Bring up Evloution Again....

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd like to see the chain of life we should see living today, if change is
so slow, the odds that most or many of the latest previously evolved
creatures should still be alive today in the vast majority of living
species. A slow change should give advantages slowly with time, yet
we don’t see this today, or in the fossil record which to me suggests it
...[text shortened]... see chess programs turning into operating
systems, what is programmed is programmed.
Kelly

We actually do have a reasonably consistant progession from the lifeforms. And where they diverge into the various others. Ostracoderms are a good example of this. The jawless armored fish. Conodonts are another although all we have is teeth and a few special preservation soft bodied fossils, since they didn't any other hard body parts.
I think your problem may come from the artifical boxes we create such as Vertebrate, mammal, arthropod, etc. You see there are common ancestors to all these, and there are ones that are somewhere between A and B. But they get put into boxes Dependant on their relative closeness to one box or the other. Thus as far as you can see there are only distinct boxes. The funny thing is these boxes were generated by looking at similarities between these creatures in the first place such as having a spine, or segmented bodies. Because of this the boxes get bigger and bigger.... Vertebrate is a pretty large box, where as Homo is a pretty small one comparatively.....

Once again my question is evaded......

And relevant or not I asked you how old you believed the earth was. And it is relevant because if you don't believe 650Ma then there is little if any possibility of you accepting evolution....

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd like to see the chain of life we should see living today, if change is
so slow, the odds that most or many of the latest previously evolved
creatures should still be alive today in the vast majority of living
species. A slow change should give advantages slowly with time, yet
we don’t see this today, or in the fossil record which to me suggests it
...[text shortened]... see chess programs turning into operating
systems, what is programmed is programmed.
Kelly

The fossil record isn't like a shelf full of books containing all of the history of the world laid out before us.
Fossilisation occurs only in some places, with very specific circumstances - it's full of holes and the lineages built from fossils is only incomplete at best.
Luckily we have many other forms of evidence for evolution and for the lineages that we construct ...

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
Saying that evolution is interpretable is foolish as it is a scientific process.
===================================

I don't see that this sentence makes any sense.

A scientist lines up a bunch of skulls in a certain order and interprets what he thinks has happened over time - evolution, for example.

...[text shortened]... h ancestor-descendant relationships."

[Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, pg 219] [/b][/b]

Gene variation exists, therefore evolution exists.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have been trying to stay on point with you, and you have not given
me an answer to my question, what is it you are really trying to get
an alternative too? By more than one person we told you that your
first and only attempt to answer that question could be taken several
different ways, so it is difficult to respond to what could be an
alternative me ...[text shortened]... sume at least
that much should be given before you can get what you are looking
for.
Kelly

evolution. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Entry 3

evolution. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Entry 3

evolution. (n.d.). Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. Entry 2

evolution. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Entry 1

---

These define the theory of evolution, and I really recommend that you read the 4th one very well, it is very descriptive of the Theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
evolution. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Entry 3

evolution. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Entry 3

evolution. (n.d.). Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. Entry 2

evolution. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Entry 1

---

These define the theory of evol ...[text shortened]... ecommend that you read the 4th one very well, it is very descriptive of the Theory of Evolution.

I'm asking ONE person to give his views, if I wanted the dictionary
I'd look it up myself thank you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm asking ONE person to give his views, if I wanted the dictionary
I'd look it up myself thank you.
Kelly

I've given you my views, and I've still yet to hear 1 straight answer to my originally posted question, 96 posts later, seriously can you not admit that your world view is unscientific and shouldn't be thought in science classes. Its just as valid a stand point as a scientific one. From a philosophical point of view anyway. I have no desire to make you angry or upset you. I simply wish one of the creation believers to admit that its not science and shouldn't be thought in science classes. thats all

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
Gene variation exists, therefore evolution exists.

That sounds like a definition of evolution so broad that it cannot be objected to - "Change in living organisms exist therefore evolution exists."


Amen and Amen.

Now if you could close with a hymn and a benediction I think we can all be dismissed.

Okay seriously.

Missing links and gaps in the fossil record exist, and the issue of how to reconstruct soft tissued characteristics from bone fossils exist, therefore macroevolution does have its problems as to its viability.

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould realized this and therefore proposed an alteration in classic Darwinian gradualism - Punctuated Equilibria.

Do you agree with it as the explanation of the missing links and gaps in the fossil record?

Originally posted by jaywill
That sounds like a definition of evolution so broad that it cannot be objected to - [b]"Change in living organisms exist therefore evolution exists."


Amen and Amen.

