Originally posted by PenguinCool.
Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.venganza.org/
"Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by h ...[text shortened]... ence. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental."
---Penguin
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWell clearly the only way of proving it is to watch the entire process over millions of years, which we cannot do. But I don't think we do need to prove it. Until a barrier mechanism is found that stops micro-evolution continuing into macro-evolution, evolution is the best testable, evidence supported, explanation we have.
Yes that is what I think.
I would also point out to you that I cannot prove a negative, it is up
to you to show me that this does occur. I can see small changes in
kinds or species, from the large to microscopic in size, but I have not
seen anything outside of claims made about fossils that those
changes do go that far. You need to show me that these c ...[text shortened]... rom a
simple single cell life form to an oak tree in X amount of years and
generations.
Kelly
Speciation we can see happening right now. Here's a blatant cut 'n' paste from TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html):
Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
* the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
* greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
* the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
* many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
* the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
* the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
So if we can see speciation occuring right now, what is the mechanism that stops this process continuing through kinds (whetever they are), families, phyla, etc? No one has found it and no-one has even come up with the beginnings of a plausible, potentially testable, hypothesis for it. A Nobel and worldwide fame and fortune is up for grabs by the person who does but until they do, evolution is still by far our best bet.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJayI'll rephrase the question then. Do you believe that astronomers have found objects orbiting other stars?
I believe astronomers are having a hard time keeping up with the
number of planets orbiting around our star, let alone another.
Kelly
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinJust what are you asking, you asked about planets, I gave you an
I'll rephrase the question then. Do you believe that astronomers have found [b]objects orbiting other stars?
--- Penguin[/b]
answer... Now this, get to the point. I don't know, I don't follow
astronomy enough to know or care what they think they have found
around other stars.
Kelly
Originally posted by AThousandYoungResults of tests are facts, what those results mean can be what we
You referred to some facts which you don't "argue with". What facts are those? Please be specific.
think, or something else. What we have before us would be factual
since it is right before us. You realize you are asking a broad
question, and wanting something specific, it will difficult to know
what it is you want.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinWell clearly the only way of proving it is to watch the entire process over millions of years, which we cannot do. But I don't think we do need to prove it. Until a barrier mechanism is found that stops micro-evolution continuing into macro-evolution, evolution is the best testable, evidence supported, explanation we have.
Well clearly the only way of proving it is to watch the entire process over millions of years, which we cannot do. But I don't think we do need to prove it. Until a barrier mechanism is found that stops micro-evolution continuing into macro-evolution, evolution is the best testable, evidence supported, explanation we have.
Speciation we can see happening ...[text shortened]... person who does but until they do, evolution is still by far our best bet.
--- Penguin.
Fine by me, you want to believe it since you are happy with it, okay.
I'd suggest than that when you argue with people who don't accept
that, you keep that in mind.
Kelly
Originally posted by dj2beckerAllow me to make the assumption that the harpsichord was intelligently designed to create a new and improved (evolved) form of music. Music, I would assume, evolved from ancient tribespeople hitting sticks together.
The clavinet was intelligently designed and later replaced by the harpsichord which was also a product of intelligent design...
Or are you saying the harpischord and clavinet came about by random chance?
Why would they do that? I would suggest that their instruments evolved from their evolving mental capacities, allowing them to develop an appreciation music as the physically fundamental needs for food, water, shelter, fire and sex had been satisfied.
Would it not be a feasible assumption to make, that the Intelligence who designed the piano was simply a product of the evolving need (or want--either way, a demonstration of the power of human will and/or consciousness) for an advanced medium of musical production?
Put simply: God, is itself a product of evolution. If you replace the definition of God as a 'He' -- a consciousness separate to man's own collective consciousness -- with the notion that 'God' refers merely to the collective consciousness (ie. a culmination of every thought ever thought), then yes, God DID create the universe, and evolution exists.
If any zealots (for the sake of argument, we'll assume those defining themselves as Christians) wish to argue that evolution doesn't exist, the fact that you are actively participating in this discussion -- on a public forum -- proves otherwise. Let's not forget, there was once a time when a person would be gruesomely killed for disagreeing with the collectively enforced opinions of The Church (ironically defined as the body of Christ, according to the Bible) [see The Inquisition.
That's the gist of my point--I'm not a trained scientist, but I do have a religious background--and I'd like to think that I do think.
Also, "Nuh-uh" is not an argument.
Originally posted by KellyJayWell it was an unsubtle attempt to lay a trap and you clearly saw it coming a mile off (or you the news has completely washed over you over the last few years).
Just what are you asking, you asked about planets, I gave you an
answer... Now this, get to the point. I don't know, I don't follow
astronomy enough to know or care what they think they have found
around other stars.
Kelly
--- Penguin
Originally posted by KellyJayIgnoring whether evolution is right or not (you can believe it is right or not as you like) but that it is the best testable explanation we have for the facts before us is not a belief, it is a fact. Nothing else comes close to explaining the fossil record and the timescales it appears to indicate, the present genetic diversity, worldwide population distribution and the changes we see going on around us as does the theory of evolution.
[b]Well clearly the only way of proving it is to watch the entire process over millions of years, which we cannot do. But I don't think we do need to prove it. Until a barrier mechanism is found that stops micro-evolution continuing into macro-evolution, evolution is the best testable, evidence supported, explanation we have.
Fine by me, you want to ...[text shortened]... st than that when you argue with people who don't accept
that, you keep that in mind.
Kelly[/b]
I have faith that a theory that explains pretty much everything biology-related around us better than anything else we currently have is probably, but not definitely right.
You have faith that a story thought up during a period when very little (compared to now) about the workings of biology, physics or chemistry and that essentially flies in the face of most of what we see around us, is definitly right.
When you argue with people who don't accept your beliefs, keep that in mind.
--- Penguin.