People who think the human brain evolved are out of their minds. and other stuff

[prometheus]

the human brain like many said, is a channel of networks combined into a small chamber in your head. Every little creature no matter how small has a brain of some type. Even the little bacteria has a brain.

This is not really true. A bacteria doesn't have a cell nucleus, a kind of brain on the cellular scale.
Also there are many animals that do have a nervous system, but without a brain. So in a sense, no central control unit. Think about mussels. I think most insects do have brains, but I don't think this is a very black and white issue.

But I think your point was that a brain is a very common thing in life. This is true. Our brain isn't fundamentally different from all other brains.

The point that I am trying to arrive at is humans, are very very very much smarter than the rest of the creatures. Why did the intelligence level of apes just jump so high when humans "evolved"? Human Evolution was going at a very slow pace slowly getting more intelligent. Than bam, the human was a million times smarter than the rest. That's a major crack evolution.

First of. Humans did not evolve from apes. We share common ancestors.

If you look at human evolution. Humans existed long before homo sapiens evolved. They  were primitive humans, they were bipedal and they had the intelligence comparable to our modern apes today. I will just direct to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution to make my post a little shorter. As you see there there are many many types of humans that are all extinct. This all went quite fast. But look at the brain sizes:

Ardipithecus, 410cc
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 410cc
Ardipithecus, 410cc
Paranthropus, 410 cc
Australopithecus, 375 to 500cc
Homo habilis, 590 to 650cc
Homo erectus, 950 to 1100cc 
Homo neanderthalensis, 1500cc
Homo sapiens, 1400cc

So you see that brain size didn't jump one magical gap but several. You have the primitive homonids, then a jump to homo habilis, then homo erectus and then homo sapiens( and homo neanderthalensis). Secondly, brain size isn't everything. There is some discussion among scientists about the difference, or lack of it, between the mental capabilities between sapiens and neanderthalensis. So one can still say that sapiens does not only have a very big brain, but also a very special brain.

Not the problem in terms of darwinism is not the nature of the brain itself, but the special cirumstances that were needed to select sapiens. Less intelligence than sapiens has was not enough to survive and pass on genes. So this is quite puzzling, but no objection to the theory of evolution.

Don't you find it that it is way way to impossible for life to happen on earth with the evolution theory? What are the odds of having all of the things necessary for life to happen on this planet and not any other discovered?

We have only one planet in our solar system with liquid water. So the chance until now has been 1 on 1. No more have discovered.

I mean, it is very improbable for one element of life to be on earth, but all of them??

This is the question. We don't know how special earth is because we have observed only one solar system. And a solar system kind of has only place for one planet with the correct distance from the sun.
Also, improbabilities happen, all the time. Our universe is ruled by improbability.

that is like 1 out of infinity. And most of the other planets only have one element of life.

Most other planets? You mean the ones in our solar system? Yes, the other planets don't have a fair chance for life because they are either too close or too far away from the sun. So this argument doesn't hold.

I don't think I know what all of the life elements are, but there are quite a few.  I really don't know what I am saying. I was just bored. Do you think it makes sense, because I don' think it does. 

There are two essential elements for life, as we know it. That is carbon, because it is needed as the backbone for macromolecules. And water, because of it's many special properties that are also totally unique and that all have to do with the oxygen atom pulling hard at the covalant electrons that are shared with the two hydrogen atoms. This means oxygen becomes slightly negatively sharged and the hydrogen sides of the water molecule slightly positively charged.

Evolution/Darwinism is a debate I've always been interested in, as biology (particularly genetics) is a favorite field of mine, and I've done a good bit of research on it.

I don't believe in macro evolution. Do you know that according to the scientific system it still hasn't reached the state of "theory", but is still categorized as a hypothesis?

Ok wait and read careful, this is going to be subtle. You claim you know a thing about genetics. Ok, think. What does 'macro-evolution' mean for genetics. What is it from the point of view of genetics?

You claim science doesn't actually consider macro-evolution to be a theory. You are right. But! This actually means the opposite from what you think it does. There is no difference between macro and micro-evolution in terms of genetic processe. The whole distinction doesn't exist. It is a distinction made by creationists to attack evolution because micro-evolution has been observed in a lab millions of times. So they claim macro-evolution is something different. But it isn't. It is exactly the same thing in terms of what happens genetically. So scientists don't talk about marco and micro-evolution. Actually, creationists also can't define between the two.

Lets think again about what it would mean to have micro-evolution but no macro-evolution. Macro-evolution would be a sum of a number of micro-evolution, a number creationists can't really define. (It's probably always those number of evolutionary steps that have not been observed because of time limitations.) For macro-evolution not to happen there would be somethng limiting the drift away from a centain template. There would have to be a system preventing mutations to add together beyond a certain scope. There should be a control system, a barrier. There just isn't something like this.

Some creationists say that evolution happens, but only inbetween species. So for example, dogs can become bigger, different colours, different features; we all know the varations inbetween dog species. But a dog would never be able to become something that isn't a dog. For this to be true in terms of genetics we would have to have a dog-template genetic code. Something with all the features that define the dog species, whatever those creationists claim what defines a dog. This genetic material cannot mutate in any way. Then, we would have the properties that are different and that would be the properties that can be changed by micro-evolution.
If you truely know a things about genetics then you would know that this discernment is not found in genetics. We have big long very very messy strings of base pairs. And that's it.
The DNA and RNA is copied extremely accurate compared to how accurate humans can copy information, but when a mistake is made there is no control. Computers use things like cyclic redundancy check. Genetic copies are never compared to the original to correct errors. Once an error is made it is there to stay. No matter how many errors there already are. Because of this there is nothing that can prevent several mutations from breaking the 'macro evolution'-barrier creationists talk about.

I will take a look at those sites later. I hope they aren't religious propaganda.

[prometheus]

Pianolearner and Westley, thanks for the nice posts.

Actually, pianolearner pointed towards a thing many people do not understand and I forgot about. I remember than when I 'graduated' from the version of 'high school' they have here that I knew very little about evolution and that I did not actually understood the most important things about it. Actually, I believed that evolution was on it's way back because of all the religious propaganda. I didn't even realise it was religious propaganda because I never got into religion. For some reason I liked the idea of a new scientific theory to explain the origin of life.

So I read books on it and I found out I was taught very little. The points Pianolearner brings up are, maybe, essential. I forgot about them because I take them for granted and because it is hard to find out if my discussion partner is actually aware of these things or not.

[lisztisforkids]

Prometheus..Defender of reason.  

[pianolearner]

Prometheus,

The brain is an organ made from many cells so as far as I know Bacteria doesn't have a brain because it is a single cell organism.  Single cells only posses DNA (apart from a Virus, the simplest lifeform, which only has RNA) that contains the genetic instructions specifying the biological development of all cellular forms of life. As I understand it,  DNA controls cell activity like metabolism and division not the brain.

I say it's highly likely that all insects have a brain, as would any complex multi cell organism because there are functions that require more than DNA to control--eyesight, legs, wings, fangs..etc

[BoliverAllmon]

insects don't have brains.

[lau]

you didn't need to correct everything i said, i knew i was wrong. like i said, i was bored and off of school

[prometheus]

Of course bacteria don't have brains. That is what I said. Lau claimed they had. I think she/he was referring to the cell nucleus. But bacteria don't even have this central control unit in their cells.

In eukaryotic life forms, like animals and plants, the cells do have Cell nucleuses. They contain the genetic material. But in Prokaryotes, bacteria,  the genetic material just floats around in the cell. I actually do not remember how the processes in a bacteria are controlled.

Insects do have brains, or rather central nervous systems. I am not really sure if all bacteria actually do have brains. Most have. But insects are very diverse.

A decentralised nervous system can control a complex life forms. Some Mollusk do have centralised nervous systems, but some don't. I think that mussels don't while octupusses are actually very smart.

[BoliverAllmon]

you didn't need to correct everything i said, i knew i was wrong. like i said, i was bored and off of school

even if you knew you were wrong, We have to correct this blunder in case there may be someone here who didn't know it was wrong. You do that in debates.

[Mozartian]

Ok wait and read careful, this is going to be subtle. You claim you know a thing about genetics. Ok, think. What does 'macro-evolution' mean for genetics. What is it from the point of view of genetics?

