwinian theory, but the hope that it will be "refuted" by some shattering breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to a geocentric vision and discard Copernicus.

 

Origin of Species presents an overwhelmingly persuasive case for Darwin's first thesis—the historical fact of evolution as the cause of the origin of species—and a tantalizing case in favor of his second thesis—that the fundamental mechanism responsible for "descent with modification" was natural selection. Levelheaded readers of the book simply could no longer doubt that species had evolved over the eons, as Darwin said they had, but scrupulous skepticism about the power of his proposed mechanism of natural selection was harder to overcome. Intervening years have raised the confidence level for both theses, but not erased the difference (Ellegard [1958] provides a valuable account of this history). The evidence for evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin's chief sources), but of course from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. Doubts about the power of Darwin's idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, although the burden of proof for such skepticism has become immense, as we shall see...

 

edit- for some reason both of the links I made screwed up in different ways..

[Pyrotex]

Excellent quotes from Daniel C. Dennett, Darwins Dangerous Idea http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Dangerous-Idea-Evolution-Meanings/dp/068482471X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214343861&sr=1-2.

 

If you are at ALL interested in evolution -- from either side of the fence -- then you must read this book. It is the best, the most entertaining, the most accessible book on the subject ever written. It will stretch your mind, no matter how smart or knowledgeable you may be. Dennett is a master of the English language, a samarai warrior of exposition and explanation. He is the wise and eloquent grandfather that we all wish we had.

 

[EDIT] I don't know why the wierd "missing icon" appears in the link above. It only happens with links to Amazon.com. Tormod? :naughty:

[Thunderbird]

Look's like a must have for anyone who loves evolutionary theory. Great find !

[coldcreation]

I participated in a discussion about evolution not too long ago with some skeptics. They basically laughed at the idea that man descended from ape-like animals. The discussion was very broad, including geological evolution. It had been said (by others) that the entire area surrounding the village (where we were) was underwater a few hundred million years ago. The next day, I set out to find proof.

 

One half kilometer away was a sight of shale stone (pictured here), where it was well known that fossils thought (or shown) to be 450 Myr old had been found: a time when the ocean covered the region.

 

Within one hour I came back with fossils, not just of graptolites (plankton-like ocean dwelling groups of organisms), but also, of three inch long worm-like creatures with a backbone-like skeletal structure from which vertebrates (including humans) descend.

 

As if that wasn't enough, I also found fossils of brachiopods (shells), the most abundant invertebrates from the Ordovician era, amongst other fossils from the same epoch. See Age of Animals for a detailed review of life forms that thrived throughout the evolutionary history on this planet.

 

Despite the evidence I presented, and they did glance at it, they remained unconvinced. That is when you know even empirical evidence, no matter how compelling, is insufficient to topple long-held beliefs.

 

 

CC

[InfiniteNow]

Here's a nice talk actually about evolution and Darwin. Just go to the page, click play on the first vid, and the others will autoload when finished.

 

 

FameLab from channel4.com

 

 

 

Enjoy. :steering:

[freeztar]

Here's a nice talk actually about evolution and Darwin. Just go to the page, click play on the first vid, and the others will autoload when finished.

 

 

FameLab from channel4.com

 

 

 

Enjoy. :cup:

 

Link is broken.

[InfiniteNow]

Link is broken.

 

Thanks for the head's up. It was working fine last night, but now, I too am having the same issue you are.

 

If you go to the link below, you can right click and do "save file as" for the Quicktime version:

 

'Dawkins on Darwin' by Richard Dawkins, Paula Kirby, Channel 4 - RichardDawkins.net

[HydrogenBond]

I believe the evidence that suggests that humans evolved from apes. The fossil data seems very solid and reasonable. The question is, why did this occur? Evolution doesn't go this deep. It will use the same answer for dinosaurs, humans, or bacteria.

 

Most genetic changes associated with evolution occur during cell cycles or when male and female genes combine. If you look at this closely, in both cases, the DNA is taken off-line when the evolution occurs. Whatever the DNA may have prepared, is no longer up to the DNA, when the actual genetic change occurs. We talk in terms of the genetic changes without realizing this occurs when DNA is a pawn.

 

For example, when the DNA is duplicated in a bacteria, the DNA has to be taken off-line for duplication and mitosis. It is inert and subject to the cell body. Say the environment causes the cell body to absorb too much of chemical X, when the DNA is taken off-line, the cell body has a potential different than the old DNA can create in terms of proteins. One might expect the potential for something to change to lower this potential. There is a natural cause and affect that evolution lumps into random.

 

Where the problem lies may be the unproven evolutionary assumption of genetic replicators coming first. This may be true, but it is unproven. But if we except this unproven premise it sets the conceptual mindset the DNA is king and never a pawn. To add the pawn angle will allow a better handle on cause and affect. It will still be evolution, but version 3.0 is different and may come in conflict with aspects of version 2.0.

[Pyrotex]

I found your post to be extremely difficult... if not impossible, to follow.

What do you mean by:

 

"Evolution doesn't go this deep. It will use the same answer for dinosaurs, humans, or bacteria."?

 

"If you look at this closely, in both cases, the DNA is taken off-line when the evolution occurs."?

 

"Whatever the DNA may have prepared, is no longer up to the DNA, when the actual genetic change occurs."?

 

"We talk in terms of the genetic changes without realizing this occurs when DNA is a pawn."?

 

"...the cell body has a potential different than the old DNA can create in terms of proteins."?

 

"One might expect the potential for something to change to lower this potential."?

 

"There is a natural cause and affect that evolution lumps into random."? ...