Originally posted by scottishinnzHave you noticed how opponents of evolution always try to treat it as a religion with Darwin at the head (ie Darwinism 'the theory of Darwinian evolution' etc) whereas scientist would not normally mention Darwin except in a historical manner. The Theory of Evolution has advanced well beyond Darwins ideas even though most of his ideas still stand.
Stupid is ubiquitous, I'm afraid.
In physics, although we may say Newtonian mechanics and accept that with an understanding of relativity, it is not 100% accurate, we would hardly call it Newtonism and relativity Einstienism thereby making them out to be religions.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you paint Evolution as a religion not science then you can claim that if one part is wrong the rest must be crap too. The baby with the bathwater scenario. You've seen dj attempt it with "The Peatdown Man was a fake, therefore Evolution is crap.".
Have you noticed how opponents of evolution always try to treat it as a religion with Darwin at the head (ie Darwinism 'the theory of Darwinian evolution' etc) whereas scientist would not normally mention Darwin except in a historical manner. The Theory of Evolution has advanced well beyond Darwins ideas even though most of his ideas still stand.
In phys ...[text shortened]... d hardly call it Newtonism and relativity Einstienism thereby making them out to be religions.
Originally posted by jaywillWe do know how with evolution. We just don't know every biochemical detail of every change that occurred over the 3-4 billion years that life has been evolving.
[b]I am yet to hear of an alternative hypothesis other than a very vague 'God did it but we don't know how.'
What is the real difference in saying "God did it but we don't know how" and "Evolution did it but we don't know how?"
My college biology professor said exactly that, in essence "We do not yet know how Evolution did this or that. We ...[text shortened]... ent creator have no curiosity to study further about what they don't yet know.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillDoes the hypothesis referred to regard the origin of life or simply how humans came to be? There may be concrete evidence indicating that evolution occurs over time; microevolution may have been found to occur in bacteria. The emergence of antibiotic resistant viruses bolsters microevolution (although a virus is not technically a living thing - it merely consists of a strand of genetic material and a protein coat.) A new species that emerges from an existing species naturally is an example of evolution.
[b]I am yet to hear of an alternative hypothesis other than a very vague 'God did it but we don't know how.' What is the real difference in saying "God did it but we don't know how" and "Evolution did it but we don't know how?" My college biology professor said exactly that, in essence "We do not yet know how Evolution did this or that. We know Evolution did it. But we have yet to discover how."[/b]
There is incomplete evidence of macroevolution, and undoubtedly we will never have all the answers. I’m not reading the entire thread and debating the intricacies of evolution as deficiencies in the theory of evolution have already been mentioned.
Notably, evolution is incapable of providing answers to the origin of life; evolution primarily relates to the propagation of new species. Hence even if macroevolution is substantiated by concrete facts, we still have to attribute the origin of the universe and the life that exists in the universe to an entity that has always been, and always will be in existence. If we believe in a Creator, whether a God or cosmic force, we believe in the existence of an entity that transcends time.
Now, we are almost approaching the subject regarding the meaning of life. I am interested in the theory of evolution because that theory may help explain how we came to be (how we evolved, not necessarily how life originated), and understanding this, we may begin to understand our purpose. We find meaning in life by retaining what is meaningful to us in our memories, and by reconstructing our memories when we do not fully remember.
You may find the links below concerning the meaning in life interesting. Evolution may only indirectly relate to the question of the meaning of life, but Darwin does address meaning of life in part.
Concerning meaning in life:
http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/meaning1.htm#questions1
PBS made a thorough documentary about evolution; it is an excellent resource. (Use discretion; occasionally, there is bias as the documentary makes the case supporting evolution.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
Enjoy! 🙂
Originally posted by YugaAntibiotics work on bacteria, not viruses. That's antivirals.