You claim science doesn't actually consider macro-evolution to be a theory. You are right. But! This actually means the opposite from what you think it does. There is no difference between macro and micro-evolution in terms of genetic processe. The whole distinction doesn't exist. It is a distinction made by creationists to attack evolution because micro-evolution has been observed in a lab millions of times. So they claim macro-evolution is something different. But it isn't. It is exactly the same thing in terms of what happens genetically. So scientists don't talk about marco and micro-evolution. Actually, creationists also can't define between the two.

Lets think again about what it would mean to have micro-evolution but no macro-evolution. Macro-evolution would be a sum of a number of micro-evolution, a number creationists can't really define. (It's probably always those number of evolutionary steps that have not been observed because of time limitations.) For macro-evolution not to happen there would be somethng limiting the drift away from a centain template. There would have to be a system preventing mutations to add together beyond a certain scope. There should be a control system, a barrier. There just isn't something like this.

I will take a look at those sites later. I hope they aren't religious propaganda.

Microevolution is the theory that "natural selection" (the process whereby some organisms in a species have certain inherited variations that give them an advantage over others) can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism within its genetic code. This type of evolution is understandable in terms of Medelian genetics.
Macroevolution is very different, in that it is the hypothesis that the same processes which work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism. This would require added information to the creature's genetic code. Darwinists claim that this could happen by mutation, but one big problem with this theory is that there has never been a documented case of a mutation that made an organism more fit to survive (the only example of a "beneficial" mutation is that of sickle-cell anemia. This makes humans less likely to die from malaria, but also makes your blood less efficient in sending oxygen to your cells. 25% of disease-carriers die prematurely. Clearly, this is a "benign" mutation at best, and definately not a helpful one.)

[Derek]

Maybe so. Research has told us that it is very hard for a human that was learned to believe in god as a child to abandon this idea as an adult.

Shows what research knows. I was raised agnostic. I never seem to fit into research that categorizes people, though.

Every time I start a discussion like this, I realize more and more that I am most decidedly not an intellectual. I have a way of seeing the world which suits me, and sometimes get angry at people who would seem to be attempting to destroy it. But I don't have the energy to spout hot air for a three page long post trying to convince someone to change their religious/scientific views. Which, in a discussion like this, are one and the same.

[pianolearner]

But I don't have the energy to spout hot air for a three page long post trying to convince someone to change their religious/scientific views.

Of course you don't. You would rather resort to violence!

I just feel like punching them in the face for being an arrogant, thoughtless, mindless idiot.

 

[prometheus]

Microevolution is the theory that "natural selection" can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism within its genetic code.

Natural selection doesn't transform anything. Natural selection selects. Also, evolution in general doesn't head towards something more specialised, but rather to something that is the fittest.

Within its genetic code? This is non-sensical. A mutation is always something else than the original genetic code.
I don't know where you get this idea from. But it follows that what I described before. If you think there is a difference between macro and micro, then there needs to be a barrier. You have this version where evolution happen 'within it's genetic code', but this makes no sense at all in terms of genetics. A genetic code doesn't allow room for variation within itself. It is a simple double sequence of base pairs; A and T or C and G. When a mutation happens then a base pair is either added, removed, or changed from A and T to G and C. How do you imagine mutations within a genetic code?

This type of evolution is understandable in terms of Medelian genetics.

Mendelian genetics only refers to the inherited characteristics.

Macroevolution is very different, in that it is the hypothesis that the same processes which work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism. This would require added information to the creature's genetic code.

Adding a base pair to the DNA isn't adding information? Surely it is.

And, into a completely different organism? I don't know how you define this. But this never happens. And it doesn't have to happen. Actually, according to darwinism this can't even happen.
If you have 'micro-evolution' then the longer the process happens and the more generations pass the more different the gene pool of the original and the currect organism will be. What else do you expect? How can you claim this can not be the case? The thing is that when the species barrier is not yet broken the new genes are still part of the same old gene pool. But when there are two species the gene pools split.

Darwinists claim that this could happen by mutation, but one big problem with this theory is that there has never been a documented case of a mutation that made an organism more fit to survive (the only example of a "beneficial" mutation is that of sickle-cell anemia.

Surely even the example you provide is a curect one. Under the right circumstances this benefit will make the organism more fit.

This makes humans less likely to die from malaria, but also makes your blood less efficient in sending oxygen to your cells. 25% of disease-carriers die prematurely. Clearly, this is a "benign" mutation at best, and definately not a helpful one.)

Isn't this just one mutation? So micro-evolution?

As for examples of benificial mutations, there are many. But your whole argument is based on misconceptions. For big changes to happen we just have a large number of accumulating small changes. If we would observe just big changes then this would not be part of darwinistic evolution. I am not sure what you do mean by macro-evolution, but it seems that that what you believe is not part of darwinistic evolution.

As for 'changes within a organisms genetic code'-thing. I found this article:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html

I think I now understand what you meant. But this is a clear misconception. Mutations isn't the selection of pre-existing variations.

Some more incorrect claims that your posts seem to allude to.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_1.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928.html

I do not know where you got your information from. But it is kind of sad: You have been tricked. The things that you have read or have been told were incorrect.

[pianolearner]

Natural selection doesn't transform anything. Natural selection selects. Also, evolution in general doesn't head towards something more specialised, but rather to something that is the fittest.

Within its genetic code? This is non-sensical. A mutation is always something else than the original genetic code.
I don't know where you get this idea from. But it follows that what I described before. If you think there is a difference between macro and micro, then there needs to be a barrier. You have this version where evolution happen 'within it's genetic code', but this makes no sense at all in terms of genetics. A genetic code doesn't allow room for variation within itself. It is a simple double sequence of base pairs; A and T or C and G. When a mutation happens then a base pair is either added, removed, or changed from A and T to G and C. How do you imagine mutations within a genetic code?

Mendelian genetics only refers to the inherited characteristics.

Adding a base pair to the DNA isn't adding information? Surely it is.

And, into a completely different organism? I don't know how you define this. But this never happens. And it doesn't have to happen. If you have 'micro-evolution' then the longer the process happens and the more generations pass the more different the gene pool of the original and of the currect organism will be. What else do you expect? How can you claim this can not be the case? The thing is that when the species barrier is not yet broken the new genes are still part of the same old gene pool. But when there are two species the gene pools split.

Surely even the example you provide is a curect one. Under the right circumstances this benefit will make the organism more fit.

Isn't this just one mutation? So micro-evolution?

As for examples of benificial mutations, there are many. But your whole argument is based on misconceptions. For big changes to happen we just have a large number of accumulating small changes. If we would observe just big changes then this would not be part of darwinistic evolution. I am not sure what you do mean by macro-evolution, but it seems that that what you believe is not part of darwinistic evolution.

As for 'changes within a organisms genetic code'-thing. I found this article:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html

I think I now understand what you meant. But this is a clear misconception. Mutations isn't the selection of pre-existing variations.

Some more incorrect claims that your posts seem to allude to.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_1.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928.html

I do not know where you got your information from. But it is kind of sad: You have been tricked. The things that you have read or have been told were incorrect.

I agree. I read through the articles and didn't find anything that debunks evolutionary theory.

[prometheus]

This link talks about the things Karl Popper says in this link https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm supplied by Mozartian.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html


Things like the big bang and evolution as a whole cannot be replicated in a lab. But this does not prevent scientific method from being applied. Predictions can still be made based on the theories. So the theories are falsifiable.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

The big bang can also be falsified.

Today scientists have created a theory called string theory. But this theory cannot be falsified and thus is not considered science yet. Scientists are very critical about this. If darwinism or the big bang would not be falsifiable scientists would be the first to object and the theory would be disgarded.

[Mozartian]

I would simply like to point out that the talkorigins.org website wherefrom you supplied all of your links states this on its homepage:

The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

and also:

The Panda's Thumb is dedicated to explaining the theory of evolution, critiquing the claims of the anti-evolution movement, and defending the integrity of science and science education in America and around the world.

And is apparently a part of this group. Therefore the main purpose of the site's articles will be, as they state, to refute intelligent design and creationism. So I wouldn't expect to find anything that would "debunk" the evolutionist theory there.

My information came from scientific textbooks and websites, most of which are not biased towards either belief.

