Can Evolutionists Answer These??

[Fishteacher73]

Difference is Buddha, Mohammed and Christ never said that what they professed might be in error.

 

 

Give this man a gold star! :Alien: He is starting to see the difference between science and religion. Science is based upon the idea of falsafiable hypothesis. Science adapts and changes as new evidence is uncovered. Science is not stagnant. Theories do not claim to be the absolute "gospel" as do religion. Theories are the best estimation of a process, but if new evidence araises, the theory changes to fit in with the evidence, or is scrapped. It doesn't break off in a schism and start a few hundred years of war...

[Skippy]

But, the truth is that it is the only way for science to really advance, we need to imagine new ideas. Can you give me an example of a single scientific theory that didn't start out as an imaginative thought?

Gravity. The apple probably did not hit Newton in the head, but he saw it fall first, then came up with a name and a theory for why it fell. There are many others you can think of for yourself where something was OBSERVED and then explained in a scientific manner.

 

Thanks for the quote, I made one slight modification (You would say "it evolved"):

--Provability is a weaker notion than Truth. - Douglas Hofstadter

Of course, on this thread I keep hearing that "Provability" means less than being able to disprove something :rant: .

[emessay]

Two threads arguing evolutionist matter already closed. By the way, around 150 years ago since Charles Darwin published his theory, let's consider the 'iron-words' of his topics :

1. Origin of Species

2. Natural Selection

3. Survival the fittest

4. Descent of Man or Dawn of Man

 

The opposition of these 'iron-words' [ still in heavy debates ] :

 

1. Origin of Species: virus-like->evolution->then what is initial from ? ->>God ?

2. Natural Selection: why are tiny ants still exist ? etc, etc --> Intelligent design selection

3. Survival the fittest : carnivora,herbivora,preadator living together--> Hitler took only this poor philosophy.

4. Descent of Man: 10,000 yrs civilized human kind was created-->Are we still evolving ?

 

So in my poor English ( not my mother-tongue language ), I look these of 'iron-words' are heavy corroded and we may require the new update theory.

[Eclogite]

emessay, I am having some difficulty in understanding your exact meaning. Are you saying that Darwin's theory is still heavily debated? If so, I agree, but not by scientists with other scientists. They have long moved on beyond Darwin's initial grasp of the idea. Today the debates are about the details of the mechanisms involved. The arguments against evolution do not come from scientists. (I expect this last statement to be challenged, so to save time I'll ask the challenger now for five peer reviewed papers in significant scientific journals that dispute the fact of evolution.)

[Wizdumb]

A lot of these arguments (evolution vs. creation/science vs. religion), seem to stem more from ego, pride, and close-mindedness than from a desire to find truth. Why is it ID people always convienently overlook the possibility evolution is part of the so-called Intelligent Design? Evolution seems pretty intelligent to me. It's because they don't really care about the truth - only about trying to disprove evolution. And the reason is because evolution disproves Genesis and likewise creationist stories.

 

And why does religion fight science so much? Because science constantly disproves religion. Like with the old Roman and Greek religions. Science clearly showed how ridiculously untrue they were. The same is happening today, as things like evolution and dinosaurs (or anything over 6,000 old) expose fallacies in religious belief.

 

The fact is, if God created everything (or, more likely, the potential for everything), God created science too. And God created evolution (if it really exists). And the potential for religion. And the potential for religious nonsense. And the potential for every other thing in existence. And this is exactly my stance on the subject. God did not create everything. God created the potential for everything. And then, the big bang set it all in motion.

 

There is no us vs you here. We're all in this together. This lawyer sleazeball argument technique of, "Must win at all costs, regardless.", is doing no one any good. Sleazeball lawyer techniques do not seek truth or greater understanding, they only seek to 'win the game'.

[infamous]

 

The fact is, if God created everything (or, more likely, the potential for everything), God created science too.

I believe that would be a true statement Wizdumb.

 

There is no us vs you here. We're all in this together.

Agreed Wizdumb, and this forum is much like a neighborhood community. We are all in this together and a great opportunity exists for us to all learn from each other. Everyone has something to contribute to the overall wellfair of this community we call Hypography. Have a good one........infamous.