Does the hypothesis referred to regard the origin of life or simply how humans came to be? There may be concrete evidence indicating that evolution occurs over time; microevolution may have been found to occur in bacteria. The emergence of antibiotic resistant viruses bolsters microevolution (although a virus is not technically a living thing - it merely cons ...[text shortened]... mentary makes the case supporting evolution.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
Enjoy! 🙂
Evolution is not incapable of providing the answers to the origin of life at all. Life evolved from non-life. The non-living replicating structures (pre-life replicators) gradually evolved the characteristics of life (there are 7, viruses fulfil 6 of these).
You are making a jump. You are stating that "even if evolution can explain everything, because the universe exists therefore God must also exist". This is, as has been explained countless times already on this thread a non sequiter. The existence of everything only implies the existence of everything, and nothing more. Ask yourself, does the existence of a plant imply the existence of a planter? Couldn't the seed have randomly fallen from the tree or plant right next to it? You should stop making fallacious logical jumps.
Why does life have to have any meaning? And even if it does, why does that meaning have to be imbued by something else? personally, I find the fact that I determine what I do with my life and the meaning I choose to find in my own life liberating. I don't need someone else to tell me.
Originally posted by YugaThere is.
Does the hypothesis referred to regard the origin of life or simply how humans came to be? There may be concrete evidence indicating that evolution occurs over time;
There is incomplete evidence of macroevolution, and undoubtedly we will never have all the answers. I’m not reading the entire thread and debating the intricacies of evolution as deficiencies in the theory of evolution have already been mentioned.
Maybe you should read the entire thread because your statement has already been shown to be false. There is significant evidence of macroevolution.
Notably, evolution is incapable of providing answers to the origin of life; evolution primarily relates to the propagation of new species.
If you had read the thread you would know that The Theory of Evolution does not seek to provide answers to the origin of life any more than the Theory of Relativity does.
Hence even if macroevolution is substantiated by concrete facts,
Which it is..
we still have to attribute the origin of the universe and the life that exists in the universe to an entity that has always been, and always will be in existence.
Why? Where did that logic come from? Surely not from the Theory of Evolution.
If we believe in a Creator, whether a God or cosmic force, we believe in the existence of an entity that transcends time.
Now, we are almost approaching the subject regarding the meaning of life. I am interested in the theory of evolution because that theory may help explain how we came to be (how we evolved, not necessarily how life originated), and understanding this, we may begin to understand our purpose. We find meaning in life by retaining what is meaningful to us in our memories, and by reconstructing our memories when we do not fully remember.
You may find the links below concerning the meaning in life interesting. Evolution may only indirectly relate to the question of the meaning of life, but Darwin does address meaning of life in part.
The meaning of life is an entirely separate issue from evolution.
Response to scottishinnz,
Antibiotics work on bacteria, not viruses. That's antivirals. (Oops, my mistake.) 🙂
The non-living replicating structures (pre-life replicators) gradually evolved the characteristics of life (there are 7, viruses fulfil 6 of these).
I do not remember all 7 characteristics of life, but I assume that viruses cannot breathe.
Evolution is not incapable of providing the answers to the origin of life at all. Life evolved from non-life.
There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports the claim that life evolved from non-life. I’m sounding rather ignorant here, but I plan to provide evidence for my claim tomorrow night. I presume life had to originate at some point, either from some sort of cosmic force or creator that has always been in existence, and always will be in existence. It is conceivable that this creator is changing, perhaps even dead; i.e. it’s possible that this creator does not have to be a constant entity (as we like to think).
You are stating that "even if evolution can explain everything, because the universe exists therefore God must also exist". This is a non sequiter. The existence of everything only implies the existence of everything, and nothing more.
I only stated that if the universe exists, there had to be means to facilitate its existence. True, perhaps the universe has always been in existence (although always changing; expanding, I believe?!). Reiterating what I have just written, if something is in existence, something had to cause its existence, or it has always existed. Something cannot be created out of nothing. There is no debating this point!