Not being a scientist but a mere highschool student, I'd like to withdraw from this debate here, as I feel that further discussion would be very technical and would require more knowledge than I currently possess.

Lastly, I would like to point out that there are many fine scientists who are creationists, and I do encourge those of you who are open-minded about this to explore both sides of the issue.

[pianistimo]

comedy central explains it this way.  the animals that we end up eating are the dumb ones.  if we did not kill and eat them, they would find a way to kill themselves.  take a cow for instance.  they just look at you (duh).  and fish.  they oogle like 'how did i get here' when you pull them out of the water. 

now, just so i don't sound cruel and inhumane...i don't particularly think killing animals is good. but, so far they haven't figured out a way to kill us - (excepting bear and lions occasionally).  but, i mean - they don't have  a meat market on us yet.

[prometheus]

I would simply like to point out that the talkorigins.org website wherefrom you supplied all of your links states this on its homepage:

Yes, the site is biased, towards science. That's good if you are concerned about accuracy. Science finds answers and creates models that fit reality. Religion hasn't progressed and never will while science has taught us all things of amazing things. If you don't 'believe' in science, why bother using computers and cell phones? They shouldn't work if science was wrong. 

My information came from scientific textbooks and websites, most of which are not biased towards either belief.

Uuh, either belief? You mean religion and science? One is a belief. The other is a set of principles that help find models that fit reality. A book biased towards religion isn't a scientific textbook, even when it talks about things from the field of science. The book would have to be pseudoscience in that case. But many you just misunderstood. I am not sure, but the views you expressed and the things you said do not fit the theory of evolution/darwinism.

Not being a scientist but a mere highschool student, I'd like to withdraw from this debate here, as I feel that further discussion would be very technical and would require more knowledge than I currently possess.

I did not want to intimidate you. I am sorry if I discouraged you.

Lastly, I would like to point out that there are many fine scientists who are creationists, and I do encourge those of you who are open-minded about this to explore both sides of the issue.

Yes there are. But those people are creationists because of personal reasons. Not because of scientific reasons. They just believe in god and the nature of their belief demands them to take the bible literally. So this contradicts with science. But, these people can never be biologists or zoologists. The theory of evolution is both an important and powerful theory. You have to know it if you want to know something about nature.

There are also many chistians that have no problems with evolution at all.

In mainstream science there are no doubts about the basic principles of darwinism.

If you truly have an open mind than this will lead to science eventually once you get accces to the right information.

they don't have  a meat market on us yet.

Actually, some have. The malaria parasite is an animal and it kills a lot people every year.  And it is not very smart to say the least.

[pianistimo]

excuse me?  not because of scientific reasons.  there was a past thread where many scientific resons were stated.  but they are ignored.  much as i ignore your posts.  i simply don't believe that we came from ignorance and have no purpose for living our existence except what is propounded in psychology classes.  survival of the fittest.  that is ridiculous if we are civilized.

[Derek]

Yes, the idea that absolutely everything in the universe can be explained by a base case and an inductive step, or even a plausible description of one (evolution), is pretty much ridiculous. We can't get down to the base case of what the tiniest subatomic particles are. We can only name them and describe them.

Therefore---we know very little about what existence is

[prometheus]

Science does not ignore the arguments made by creationists. Most of them are based on misconceptions or misunderstandings. Others have just been refuted. The issues that are discussed in the field are about how exactly darwinistic evolution works. The basic ideas behind the theory of evolution are agreed upon by everyone in the field and no longer discussed.



Those people that are scientists and that are creationists aren't because the scientific arguments against evolution are so profound; they are not. And the scientific arguments supporting creationism do not exist.

Yes, the idea that absolutely everything in the universe can be explained by a base case and an inductive step, or even a plausible description of one (evolution), is pretty much ridiculous. We can't get down to the base case of what the tiniest subatomic particles are. We can only name them and describe them.

Therefore---we know very little about what existence is

Sure. But science works. Your computer works. Surely science is very very powerful.

[Derek]

It is powerful but impotent in the face of the truly elusive question: WHAT and WHY? it can't even answer HOW.

We can make up our own WHAT's, HOW's, and WHY's, and in the end they allow us to match patterns. Once we can reproduce something with consistent behavior such as chemical combustion for example, we can develop an engine. That is knowledge, of course, and very powerful knowledge as you said.

So, science is very powerful for interrelating things after we have assigned labels to them, but to truly reveal the answers to these questions we must probe deeper.

Discussion at this point can no longer be based entirely on scientific observation. To what do we turn for enlightenment at this point, then? How do we answer the WHAT, HOW and WHY?

Some might think it is silly to even try to think about such things---but why would that be? Its certainly a valid question. Haven't you ever looked at the night sky, or even just sat and contemplated the fact that you exist and been absolutely and totally dumbfounded?

[pianolearner]

It is powerful but impotent in the face of the truly elusive question: WHAT and WHY? it can't even answer HOW.

We can make up our own WHAT's, HOW's, and WHY's, and in the end they allow us to match patterns. Once we can reproduce something with consistent behavior such as chemical combustion for example, we can develop an engine. That is knowledge, of course, and very powerful knowledge as you said.

So, science is very powerful for interrelating things after we have assigned labels to them, but to truly reveal the answers to these questions we must probe deeper.

Discussion at this point can no longer be based entirely on scientific observation. To what do we turn for enlightenment at this point, then? How do we answer the WHAT, HOW and WHY?

Some might think it is silly to even try to think about such things---but why would that be? Its certainly a valid question. Haven't you ever looked at the night sky, or even just sat and contemplated the fact that you exist and been absolutely and totally dumbfounded?

Derek,

Prometheous raised a very good point - Science works! You insist that science arrogantly asserts it can explain everything in this universe, it can’t--Yet. Scientists actually do discuss the possibility of multiple universes and consider the fact that all the fundamental laws may be different to this one. There are ongoing attempts to reconcile the differences between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Science doesn’t take anything for granted.

In Regard to the “Theory of Everything:”

“There have been numerous theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but as yet none has been able to stand up to experimental scrutiny or there is tremendous difficulty in getting the theories to produce even experimentally testable results. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity propose radically different descriptions of the universe, and straightforward ways of combining the two lead quickly to the renormalization problem in which the theory does not give finite results for experimentally testable quantities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory

Does this conflict prove that a deity is involved in the process? The Pyramids in Egypt and Stonehenge in England are truly awe-inspiring structures. There are many competing theories about how and why they were built but the least plausible one in my view is that extraterrestrial beings were involved.

[pianolearner]

comedy central explains it this way.  the animals that we end up eating are the dumb ones.  if we did not kill and eat them, they would find a way to kill themselves.  take a cow for instance.  they just look at you (duh).  and fish.  they oogle like 'how did i get here' when you pull them out of the water. 

now, just so i don't sound cruel and inhumane...i don't particularly think killing animals is good. but, so far they haven't figured out a way to kill us - (excepting bear and lions occasionally).  but, i mean - they don't have  a meat market on us yet.

Pianitisimo,

I don't understand the point you are making. We may be at the top of the food chain right now but it is a position that was once held by Tyrannosaurus Rex.

[pianistimo]

perhaps i shouldn't say the word ignored, because i read the whole post...but i do not agree.  yes, creationism in some places is placed within science, but as derek pointed out, it is much more.  getting into the idea of why we are here.  not to be at war - as many war diaries point out.

darwin started out simply observing creation.  he kept diaries himself on animals and behavior.  then, he wanted to understand more about how we came to be.  so maybe he asked why and how - but in some cases, i believe he made up his own answers.  i respect him for his massive research - but i don't for some of his wild answers (that are theory).

for instance, the biochemical and genetic processes that allow a fertilized egg to develop into a full-fledged creature (we now know) explain how we get new organs, eyes, fish get flippers or fins and not the old idea that we evolved these things onto our bodies.  because of this, even scientists are changing darwins ideas to suit what is found out.

kenneth miller, of brown university, who works at the department of molecular biology has written several books and articles.  he says that new creationists ignore the genesis account and try to write their own ideas, too.  so both are wrong.  they cannot ignore any of the bible to have a correct view, imo.

there are many things happening to day that confirm the bible's words are coming true.  an article in the sciencemag.org (something like that) has an article about 'a perfect ocean for four years of global girdling drought.'  scientists are merely confirming the fact that we are heading for some of the worst weather in our history.  how to explain this.  look at prophecy!  but, that's not scientific enough. 

