|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2008 : 19:28:06 [Permalink]
|
andrew said:
| I have looked up, twice now, the definition of theory and would appreciate the claims of my ignorance on it to stop. I will now give the definition of along with some interesting info on the word. |
You need to retract your assertion that evolution "is just a theory". You can try to argue against the evidence, piece by piece, but you do not get to dismiss the entire body of work and knowledge by waiving your hand and asserting it is hypothetical by saying "it is just a theory".
| How does the Archaeopteryx prove lizard to bird?? This is an entirely honest, unbarbed question, as I have never understood this. |
ToE predicts transitional forms in the fossil record. When you look at the proper strata, you should find fossils that share the traits of creatures that lived before, and after, the time you are looking at. Archaeopteryx exhibits traits of theropod and bird, more theropod than bird, and it is only found after theropods appear in the fossil record and before other birds.
Tiktaalik roseae is a transitional fossil discovered recently. The scientific team that made this discovery used ToE to predict what geoligical strata this fossil should be found in, and when they went and looked... they found it. Right where ToE said this kind of transitional should be. Read up.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
jc072
New Member
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 20:15:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
I cant bring myself, based on the evidence presented thus far, to believe that many variations in a species give rise to entirely new species. I.E fish to reptile reptile to mammal and so on. |
what you just described are basically classes, under the phylum chordata. species are generally defined as a group of organisms with the ability to interbreed, produce fertile offspring, and are also genetically and morphologically similar.
do you honestly think it's impossible or implausible that a species could find itself under the pressure of a changing environment, and the offspring most adapted to those changes would survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, and over time, those changes become greater and greater compared to their ancestors, that eventually the the decedents are classified as an entirely new species than it's ancestors?
the evidence tells us that it is not only possible, it does indeed occur.
encinita salamanders are just one example:
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
| fish to reptile reptile to mammal and so on. |
have you asked yourself why evolution says that species arose in that order (+ amphibians between fish and reptiles)? sounds like a dumb question, but it's something i overlooked when i was in your position.
take a little while and learn about:
the law of fossil succession - http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html
human chromosome number 2, horse and whale evolution, and
comparative anatomy-
Wikipedia on: Evidence from comparative anatomy
these are among the most compelling evidence for evolution in my opinion.
side note: hey everyone, this is my first post and i'm new to the forum. please forgive my newb skills with the linking and what not, this is actually the first forum i've ever participated in. this seems like an awesome community with many intelligent minds. i've been following this thread and just wanted to add in my thoughts on this issue. and please, everyone, correct me if i'm wrong on anything here... although i guess that kind of goes without saying on a skeptics forum.
[Edited by Dr. Mabuse to shorten a link.] |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/22/2008 11:58:00 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 20:36:52 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to the SFN jc072.
You mention human chromosome 2. This is indeed a powerful piece of evidence for one of the primary predictions of the ToE, common descent.
When taken together with endogenous retroviral insertions the case for primate common descent is as certain as anything in science can be.
And that is before you need to get to the rest of the evidence, minor things like the hominid fossil record and phylogenetics/cladistics.
For the moment, granting andrew19 the benefit of doubt(he may be a troll-in-disguise), I'm willing to answer his questions. They have been few though, scattered in between several troll-like absurd assertions. (damn, I need a synonym for "troll" that starts with an "a")....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 20:37:39 [Permalink]
|
| Welcome to SFN jc072!!! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 06:43:10 [Permalink]
|
Just to make it real simple:
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
BlueCollarScientist
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 07:23:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Ahh well i guess that I cant bring myself, based on the evidence presented thus far, to believe that many variations in a species give rise to entirely new species. |
Here's a rephrasing of what you just said: 'I guess I can't believe that a bunch of small changes added up can result in a big change.'
Do you really believe that? Because if not, I'd like to start extracting small amounts from your bank account....
| How does the Archaeopteryx prove lizard to bird?? |
It doesn't. It's Archaeopteryx combined with hundreds of other fossils that provides evidence that birds evolved from a particular kind of dinosaur. Archaeopterix is exactly the kind of fossil that the most basic and primitive form of evolutionary theory predicted should be found, and it was.