Now if you could close with a hymn and a benediction I think we can all be dismissed.

Okay seriously.

Missing links and gaps in the fossil record exist, and the issue of h ...[text shortened]...
Do you agree with it as the explanation of the missing links and gaps in the fossil record?[/b]

Eldrege and Gould did publish on punctuated equilibrium, I've read the paper and most of their research as part of Uni. And if you read the paper you'd find that the Idea is in no way opposed to the gradual evolution of species.... As far as I can remember its actually a mechanism for the gradual change related to the deposition and preservation methods of the sediments in which the fossils are in.

Also this research is very old and not entirely accurate, although their point is valid.

As to your evolution bit. Let me make a statement that is unarguably true.

Einstein's work made predictions which were proven to be true, until this time it was a working theory with great parsimony and elegance. Once it predicted the outcome of several experiments and observations it became fact.

The theory of evolution was a theory which could never be unarguably proven 100%, much like all geolological/paleontological theories due to gaps in data. However it has made thousands of predictions which have been validated..... Thus as with Einstein's, Newton's and every other theory which has made validated predictions on their given subject matter. Evolution is a fact.
If people choose not to accept it for religious reasons thats fine, but it is fact, and once more Intelligent Design, or whatever the more recent concept is cannot ever be good science because it violates one of the fundamental principals of science by invoking a supernatural being. And thus should never, ever be thought in science classes.

Originally posted by jaywill
Do you agree with it as the explanation of the missing links and gaps in the fossil record?

yes

=================================

Einstein's work made predictions which were proven to be true, until this time it was a working theory with great parsimony and elegance. Once it predicted the outcome of several experiments and observations it became fact.

===================================

And Einstien also made some mistake which he said was the biggest single blunder of his career.

If I recall correctly Einstien, to account for a constant and static universe, included a constant in his calculations to arbitrarily account for this.

He was shown by an astronomer that the universe was expanding which strongly implied a beginning. I think being a very good scientist he accepted the evidence but he hated it. And he realized that his constant in his calculations was a mistake.

Only point being, major portions of a great thinkers ideas can latter on be found to have errors.


=======================
The theory of evolution was a theory which could never be unarguably proven 100%,
=============================

Thankyou.

Since I have been on the Internet discussing these matters some have not been able to admit this much. And they count anyone who still has questions about macroevolution to be moronic and uneducated.

==========================
much like all geolological/paleontological theories due to gaps in data. However it has made thousands of predictions which have been validated.....
==============================

Well it there are thousands predictions which have been validated, would you list me say, just ten of the thousands?

=======================
Thus as with Einstein's, Newton's and every other theory which has made validated predictions on their given subject matter. Evolution is a fact.
============================

It sounds like you are reversing then, your position that it cannot be validated 100%.

Of course you may be using a definition of evolution which is so broad that it cannot be denied. For example - "Evolution is change occuring in living organisms."

Yea, that's probably a fact then.


================================
If people choose not to accept it for religious reasons thats fine,
==================================

Oops. Some people choose to believe Evolution for religious reasons.

I think history will bear out that the most significant contribution of Charles Darwin was that he furnished the Atheist with a plausible if not tenable alternative to Paley's argument of Design for the existence of God.

That is probably Darwin's most significant achievement. He equiped the Atheists with a mechanism which possibly negates the neccesity for belief in a Creator.


==================================
but it is fact, and once more Intelligent Design, or whatever the more recent concept is cannot ever be good science because it violates one of the fundamental principals of science by invoking a supernatural being.
====================================

Not necessarily. Panspermia or seeding of the planet with seeds of life is a non-supernatural Intelligent Design argument of the origin of life on earth.

Most good ID scientists I have heard lecture know when to stop their opinion. They know when they have gone beyond what science can demonstrate. It is just that they are willing to follow the evidence where ever it may lead.

A forensic science such as may answer the question, was insurance fraud was commited or was a death do to a murder, can detect without going beyond to speculate what kind of person the criminal was as to personality.

So ID which can stand the test of scienctific objectivity can also limit itself to explaining that intelligent causes have been detected in nature - period.

================================
And thus should never, ever be thought in science classes.
=================================

So Newton's theories, who believed in an intelligent creator, should not be taught in science classes?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================

Einstein's work made predictions which were proven to be true, until this time it was a working theory with great parsimony and elegance. Once it predicted the outcome of several experiments and observations it became fact.

===================================

And Einstien also made some mistake which he ...[text shortened]... ories, who believed in an intelligent creator, should not be taught in science classes?[/b]

Einstein is irrelevant in this case and was just an example, but yes he made errors.