[prometheus]

Science is limited. Science creates models that fit and predict reality. Science doesn't try to find absolute truths. It doesn't matter is a theory is really true or not. As long as it is working it is a useful theory. God might have created the world as it is now 15 years ago. He created the world to appear as one with evolution. He created this world in which the rules underlying the theory of evolution govern things like how viral epidemics behave. Without the theory of evolution scientists would be at a loss acting upon this bird flu thing. Now they have even predicted the whole thing.

Science does not answer the philosophical questions of life. Derek keeps mentioning 'why'. I asked him to clarify as I was uncertain what he actually meant. But he seems to refer to why there would be a world with evolution. Why was the universe created by the big bang. These are not questions that are part of science. They do not require answers for science to work.

Discussion at this point can no longer be based entirely on scientific observation. To what do we turn for enlightenment at this point, then? How do we answer the WHAT, HOW and WHY?

Some might think it is silly to even try to think about such things---but why would that be? Its certainly a valid question. Haven't you ever looked at the night sky, or even just sat and contemplated the fact that you exist and been absolutely and totally dumbfounded?

Ok, so finally we are getting somewhere. If you clarified what you meant after your first post, which hopped from bashing neurology, darwinism etc to discussing this then that would have saved me a lot of typing.

What and how are actually answered. But why. This is very very puzzling. I think that an atheist thinking about 'why' in terms of the universe is the most profound puzzling one can have. Why would there have to be a universe in the first place? Why not nothing? No matter, no time, no energy...
Also, one has the inclination not to think of the universe as an accident or a coincidence. Not to mean it is designed in any way but that in some way universes just have to be this way. Many this could be true in a sense, but it would be stupid to add any value to this idea because we just do not know. There are things we cannot know.

I don't think religion does a good job at answering this question either. The answer is 'It is all in Gods hand, you don't need to worry about it'.

Let's not throw multiple universes and string theory in the mix because it hasn't really got anything to do with it. Plus, string theory is not falsifiable so not science.

darwin started out simply observing creation.  he kept diaries himself on animals and behavior.  then, he wanted to understand more about how we came to be.  so maybe he asked why and how - but in some cases, i believe he made up his own answers.  i respect him for his massive research - but i don't for some of his wild answers (that are theory).

Evolution is an old idea. The greeks already though about evolution. I am not an expert on greek philosophy but I think this was their general idea. Of course the common people believed in the greek mythology which we now just view as funny stories instead of something people could really believe.

We had evolution in the sence that giraffes acquired long necks because they continieusly stretched their necks to reach the leafs on tall trees. People already observed the results of the theory of evolution but they didn't know about genetics. So there were all kinds of strange evolution-theories that have now been abandoned. I am not aware of darwin starting out from creationist ideas. But "Simply observing creation" You mean he obsered God creating things? Many read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought#From_ancient_times_to_1850s

Actually, even after Darwin it took a while for darwinistic evolution to catch on even in the scientific community.

"That are theory" This again shows a total lack of understanding of science.

for instance, the biochemical and genetic processes that allow a fertilized egg to develop into a full-fledged creature (we now know) explain how we get new organs, eyes, fish get flippers or fins and not the old idea that we evolved these things onto our bodies.  because of this, even scientists are changing darwins ideas to suit what is found out.

The fields of genetics and biochemistry started off long after Darwin. Darwin never knew about DNA but he knew something like DNA was needed for his theory so he did predict genetics.
But this is non-sensical. Things are never evolved onto the body. Old idea? Certainly this isn't Darwinism. Yes, organs are created by reading the RNA/DNA and then bioschemestry creates the molecules and structures needed. But darwinism explains the  nature of the change in the RNA/DNA.

The darwinistic theory of evolution has come a long was since Darwin for sure. But the basic principles are still the same. Mutations plus selection, Common ancestor and survival of the fittest.

But it seems you do not even know what Darwinism is. You do not know even know what it means for a scientific theory to be a scientific theory. This is sad. I think I explained this already too many times on this board in these discussions. I think I am going to give up.

I guess you have to ask yourself why you do not want to know how science works, what a theory is and what the theory of evolution actually says. But at the same time you do want to use this computer, which is created by science and based 'on just theory'.

[pianistimo]

darwinism is wishful thinking on the part of man to separate himself/herself from God.  that's all.

take for instance genetically altered food.  it's called 'bioengineering.'  but, in reality, bio refers to life and engineering refers to making the blueprints fro machines that are predictable.  thus the joining of what is living with what applies to the opposite. something unchanging is not constantly adapting to its surrounding environment.  it is less alive, and strategies to maintain that are often deadly.

we live in a world where 800 million people a year are going hungry, in a world that produces enough food for almost 9 billion people.  yet we only have 6 billion people on the planet.  why isn't that food being distributed more equitably.  that is the question that scientists should be seeking.  countries dont' want to be just fed food.  they want to grow their own. 

last year, 55 percent of all soybeans were genetically engineered for another type of resistance gene, and this was the herbicide tolerance.  but, if we didn't use so many herbicides, the soil, insects, and animals would not be hurt.  seedless grapes, apples, and whatever - plus mutations of cells of different species of animals to create half this half that is not what God intended.  he wanted the seed to remain.

rachel carson's silent spring is poetic: "a year after...a massive spraying...there was not a sound of a bird...what was man doing to...our beautiful world....who has made the decision that sets in motion...this ever-widening wave of death."

if you are a gardener or know people that want safe products (i know - you're wondering what this has to do with evolution - but i think it has everything to do with it).  natural gardening proves what grows naturally.  whatever is planted by SEED.  anyway, spray-n-grow, 20 hwy. 35 south (po box 2137) rockport, tx  78381  has some products that don't damage the environment.  things as simple as grapefruit juice and lemon juice sprayed on works on some plants to protect from certain insects or  problems.   some of these products are other things like food-grade mint oil to kill ants and roaches.  things like this.  they even have a 100% organic fire ant killer (although in lancaster we learned that simply dumping a couple of large pots of boiling water over an ant hill would do the trick.  i know it sounds inhumane - but the idea is that the least amount of living insects/birds/animals/humans die from the idea of manipulating our environment beyond the borders established for us.

to me, science should prove it's own worth.

[thalbergmad]

to me, science should prove it's own worth.

 

[pianistimo]

my blood pressure is high right now.  bring it on.  *collapses over in the corner.

[thalbergmad]

my blood pressure is high right now.  bring it on.  *collapses over in the corner.

You spend too much time on here.

[pianolearner]

darwinism is wishful thinking on the part of man to separate himself/herself from God.  that's all.

It is this type of propaganda that drove me away from God, not Darwinism.

to me, science should prove it's own worth.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

[prometheus]

darwinism is wishful thinking on the part of man to separate himself/herself from God.  that's all.

No one likes darwinistic evolution. Everyone wants to be a child of god.

Darwinism is that what is observed and that which makes accurate predictions. We can'y change that what is observed. That which is useable in many many fields of science. Creationism has never been observed and has made no contribution to science. If you don't agree with this just bring up concrete points or try to refute Darwinism as a scientific theory.

take for instance genetically altered food.  it's called 'bioengineering.'  but, in reality, bio refers to life and engineering refers to making the blueprints fro machines that are predictable.  thus the joining of what is living with what applies to the opposite. something unchanging is not constantly adapting to its surrounding environment.  it is less alive, and strategies to maintain that are often deadly.

I don't understand anything of this. Let alone what this has to do with anything in this topic.

we live in a world where 800 million people a year are going hungry, in a world that produces enough food for almost 9 billion people.  yet we only have 6 billion people on the planet.  why isn't that food being distributed more equitably.  that is the question that scientists should be seeking.  countries dont' want to be just fed food.  they want to grow their own. 

What has this got to do with it? Are you ranting uncontrolled here? Scientists cannot solve this problem because it is an economical and politcal problem.

Your point is that science is wrong because it cannot solve this problem? Then why bother and use your computer and cell phone. They shouldn't work.

I won't comment on the economics and politics involved with poverty and famine in third world countries.

last year, 55 percent of all soybeans were genetically engineered for another type of resistance gene, and this was the herbicide tolerance.  but, if we didn't use so many herbicides, the soil, insects, and animals would not be hurt.  seedless grapes, apples, and whatever - plus mutations of cells of different species of animals to create half this half that is not what God intended.  he wanted the seed to remain.