Why does life have to have any meaning? And even if it does, why does that meaning have to be imbued by something else? personally, I find the fact that I determine what I do with my life and the meaning I choose to find in my own life liberating. I don't need someone else to tell me.
Interesting point. We, as humans, tend to label everything, and give everything meaning, so that we may communicate and understand the world better. One may perceive anything as meaningful or meaningless as one wishes. I believe that it is important that one finds meaning in life; for instance, my family and friends help provide meaning (and happiness!) in my life. We, as a society, have to find meaning(s) in life; otherwise, society could not function. Perhaps there are but two things that have intrinsic meaning (as mentioned in the link in my previous post), materialism and agnosticism (or consciousness).
Naturally, one does not need meaning in life to justify or validate one’s existence. Of course, I do not intend to tell you or anybody else how to live their lives and what to believe; I respect and highly value freedoms in this regard. My sole intent here is to learn.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI apologize for not reading the whole thread for evidence of macroevolution, although I have substantially studied evolution, and I plan to respond knowledgably at a later time.
If you had read the thread you would know that the [origin]/meaning of life is an entirely separate issue from evolution. There is significant evidence of macroevolution.
I was, in part, responding to jaywill’s post, and it appears to me that he was looking for answers regarding the origin of life, which I believe is directly linked to evolution. Perhaps I didn’t read the context of his post well. In any case, when studying evolution, we have to consider from what we involved from (i.e. our origins).
You are correct; the meaning of life has little to do with evolution. I don’t need to read the thread to understand that the meaning of life is a separate issue from evolution. In future, I’ll try to stick to the thread topic.
what's wrong with evolution?.. well, just look at us... destructive organic filth dripping with enough arrogance to think we're the crown of creation... the stench of our self deluded notion that our ability of abstract thought is incredible because it's the limit of our mental abilities... if there's actually a creator behind evolution I'm sure xe's very frustrated by now... and that's the only comfort we get for all this... so enjoy it people... that and the knowledge i won't be able to read my own post...
Originally posted by YugaI know you do not want to debate the point but that is probably because it is an illogical, unfounded claim made that has also been made by others on this site. (They also avoided debating it)
I only stated that if the universe exists, there had to be means to facilitate its existence. True, perhaps the universe has always been in existence (although always changing; expanding, I believe?!). Reiterating what I have just written, if something is in existence, something had to cause its existence, or it has always existed. Something cannot be created out of nothing. There is no debating this point!
All right, I am still awake (and I shouldn’t be, it’s 5:00 AM), so I will respond in part. I totally wish that the discussion focused on evolution, and so I will finally contribute.
I am sincerely here to enhance my understanding of evolution, but I do comprehend that chess forums may not always present discussions of the highest quality. I have no problems with this, but I don't enjoy wasting my time (hence I play chess 😉 ).
I have read the thread from page 170 onwards. I have not seen a shred of evidence presented supporting the theory of evolution; indeed, very few of the posts actually related to evolution. Perhaps one may understand the reason why I hardly ever bother reading the forums, particularly the spirituality forum. Many of the responses were extremely simplistic, but I assume in prior posts that evidence with a very sound scientific basis (and not mere speculation and inane banter) was provided, and I would agree that repeating oneself is rather tiresome.
Perhaps some of the evidence supporting macroevolution has been posted before. Fine. However, there are a myriad of flaws in macroevolution.
-lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record; Cambrian explosion
-the “irreducible complexity” of life
Do you truly understand the complexity of a cell? I know I don’t. Consider a eukaryotic cell. There is a nucleus, where our genetic information resides, Golgi apparatus, which acts as a warehouse, mitochondria, which produce energy, lysosomes, which break down substances, and many other organelles, often bound by a membrane, and many, many compartments. There are also many highly complicated systems, processes, highways that allow substances to travel through the cell, and allow cellular operations to take place. Numerous components, and if one component was missing or dysfunctional, the whole cellular operation would fail. Many of the components are dependent on the other; it is impossible that these systems developed gradually, some of mechanisms already have to be in place to make the system work. These systems are complicated beyond human comprehension – for example, “a microscopic transportation system [could not have been] possibly self-assembled by gradual modifications over the years”. (Behe) For a tiny component of a cell to function cohesively with all other components a cell is miraculous.