For the record there is very little difference between "Macroevolution and Microevolution" its a concept developed by people who dispute the theories surrounding evolution.

As to the thousands of predictions:
Fruit flies adapting generation to generation, and in fact speciating if separated for long enough.
Bacteria doing the same thing.
Certain plants doing the same thing.
Genetic defects.
Several hundred species found in the fossil record.
An old earth,
The progressive development and increasing complexity and diversity of life within the old earths history.
Ammonite complexity
Trilobite complexity
Divergent Evolution and mode of life
Convergent Evolution of isolated extant lifeforms which have a common ancestor so far back its extinct........

I can go on......

I never reversed my position. Plate tectonics cannot be shown to exactly be happening but we know it is by its predictions. Gravity cannot really be proven to be happening but its predictions show that it is.

Belief in evolution isn't required, its a fact as much as anything else within science.

Charles Darwin presented an original idea which has since been severely modified and reassessed to allow for new information. Answer me this, when (and if) they successfully create life without gods hands, will you change your position. Or will you try ever so hard find a flaw in that?

If someone could prove that god was there, then I'd believe because its proven. Until then I will believe that which can be proven by empirical evidence.

Besides Darwin's theory doesn't negate god. All it negates is the literal interpretation of a book written by men who say in said book that god was dictating to them.

Panspermia as a scientific theory has nothing to do with design. It states that LUCA (last universal common ancestor) or one of its contemporaries may have originated extra terrestrially.

What can science demonstrate that backs ID? I've never heard anything that cannot be easily disputed or easily reinterpreted. And actually wasn't that the point of this thread? To ask that question.


Please give me examples of Intelligent causes in nature.....

Newton believed in a creator. He never invoked him to explain gravity. Simply said that such elegance must have design behind it. Besides Newtonian physics isn't particularly correct and shouldn't actually be taught as much as it is. It acts as a hindrance when trying to study quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================

Einstein's work made predictions which were proven to be true, until this time it was a working theory with great parsimony and elegance. Once it predicted the outcome of several experiments and observations it became fact.

===================================

And Einstien also made some mistake which he ...[text shortened]... ories, who believed in an intelligent creator, should not be taught in science classes?[/b]

Only point being, major portions of a great thinkers ideas can latter on be found to have errors.
So what? Einstein's ideas aren't thought because Einstein was a genius. It's because they were experimented by thousands and found to be correct. It doesn't matter if Einstein was a lunatic, devil worshiper or Wicca. What matters is that something he wrote/said was consistent with experience.


It sounds like you are reversing then, your position that it cannot be validated 100%.
Evolution is a fact. Theory of evolution is not. You see the difference?

Oops. Some people choose to believe Evolution for religious reasons.
No, they don't. No one does.




argh... I have no more patience to counter argument... Believe whatever you want. But know that most likely you are wrong. Why the hell do you believe everything in the bible is literal?...

Originally posted by serigado
[b]Only point being, major portions of a great thinkers ideas can latter on be found to have errors.
So what? Einstein's ideas aren't thought because Einstein was a genius. It's because they were experimented by thousands and found to be correct. It doesn't matter if Einstein was a lunatic, devil worshiper or Wicca. What matters is that something he w ...[text shortened]... st likely you are wrong. Why the hell do you believe everything in the bible is literal?...[/b]

Did you see how this thread got turned into a defend evolution circus? I took 100 odd posts and repeated questions about alternatives to even get the words Intelligent design into the thread..... Now I have it I'm hoping it can be objectively analyzed .... That'll be interesting.....

Originally posted by Mexico
Did you see how this thread got turned into a defend evolution circus? I took 100 odd posts and repeated questions about alternatives to even get the words Intelligent design into the thread..... Now I have it I'm hoping it can be objectively analyzed .... That'll be interesting.....

Well... it could be that aliens, 500 million yrs ago found this planet, decided to make an experiment, and tossed some basic life here to see if it would evolve in the same way as in their planet.
Sometimes they comeback to see how the experiment is going on.

Originally posted by serigado
Well... it could be that aliens, 500 million yrs ago found this planet, decided to make an experiment, and tossed some basic life here to see if it would evolve in the same way as in their planet.
Sometimes they comeback to see how the experiment is going on.

Hey there's noting to prove that wrong, but the 6.5billion years is definitley necessary..... I don't see why they can't just say "God created evolution".... Or "God left the building blocks of life on the earth"..... Instead of arguing from ignorance about a theory they appear to have huge misconceptions of.... Evolution and Abiogenesis remove the necessity of god from life, they don't eliminate him......