I only eat biological food. I oppose genetic engeneering. I am a vegetarian. Science doesn't tell you what to do. Science tells one how nature works. That people use or abuse this knowledge is something else. You could even argue that we are better off without technology. But this has nothing to do with the accuracy of darwinistic evolution.

I could go into more points why I don't like the things that are done with GM technology but it serves no purpose.

rachel carson's silent spring is poetic: "a year after...a massive spraying...there was not a sound of a bird...what was man doing to...our beautiful world....who has made the decision that sets in motion...this ever-widening wave of death."

So do you understand what it means for a scientific theory to be a theory?

Good to see that there are christians that are concerned about the enviroment because some of them don't care. But let's not get into a theological argument about motivations of christians to not care about the enviroment.

if you are a gardener or know people that want safe products (i know - you're wondering what this has to do with evolution - but i think it has everything to do with it).

You are right in one sense, everything in nature requires evolution to be understood. But this makes no sense in the argument were are having.

  natural gardening proves what grows naturally.

What? Gardening proofs things? I have no idea what you are talking about. Growing naturally?

whatever is planted by SEED.  anyway, spray-n-grow, 20 hwy. 35 south (po box 2137) rockport, tx  78381

Is this a commercial? Is this an address? You want me to buy their seeds? I don't live in the US.

...  has some products that don't damage the environment.

You mean pesticides? Or seeds that don't damage the enviroment? Uuh? Nice, but so what?

things as simple as grapefruit juice and lemon juice sprayed on works on some plants to protect from certain insects or  problems.   some of these products are other things like food-grade mint oil to kill ants and roaches.

Nice.

  things like this.  they even have a 100% organic fire ant killer

I don't think there are any fire ants in my area. Yes, your uncle or whoever it is has a nice company.

(although in lancaster we learned that simply dumping a couple of large pots of boiling water over an ant hill would do the trick.

Isn't Lancaster in the UK? My father uses boiling water to kill ants that 'destroy' the terrace.

i know it sounds inhumane - but the idea is that the least amount of living insects/birds/animals/humans die from the idea of manipulating our environment beyond the borders established for us.

What?

to me, science should prove it's own worth.

How can you say it doesnt? We are communicating with each other! Do you realise the depth science had to delve to achive this?

You cannot read and/or understand my points. You cannot argue against the points I make. You cannot even use punctuation.

Why do you refuse to engage in a discussion? Don't tell me you are too stupid like you did before because I don't think you are. That is what you do. You make claims and then when someone reply's to those then you either talk about irrelevant anecdotes or you spurt out glibberish (sorry to say but this is true). Then your excuse is that you aren't smart enough. Why?

Or is your faith too weak to think and talk about these things. If so then just tell and I will leave you be.

Did you read the Feynman part about not wanting to accept nature as she is? Isn't that what you are doing? If you believe nature is God's creation then why do you refuse to accept God's creation as she is? Or do you think this is Lucifer's trickery?

Do you have any reason? Or should I just give up like Pianolearner claims?

[pianistimo]

all i'm saying is    im saying.  well.  i'm s aying this...if you don't live here, what are you complaining about?

[cziffra]

all i'm saying is    im saying.  well.  i'm s aying this...if you don't live here, what are you complaining about?

what?

[prometheus]

Uuh, you don't live here. I do. 

[Mozartian]

Yes, the site is biased, towards science. That's good if you are concerned about accuracy. Science finds answers and creates models that fit reality. Religion hasn't progressed and never will while science has taught us all things of amazing things. If you don't 'believe' in science, why bother using computers and cell phones? They shouldn't work if science was wrong. 


Uuh, either belief? You mean religion and science? One is a belief. The other is a set of principles that help find models that fit reality. A book biased towards religion isn't a scientific textbook, even when it talks about things from the field of science. The book would have to be pseudoscience in that case. But many you just misunderstood. I am not sure, but the views you expressed and the things you said do not fit the theory of evolution/darwinism.

I did not want to intimidate you. I am sorry if I discouraged you.

Yes there are. But those people are creationists because of personal reasons. Not because of scientific reasons. They just believe in god and the nature of their belief demands them to take the bible literally. So this contradicts with science. But, these people can never be biologists or zoologists. The theory of evolution is both an important and powerful theory. You have to know it if you want to know something about nature.

There are also many chistians that have no problems with evolution at all.

In mainstream science there are no doubts about the basic principles of darwinism.

If you truly have an open mind than this will lead to science eventually once you get accces to the right information.

Actually, some have. The malaria parasite is an animal and it kills a lot people every year.  And it is not very smart to say the least.

LoL- me, intimidated? That'll be the day. I'm simply in the middle of a demanding semester and don't have a lot of time to do extra research to further a debate in which neither party is likely to be won over to the opposite side.

I disagree with your statement that that site is biased "towards science." It is biased towards its own opinion on evolution.

The definition of science? I refer you here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

And yes, the views I expressed do not support darwinism/evolution. Why should I believe in it, when even the fossil record shows no evidence for it?

https://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
(author clearly a creationist, however many quotes from well-known scientists are in this article)

https://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

The difference between micro and macro evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

[AvoidedCadence]

The root cause of all arguments against science (such as this one) is a fundamental misunderstanding of the methods and purposes of scientific inquiry.  Here are a few essential points - some of which may repeat what has already been said.

i) Science aims to describe and predict.  It is not a normative discipline in and of itself (i.e., science does not prescribe what should be in the manner of theology or philosophy).

ii) Science is a rational discipline.  Therefore, it is founded on basic fundamental principles, such as the efficacy of rational argument, the use of inductive reasoning, the validity of experimental evidence, and the principle of causality (cause and effect).  Without these principles, science could not exist.  Furthermore, fallacy, such as appeals to authority, tradition, belief, opinion, ignorance, popular belief, word of God, and so on, is anathema to science. 

iii) Science is by nature profoundly incomplete.  At the highest level, what we term "science" is an attempt to discover everything about the universe which is open to rational understanding.  This fact has two corollaries: (a) any claims about the universe which are not open to rational inquiry are not part of the scientific field (this is why morality as traditionally understood is not considered part of science) (b) at any point in time, there will exist phenomena which defy understanding according to current theories, necessitating either the creation of new theories or the rejection or modification of extant theory.

iv) Science is positivistic and skeptical.  The deep and penetrating insight into the working of the universe given to us in the last century (since Bohr, Einstein and Planck created quantum mechanics) has made it clearer than ever that much of science operates in ways which are not directly observable for fundamental physical reasons.  As a result, we can't, in most cases, ever say that a theory is "true," only that it explains and predicts the behaviour of the universe as we experience it.  Theories are evaluated on their compatibility with experiment, predictive power, relation to existing theories, and falsifiability.

v) Science is a quantitative discipline which relies on important mathematical results.  Important among these for the purposes of this debate is the validity of statistical theory.

This is entirely my own work.  If I have forgotten anything important, it is entirely my own fault.

We are now in a position to examine some of the claims made:

Are you aware that the brain not only has 100 billion neurons or so that it has around 100 trillion to 500 trillion connections between them? That's 500,000,000,000,000 neural synapses.
Five hundred thousand thousand thousand thousand connections. No other animal species has anywhere close to that much.

It is one thing to have confidence that we'll continue to discover all kinds of wonderful things about mathematics for example, but to just ASSUME that the human brain evolved from muck billions of years ago ...

Here science is misrepresented... this isn't a random, pulled-from-a-hat assumption.  Evolution is well supported by empirical evidence, including fossil layers, observable microevolution, embryonic development, vestigial features, adaptive radiation, and so on.  I encourage anyone who is interested to take a look at a book on the subject - even a senior high biology text suffices.

based on a theory that is probably not even 200 years old seems to me to be the height of insanity.

Appeal to tradition.  Name-calling.  Avoiding the issue: is the theory true?

I mean, maybe it IS true, but how can anyone just assume that based on so little?

Appeal to ignorance.   Needless repetition.

Doesn't anyone feel that there must be much, much more to the universe than meets the eye?

Obviously.  Most of the universe is invisible (the vast majority of the universe is composed of dark matter, which to my knowledge has never been observed).    Shakespeare, Dante and Beethoven.