[sergey500]

Who ever wrote this thread needs more research, not impressed, all of what you said, Dima, can be proven wrong, and unfrortunatly for me everyone here already did. (i am too late...)

[Iron4ever]

I'll give you nine evidences against evolution. QUOTE]

 

Is not the learning curve of modern humans a form of evolution?

[Iron4ever]

The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.

 

This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. The bacteria population has evolved

[emessay]

The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.

 

This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. The bacteria population has evolved

 

Interesting experiments but I have other opinion of this phenomenon based on automation system [robotic learning system] if we compare bacteria as robotic learning system. So bacteria have immune system, they learn and they improve immune system as necessary for their fitness stability as species.

 

Changing to be more fit species [ evolution ] is part process to achieve their own stability. We need to know how they learn their comparative stability. So evolution must contain vector controlling the stability, it must contain directive process, not only randomatic. You know that immune system able to poison itself.

[Eclogite]

So bacteria have immune system, they learn and they improve immune system as necessary for their fitness stability as species.

This is Lamarkian evolution. Inheritance of acquired characteristics. I will donate $100 to a designated charity of your choice if you can find me a bona fide Lamarkian biologist alive today. (Please tell me you don't speak Russian.) The whole concept (perfectly plausible when proposed) has been rejected: no evidence for it, no mechanism to enage it, no need to have it.

[Iron4ever]

This is Lamarkian evolution. Inheritance of acquired characteristics. I will donate $100 to a designated charity of your choice if you can find me a bona fide Lamarkian biologist alive today. (Please tell me you don't speak Russian.) The whole concept (perfectly plausible when proposed) has been rejected: no evidence for it, no mechanism to enage it, no need to have it.

 

Ted Steele?

[Eclogite]

Very interesting. I wasn't aware of Steele or his ideas. I am reading several of the links a google of his name generated. From a provisional reading, the question mark after his name (as a possible Lamarkian) seems well justified. Gert Korthof remarks that

"Steele does not contradict the Central Dogma (of molecular biology, that acquired characteristicscannot be inherited) in any way. " at this site http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho39.htm

 

I shall read on. I have long thought that if there were a mechanism that could, under certain conditions, permit the acquisition of at least some acquired characteristics, or favour mutations that would be beneficial in a particular environment, that this would simplify the explanation for increasing complexity in some phyla and in life in general. I understand that this is heresy of the highest order in the field of biology, but a little heresy, at least in science, is healthy for the soul.

 

[i'll come back and let you know if we should take off that question mark, in which case you get to nominate a charity Iron4ever. :eek_big: ]

[Buffy]

I have long thought that if there were a mechanism that could, under certain conditions, permit the acquisition of at least some acquired characteristics, or favour mutations that would be beneficial in a particular environment, that this would simplify the explanation for increasing complexity in some phyla and in life in general.

Note that "acquired characteristics" in the Lamarckian sense are not genetic: the notion that if some one is a miner and builds up big muscles over their lifetime in the mines, then their kids will have big muscles, is what is fallacious. There are those that will debate you about the cause of genetic variations that are favored in particular environments, but "Lamarckian" and "genetic changes" do not go together.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[DrProctopus]

Try this article:

 

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

[Buffy]

Try this article:Epigenetic_inheritance

Sure, Epigenetic is not genetic, but its not Lamarckian either: Lamarck's theory was about literal acquisition of traits, and even Epigenetic inheritance implies eventual causation of genetic changes or or they will revert.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Eclogite]

Note that "acquired characteristics" in the Lamarckian sense are not genetic: the notion that if some one is a miner and builds up big muscles over their lifetime in the mines, then their kids will have big muscles, is what is fallacious. There are those that will debate you about the cause of genetic variations that are favored in particular environments, but "Lamarckian" and "genetic changes" do not go together.

Agreed. 999 days out of 1000. See my post above (#45). However, on that one day out of 1000 I contemplate the possibility that there could be a mechanism for imparting a genetic aspect to some acquired characteristics, under certain circumstances. This would be convenient in providing a nice (in both senses of the word) explanation for some of the more complex (under current evolutionary theory) evolutionary changes.

Is there any evidence for this? None that I can think of off hand.

I am simply indulging in a little speculation.