Even the simplest of cells are incredibly complex. And we still have not come any closer to explaining how life could have evolved from non-living material.
Nobody has ever found a means to create life from non-life, so I do not know how we may assume that life evolved from non-life. The concept of life evolving from non-life is logical but this seems extraordinarily impossible.
“Darwinism claims that all creatures, [including] every new species that every appeared, are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.” – Jonathan Wells
In essence Wells is stating that Darwinism infers that macroevolution had to occur, and I believe the evidence indicates that macroevolution is false.
According to Wells, the best, current hypothesis regards the primitive atmosphere of Earth consisting of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, and very little hydrogen, rendering the Miller experiment bunk. When electricity, pressure, etc. is passed through a scientifically accepted primitive atmosphere, the proper substrate for the origin of life has never been produced, if it is indeed possible to accurately determine what components are necessary to initiate life. Even if we were able to generate all the necessary cellular components from non-living chemicals, we are impossibly far away from generating life.
Considering the evidence supporting the existence of a creator (that I will not directly provide here, and I admit, the arguments against macroevolution make a strong case) and detracting from macroevolution, it is much more logical to me to believe that we were intelligently designed rather than evolved from non-living material.
Originally posted by YugaHomeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to cool off.
I do not remember all 7 characteristics of life, but I assume that viruses cannot breathe.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Production of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#A_conventional_definition
Originally posted by YugaTwo points is hardly myriad.
However, there are a myriad of flaws in macroevolution.
-lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record; Cambrian explosion
-the “irreducible complexity” of life
....... There are also many highly complicated systems, processes, highways that allow substances to travel through the cell, and allow cellular operations to take place. Numerous components, and if one component was missing or dysfunctional, the whole cellular operation would fail.
How do you draw this conclusion when there are many different types of cells with many different sets of functions all functioning perfectly well.
Many of the components are dependent on the other; it is impossible that these systems developed gradually, some of mechanisms already have to be in place to make the system work. These systems are complicated beyond human comprehension – for example, “a microscopic transportation system [could not have been] possibly self-assembled by gradual modifications over the years”. (Behe) For a tiny component of a cell to function cohesively with all other components a cell is miraculous.
The fact that Behe and you are incapable of comprehending what seems obvious to many of the rest of us is no indication that something is impossible. The very fact that you cannot comprehend it, should cause you to hesitate from making broad claims about what is or is not possible.
Even the simplest of cells are incredibly complex. And we still have not come any closer to explaining how life could have evolved from non-living material.
There are many possible explanations about how it could have happened but the Theory of Evolution and what you term 'macroevolution' do not depend on biogenesis.
Nobody has ever found a means to create life from non-life, so I do not know how we may assume that life evolved from non-life. The concept of life evolving from non-life is logical but this seems extraordinarily impossible.
It may seem so to you, but not to me.
“Darwinism claims that all creatures, [including] every new species that every appeared, are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.” – Jonathan Wells
In essence Wells is stating that Darwinism infers that macroevolution had to occur, and I believe the evidence indicates that macroevolution is false.
What exactly is 'Darwinism'? is that some new religion"?
Considering the evidence supporting the existence of a creator (that I will not directly provide here, and I admit, the arguments against macroevolution make a strong case) and detracting from macroevolution, it is much more logical to me to believe that we were intelligently designed rather than evolved from non-living material.
So your only real objection to Evolution is that it does not match your other beliefs.
You didn't expand your 'lack of intermediate forms' claim. Would you like to do so and show how it in any way could be considered a flaw in macroevolution.