WHAT in heaven's name is a subatomic particle?

WHAT is the base case of the universe, the smallest indivisible element. Will we ever be able to answer that question? We are made up of these tiniest indivisible elements, and all we can do is describe their (at least at a macroscopic level) consistent behavior.

Hopefully, the day is not far off when we will have a theory which describes what the smallest particle is and why this is so.

Will we ever know WHAT and WHY?

If you take any of these questions for granted with some sort of half baked naturalist philosophy, you need to do some serious reflection on the subject and I am NOT kidding.

What is a "half baked naturalist philosophy" as opposed to a fully-baked naturalist philosophy?  If this is intended to mean a belief in the fundamental tenets of science, then I have done all the reflection I need.  Seriously.  I'm not kidding.  If, on the other hand, this is merely insulting those who follow science blindly, ignoring morality and humanity, then I fear this is setting up straw men.  Remember - from the time of Archimedes onwards, brutality has never been the realm of the scientists but of the idealogues, fanatics, and those wielding political power.

It  [science] is powerful but impotent in the face of the truly elusive question: WHAT and WHY? it can't even answer HOW.

"Powerful but impotent:" a strange phrase.  "WHAT?":  a strange question.  In what context?

We can make up our own WHAT's, HOW's, and WHY's, and in the end they allow us to match patterns. Once we can reproduce something with consistent behavior such as chemical combustion for example, we can develop an engine. That is knowledge, of course, and very powerful knowledge as you said.

So, science is very powerful for interrelating things after we have assigned labels to them, but to truly reveal the answers to these questions we must probe deeper.

I'm still very unclear as to what questions precisely are being asked.

Discussion at this point can no longer be based entirely on scientific observation. To what do we turn for enlightenment at this point, then? How do we answer the WHAT, HOW and WHY?

Some might think it is silly to even try to think about such things---but why would that be? Its certainly a valid question. Haven't you ever looked at the night sky, or even just sat and contemplated the fact that you exist and been absolutely and totally dumbfounded?

The root of science is the sense of wonder at the universe - why else experiment? why else theorize?  What is more incredible - the barbarian looking at the night sky and seeing stars, but knowing nothing, or the modern man who looks up and realizes that the stars are glowing nuclear furnaces thousands of times larger than the earth, the light from which has been travelling to Earth since the ancients walked the planet, have been burning since before the Earth was born, have been moving away from our own sun since the beginning of the universe, and will continue to shine for billions of years after humanity has ceased to exist?

Or maybe you are attacking the reductionist view - "everything is atoms; thought is the movement of electrons."  This is true, but, again, this is an attack on straw men.  Nobody (save some modern psychologists) deny that thought exists - we know it is true:  the brain exists, thoughts exist - I refer you to Mozart for proof.

My question:  why do people, who must (theoretically) act in at least a generally rational fashion in order to survive in day-to-day life, abandon these principles when faced with anything that isn't directly before the eyes?  How many realize that man must eat to live, yet fail to realize that their beliefs on morality, science, and the universe in general are practically inconsistent with this belief!

And although science is amoral (although among scientists we find the most moral of people) that does not mean we cannot apply any semblance of rationality to morality.  Yes, it is true that here we enter a subjective field of goals, dislikes, motivations, and so on.  Yet there is still a place for rationality, and for recognizing some basic facts, and crafting a moral system from rational premises.

I can't claim to have all the answers, or even to have decided I want to live, yet.  I don't know if I ever will.  However, some of the things I consider:

i) A desire for self-improvement, self-will, and high ideals.  Although I constantly fall short of my goals, I try to avoid "empty" activities which are ultimately a waste of time.
ii) Human equality - respect for other people and their lives and property, etc.,
iii) Death as the final boundary condition.  How different and more rich everyone's life would be when faced with a constant awareness of their own true morality!  (I refer the reader to Solzhenitsyn and Dostoievsky)  Looking back, the moment before death, what emotions will predominate?  Hopefully, sadness, or resignation.  At worst: remorse or a feeling of wasted time.
iv) A striving for beauty and true, deep emotion.

In a sense - this is the Romantic ideal of Liszt, Schubert, and Goethe.  On a side note:  Horowitz referred to Romanticism as the "grand style" and I think it's true - the great works of the era have an essential nobility of spirit which has never been equalled.

Anyway, I have simply tried to show that high ideals, wonder, beauty, and a clear aren't too far removed from each other.  This has been a very fragmented outline of how I might actually get around to doing so, someday (maybe I should change to a philosophy major! ) ... but I hope it is thought-provoking, or at least entertaining.

[thalbergmad]

This is a picture of my mate Mental Martin.

He was definately descended from the apes.

[prometheus]

I disagree with your statement that that site is biased "towards science." It is biased towards its own opinion on evolution.

The ideas on the site are totally mainstream science. If you reject the arguments of the site, because you did not respond to anything I said or the site said about macro anc micro evolution, because they are biased towards evolution then you are rejecting science in this particular field. You are abandoning reason.

The definition of science? I refer you here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Huh? You know how to find the definition of science. Great. I don't remember if you actually made an argument that showed lack of understanding of scientific method.

And yes, the views I expressed do not support darwinism/evolution. Why should I believe in it, when even the fossil record shows no evidence for it?

How can you say this? I mean how?! *chuckles*

The oldest fossils are those of prokaryotes. Then we see fish. These predate all other vertebrates. Then we see amphibians, then reptiles. Then mammals and birds. All this is chronologically. First simple life then gradually more complex life. There are many many concrete examples in the fossil records. All those homonids gradually becomming more like modern humans.. The dinosaurs becomming bigger and bigger and then becomming extinct. The first mammals that were suppressed by dinosaur but that after these became extinct got more room and evolved into mammals as they are today. Whales not being fish, etc.

https://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html
(author clearly a creationist, however many quotes from well-known scientists are in this article)

https://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

The good old "evolution isn't science" argument. I already made points against the other site you provided but you ignored those. Why should I argue against this site?

The difference between micro and macro evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Did you even read those pages?

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

    * It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by classical population genetics. This view is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.
    * A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.


Your definition is the last. And it is a misunderstanding of evolution. If you don't believe this, read the talk page of wikipedia.

Did you read the arguments are made before. You are able to find wikipedia. Great. But what is your point?

[Mozartian]

The ideas on the site are totally mainstream science. If you reject the arguments of the site, because you did not respond to anything I said or the site said about macro anc micro evolution, because they are biased towards evolution then you are rejecting science in this particular field. You are abandoning reason.

I don't understand your reasoning behind this statement that I'm "abandoning reason." I've already touched on the issue of micro/macro evolution. The wikipedia pages I linked to also address the different views on this. Microevolution and macroevolution mean different things, which you seem to not believe, and not be willing to believe. Not having the time or resources atm to do more research on the topic or answer everything you bring up in your posts, as I have already stated, I don't see any point in furthering this aspect of the debate. Also, just because something is a theory in "mainstream science" does not mean its true. Theories have been disproven before now. Since when is choosing to be skeptical of a theory "abandoning reason"?

Huh? You know how to find the definition of science. Great. I don't remember if you actually made an argument that showed lack of understanding of scientific method.

The point was to show that "science" is actually a very broad term.

The oldest fossils are those of prokaryotes. Then we see fish. These predate all other vertebrates. Then we see amphibians, then reptiles. Then mammals and birds. All this is chronologically. First simple life then gradually more complex life. There are many many concrete examples in the fossil records. All those homonids gradually becomming more like modern humans.. The dinosaurs becomming bigger and bigger and then becomming extinct. The first mammals that were suppressed by dinosaur but that after these became extinct got more room and evolved into mammals as they are today. Whales not being fish, etc.

All of the "concrete examples" of "transitional" creatures such as "Nebraska Man" have been disproven. Surely you know that.
There are also geological problems with evolution:
https://www.rae.org/revev2.html

Did you even read those pages?

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

    * It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by classical population genetics. This view is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.
    * A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

Never said I agreed with everything on the wikipedia pages, merely referenced them for additional sources.

I'd be interested to know how you think the human mind and soul evolved from unthinking, inanimate matter.

I'd also be interested to know why evolutionists just take it for granted that the universe ever existed at all. If there is no creator, why and how is there anything created? Why and how is there a universe? Where did the chemicals come from for your "big bang"?

Someone stated that it's easier for kids to not believe in a god than to do so. If this is true, how do you explain that all cultures, no matter how primative, have some sort of deity that they worship? Because they weren't "scientifically advanced" enough to know better? Wait. Kids aren't "scientifically advanced". Not until they're older, "wiser" adults. So where does the idea of a diety come from? The statement that kids would not normally believe in a diety and the fact that primative cultures did so seem to cancel eachother out.

[prometheus]

I don't understand your reasoning behind this statement that I'm "abandoning reason."

If you reject science you are abandoning reason. The ideas on the site www.talkorigin.org are mainstream science.

I've already touched on the issue of micro/macro evolution. The wikipedia pages I linked to also address the different views on this. Microevolution and macroevolution mean different things, which you seem to not believe, and not be willing to believe.

They are different words. But the mechanism in terms of mutations and selection is the same in both cases. So it is just a issue of time or generations.
Now if you did actually read the article you will see that some darwinists use to believe there to be a seperate mechanism for macro-evolution but that this idea is in decline. Wikipedia put this very mildly, probably trying not to offend creationists or something. So they do not mean different things.

Plus, 'macro-evolution', so accumulating 'micro-evolution', has been observed. I gave examples, you ignored them.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Not having the time or resources atm to do more research on the topic or answer everything you bring up in your posts, as I have already stated, I don't see any point in furthering this aspect of the debate. Also, just because something is a theory in "mainstream science" does not mean its true. Theories have been disproven before now. Since when is choosing to be skeptical of a theory "abandoning reason"?

So you can refute the theory of evolution? If you can you would be a nobel prize winner.
You can't say the theory of evolution is not true because it could in theory be false. Prove it and take your nobel prize.

You or me being skeptical about a theory based on misinformation or misunderstanding isn't very profound. You claimed macro-evolution cannot happen but you do not explain how this can be. You claimed the fossil record contains no evidence for evolution. Is this being skeptical?

You aren't being skeptical. You just don't understand. Evolution is a powerful theory, one of the strongest in history of science. You cannot ignore this. If you think you have evidence that evolution is wrong, bring it on.

All of the "concrete examples" of "transitional" creatures such as "Nebraska Man" have been disproven. Surely you know that.

Concrete examples are disproven? How are mammals, whales, birds, dinosaur, hominids disproven?

Transitional fossils. This is the oldest argument made. Because the fossil record isn't complete, fossils are rare, creationists will claim until the end of time that there are gaps in the fossil record (duh) and that there are not enough transitional fossils. But this is perfectly normal and what one would expect. Plus, there are many transitional fossils, creationists seem to just ignore them:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

There are also geological problems with evolution:
https://www.rae.org/revev2.html

So the whole field of geology is wrong? Scientists are in a conspiracy to keep the theory of evolution from being refuted? This is getting ridiculous.

I am not going to refute fundamentalist anti-science propaganda.

Overthrust:
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102_1.html

Polystrate fossils:
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html

'Human' footprints:
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

About the 'coal artifacts':
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC130.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC131.html

Rapid burial and catastrophe:
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC362.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html

Radiometric data:
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html


I will ignore the theology about dinosaur because it is very easy to fit dinosaur with theology. But this is meaningless. You can fit theology with anything, and it has been done.

With this site you are going really really far. I do not know if you read this site and if you agree with it. But the site is extreme and very far off. It is dangerous. There are even creationists that hate these kinds of pages and ideas because they discredit creationism because they are clearly wrong.

And to adress Nebraska Man in specificly: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

Wikipedia states this: "Although the identity of H. haroldcookii never achieved general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted within five years of its discovery, this episode has been seized upon by the creationist movement as an example of the scientific errors which they allege undermines the credibility of palaeontology and hominid evolution."

You see this is creationist propaganda. You keep denying that you have read creationist propaganda. But it seems you just have. Macro-evolution; Transitional fossils; Nebraska Man; typical non-sense creationist arguments. And then throwing whole the field of geology out of the window...

I'd be interested to know how you think the human mind and soul evolved from unthinking, inanimate matter.

Uuh, obviously, you should know it never did. Homo Sapiens evolved from homo erectus, gradually. You must understand that what we call Homo Erectus is just a snapshot made by the fossil record. Humans gradually evolved from erectus to sapiens. The fact that you put evolution this way. Mud changing into a human, shows an utter utter lack of understanding of evolution.

I'd also be interested to know why evolutionists just take it for granted that the universe ever existed at all. If there is no creator, why and how is there anything created? Why and how is there a universe? Where did the chemicals come from for your "big bang"?

We observe evolution. That's it. Simple as that. The fact that it makes no theological sense is irrelevant. We do not have to know why the universe exist before evolution is accurate. https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_1.html

The theory of evolution is about the gradual chance of organisms on earth. The theory is made to fit the observations and has proven to be accurate and useful. The fact that we do not know why the universe exists has nothing to do with this at all.

Someone stated that it's easier for kids to not believe in a god than to do so. If this is true, how do you explain that all cultures, no matter how primative, have some sort of deity that they worship? Because they weren't "scientifically advanced" enough to know better? Wait. Kids aren't "scientifically advanced". Not until they're older, "wiser" adults. So where does the idea of a diety come from? The statement that kids would not normally believe in a diety and the fact that primative cultures did so seem to cancel eachother out.

Children believe anything they are told by their parents. When they grow up their old ideas usually stick around. I think I was that someone but I said someone else. I said that grown ups have a hard time abandoning the theist idea they were thaught as children.

I didn't say that children can't start to believe in God by themselves. That's how Derek interpreted it. He claimed I was wrong because he was raised as a atheist.

Why do people believe in God? First of, they don't. They believe in all kinds of different things. One god, 20 gods, 200 gods. All kinds of different types of gods.
Why do they do this? The hypothesis is that religious ideas give social groups a strong identity so they can distinguish themselves from other communities. This makes the community, and thus the social bonds, stronger. It's not hard to see why this would be an advantage in the evolutionary sense of the world. Religion doesn't explain why people believe all kinds of different things.

[pianolearner]

I'd also be interested to know why evolutionists just take it for granted that the universe ever existed at all. If there is no creator, why and how is there anything created? Why and how is there a universe? Where did the chemicals come from for your "big bang"?

By the same token, I'd be interested to know why the existence of God is taken for granted. If there is a creator, where did he/she come from? From a scientific standpoint the question you ask is moot, but from a philosophical standpoint, it is fascinating.

[Derek]

Prometheus, your endless posts of hot air about the magnificence of human discovery and science doesn't change the fact that we have absolutely no idea how life actually began.  Therefore you cannot discredit religion simply because it is a non-scientific way to pursue truth.  Even if we found a way to shock a pile of chemicals into organizing into a mind bogglingly complex DNA molecule/cell,  that still wouldn't discredit religion. Why does order exist to begin with? That can't be answered by science. Science uses the presence of order to find patterns. It can't explain origins of any kind.

*edit* In fact, if one were to believe that science ever COULD explain origins, this is exactly the same thing as believing in a God, though the idea it seems to me is far less appealing. To have faith that science would explain everything eventually is to assume that science will become something other than science. *edit*

If you claim that you weren't discrediting religion...consider this: You did say, did you not, that one can apply theology to darn near anything. Is this not suggesting that theological thought is entirely arbitrary and has nothing to do with a pursuit of truth?

[prometheus]

How life began. You are talking about abiogenesis? We do have ideas on this but it is much  much less clear than darwinism. (Note that the two are seperate.) As for the origin of the big bang; As far as we know it is impossible to aquire information about things before the big bang. So it is impossible to make oberservations.

that still wouldn't discredit religion

I posted a lot of things. My main point was not to discredit religion. But, religion is not science. It does not seek truth without bias. Actually, it doesn't seek anything at all. Religion (actually the three main theists) has this book which is the word of god and that's it. It does not even seek wisdom. It already has all the wisdom in the form of a book which is supposed to be the word of god. Religion isn't constructive. In 2000 years it hasn't achived anything (in terms of explaining the world around us).

Religion does not produce theories. For example the bible says in genesis 1 that God first created the birds and then the land animals. If the bible had any value then it must be possible to draw some conclusions from this. But if we look at the fossil record we only see birds since the late Cretaceous, 65,5 Ma.

You just can't take the bible, read it, and understand the world around you. The bible is a set of stories, eiter divinely inspired or not. Not a historical account by god herself.

Religion is accommodating. If something is explanatory it should tell why something is the way it is and why it can't be different. Religion doesn't do it. You can use religion to accommodate a lot of different ideas. Surely you must agree with this.

The theory of evolution is very specific. If we would find a bird that lived 250 million years ago then the theory of evolution has a big problem because according the theory of evolution birds must have evolved and thus they cannot exist before they evolved. The theory of evolution bluntly states this is impossible. The theory of evolution does not accomodate anything.

Is this not suggesting that theological thought is entirely arbitrary and has nothing to do with a pursuit of truth?

Exactly. I don't see how you can see it any other way.

Do note this doesn't mean religion is totally useless.

Why does order exist to begin with? That can't be answered by science. Science uses the presence of order to find patterns. It can't explain origins of any kind.

Science has observed nature and found a set of laws which nature follows. These laws just lead towards order, though it does take energy. That is just observation and this cannot be disputed. Nature just leads to order. (Note that nature does not lead exclusively towards order, I mean it can lead to order under the right conditions. Actually, because the universe expands and will continue to expand forever according to modern theory, at some point in time there will no longer be enough energy to create or maintain order. Later the universe will literally expand into nothingness.)

Why? This is a totally different question. Why is the universe the way it is?
Maybe there are countless universes and we are just here to observe order in this one because order is required for an observer to evolve. If this universe was orderless then we wouldn't be here.
Maybe it is pure coincidence. But many religious people can't accept this. But this universe is ruled by coincidence and uncertainties. If something is uncertain then it is uncertain, not impossible.
Maybe there is a God of some kind. Who knows? But there is no obervation that supports this. To me it would be very strange that the God who might have created the universe is the same as the God who 'wrote the bible'.
But God doesn't solve the problem. What is the origin of God? God just is, was and will always be. God requires no explanation. But the universe does. This is inconsistent.

[Derek]

I posted a lot of things. My main point was not to discredit religion. But, religion is not science. It does not seek truth without bias. Religion (actually the three main theists) has this book which is the word of god and that's it.

Religion does not seek truth without bias? How about the bias that religion and science share: The assumption (a bias) that Truth exists in the first place?

Also, what you claim is only true about the fundamentalist factions of religion who are intellectually incapable of producing apologetics of any degree of profundity. Anyone who merely says "the bible said so" is obviously not going to provide interesting material for conversation.   Time and time again I find that when people argue against religion they pick on only the most thoughtless examples of religion.  I'd be more interested in reading a measured counterargument against C.S. Lewis, for example.

[prometheus]

I added a bit just seconds ago.



Ok, I used the word truth. But science doesn't really care about truth. It just creates models that fit reality, whenether these are true or not. If God would land on earth tomorrow and tell all these scientists that she has us all fooled because she created this whole universe to appear like it is now, evolved, then the theory of evolution would be as useful as it is now. The theory of evolution helps us understand nature, not to find universal truths.
You must not misunderstand this.

So the bias you speak of is no problem at all. And I can't really imagine how it would be problamatic. This is an argument against my words, not my point.

Also, what you claim is only true about the fundamentalist factions of religion

I am not really sure if you support creationism and therefore 'oppose' science or that you are a christian with a honest skeptisism towards science, also created by some lack of knowledge.
But to me any literally interpretation of the bible is fundamentalism. Any form of creationism is fundamentalism.

But, can you make a case for religion explaining nature? Doing that what science does? Shouldn't the burden of proof be there and not the other way around?

As for apologetics towards christianity, in this topic I was defending science and attacking religion as a competitor of science because I think religion doesn't have any purpose there. So the whole discussion about if christianity is actually useful or honest or, actually I don't know which arguments are used by people like C.S. Lewis, is a totally different discussion. If you want to talk about this then open a new topic and post your, or C.S. Lewis point that you find profound, and maybe I'll have something to say about that.

[Mozartian]

uh prometheus you're defying logic right and left now.

ut science doesn't really care about truth. It just creates models that fit reality, whenether these are true or not.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Also, in reference to what you replied about children believing in (a) god- you ignored the main point- how did the idea of the supernatural originate, if humans evolved from purely natural sources? They would have no need for the supernatural if this was the case, and therefore would not seek it.

I would also like to point out that under the broad definition of science as pursuit of the truth, philosophy would qualify as one of the sciences.

Also, if you can't explain the origin of the universe scientifically, there clearly is a problem with the evolutionary theory.

I could reply to more of your statements, but don't have time (too much homework) to reply to it all now. And I don't see a need, you're clearly not being objective about this.

In closing, I'd just like to remark how much I've enjoyed the irony that is your screenname- in greek mythology, prometheus was the diety who designed and created mankind.

[prometheus]

uh prometheus you're defying logic right and left now.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You didn't understand the point, which isn't that clear, I admit.
Science doesn't believe per se that there is a univeral all powerful truth to be uncovered. A theory could have a concept that is simpified, or one that may not even exist in the form the theory claims it does without science realising, while this element does help the theory to describe and predict reality. Science creates approximations of the truth. Science doesn't claim there is one truth and that it has it. That was the point. Scientists have to be humble and realise their limitations. Scientific theories aren't the truth or fact. They don't have to be. (Note that, of course, this doesn't mean they are false.)
I hope you got this because this is subtle. If you read back how Derek used this in his argument you will see he blames scientists for being as up-tight about 'their' truth as religion. This is just not the case and scientists know this. Most agree with the above. So in other words science does seek truth, but only 'minor-truth'.

Personally I do not agree with how the word 'truth' is used on the wikipedia page because science doesn't have a monopoly on the truth. I use the phrase "trying to find out how nature works/is".

[edit]
I read what the wikipedia page actually says about this in the in-depth part of the articile. Maybe this also explains it better than me, which english not being my native language:


Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to answer all questions. The goal of the physical sciences is to answer only those that pertain to reality. Also, science cannot possibly address nonsensical, or untestable questions, so the choice of which questions to answer becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth. Rather, physical science often tests hypotheses about some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it in light of new observations or data.

According to empiricism, science does not make any statements about how nature actually "is"; science can only make conclusions about our observations of nature. Both scientists and the people who accept science believe, and more importantly, act as if nature actually "is" as science claims. Still, this is only a problem if we accept the empiricist notion of science.


Seems the wikipedia page actually is not that bad at all at explaining this. The definition of science in the introduction part just didn't have room for this subtlety.

Also, in reference to what you replied about children believing in (a) god- you ignored the main point- how did the idea of the supernatural originate, if humans evolved from purely natural sources? They would have no need for the supernatural if this was the case, and therefore would not seek it.

Humans have no need for the supernatural if they were created through purely natural sources? This makes no sense to me at all. I did cover your point. Reread it. Plus, obviously people want an explanation; they demand one. If they don't have one they make one up. But I must admit that their creativity and imagination does puzzle me.

I would also like to point out that under the broad definition of science as pursuit of the truth, philosophy would qualify as one of the sciences.

This is not the definition of science, ever. Philosophy doesn't follow scientific method.
And even following scientific method in many fields, for example psychology, doesn't make it science because there are no useful theories being discovered. Another field is economics. We can try and use scientific method in our research on economy but no theories and laws are found that are accurate.

Also, if you can't explain the origin of the universe scientifically, there clearly is a problem with the evolutionary theory.

This is just non-sense. It clearly is not. The theory of evolution is about how life evolves, nothing else. Not even the origin of life itself; abiogenesis. Abiogenesis can be totally unexplained for the theory of evolution to work. Let alone the origin of the universe.
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

Epidemiologists don't have to worry about what caused the big bang when they are keeping track of bird flue mutations, for example. Obviously.

In closing, I'd just like to remark how much I've enjoyed the irony that is your screenname- in greek mythology, prometheus was the diety who designed and created mankind.

He rebelled against the gods and gave fire to man knowing he would suffer severe punishements but in the process in a sense he saved mankind from the cruel gods. Thus he is the giver of fire, the inventor of sacrifice and the patron of civilization. Not a bad record for a demi-god.

[cowgirl]

cziffara just an observation but, did you know that you are very religious?

cowgirl