(Just a quick note: Nobody says lizards evolved into birds. It is said a certain kind of paleoreptile - NOT a lizard - evolved into dinosaurs, and that sometime after that, a certain kind of dinosaur evolved into something that evolved into birds. As they say - you are entitled to your opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own set of facts, and when asking questions, you are prone to stating as "facts" things that aren't.)
The currently accepted phylogeny for Archaeopteryx is here. This comes from A new look at the Phylogeny of Coelurosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda), Phil Senter, Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, doi:10.1017/S1477201907002143. (In case you want to read it, you can get a copy of the paper at just about any academic library just by presenting the DOI number.)
On this diagram, the Aves (=birds) include Archaeopterix, Epidendrosaurus, Confuciusornis, and Yanornis. The Paraves are the Aves plus the Troodontidae and the Dromaeosauridae, i.e., everything that is listed below the Aves.
As you go from the top of the cladogram to the bottom, you start with animals that are not-very-birdlike, and as you go down they get gradually more birdlike until you hit Archaeopteryx which is a bird; and then as you go farther you go back to not-very-birdlike but in a different way.
The idea is that you can figure out how closely related any of these animals are by tracing back through the branches of the diagram and seeing how many intersections you have to go through to get there. What you end up with when you do that is a small but significant change at every intersection.
If you start at Archaeopteryx, you see that you have to go back two intersections to get to the ancestor of all the Aves. But you have to go back three intersections to get to the ancestor of all the Paraves. And you have to go back six intersections to get from Archaeopteryx to the common ancestor of the Aves and Paraves, and Allosaurus.
You have to go through eight intersections to get from Archaeopteryx to Microraptor. That's a lot of opportunities for change.
Now, almost all of these intersections have been filled in by fossil finds - they just aren't labeled here, because you want to actually be able to read the diagram. So not only do you get a nice smooth transition between body types as you go up and down in the list of animals at the right of the cladogram, you also get that kind of smooth transition between ancestor and descendant, as well.
So the choice is: Do you interpret these smooth transitions between different body types as an indication that they are related, and that ones that look very similar are related more closely than ones that are less similar?
OR
Do you decide that these incredibly similar creatures are in fact entirely unrelated?
Keep in mind that some of these nodes look so similar to each other that at first glance they appear identical - and only after careful study can you determine some small differences between them, say, in the length of a particular bone or the size of the openings in the skull.
I think it makes sense to think that this is related to this. But creationists say no way. Whatever. I don't understand why - there's obviously nothing about evolutionary theory that contradicts Christianity or Islam.
| how did the need to fly arise?? |
Who says anything "needs" to fly?
| If the half evolved form of a wing couldn't provide a function why would it continue to evolve?? |
Well, IF a half-evolved form of a wing couldn't provide any function, then evolutionary theory would call that a "neutral" structure, and evolutionary theory would predict it would evolve at a prodigious rate indeed. This is because mutations in the genes that make the half-wing would accumulate in the gene pool - since nothing is selecting against them - and the more mutations you have accumulate, the more change you have in the organism over generations. So really evolutionary theory says that a useless half-wing not only could evolve, but would evolve as fast as possible.
However, nobody actually suggests that a half-developed wing is useless. (Except dishonest creationists.) Flightless birds use their wings in mating displays. Many birds - flying and flightless - use their wings to catch prey. Many - flying and flightless - use them to shelter their young. Flying squirrels have what I'd describe as a 1/4 wing (it can't even flap!) which is nevertheless useful for escaping predators and increasing foraging range. All of these examples and more are well known.
| These and many questions like them(and other reasons of the Godly kind) are why I cannot accept the theory of evolution. |
The questions are legitimate. But given that the overwhelming majority of Christians and their clergy accept evolution, it is very clear that only the most extreme sects of christianity reject evolution, and that you've chosen to believe there is a contradiction when there isn't.
| I have looked up, twice now, the definition of theory and would appreciate the claims of my ignorance on it to stop. |
We have explained what the word means to us, here, in the context of this discussion, and any discussion about similarly well-attested scientific truth. If you are claiming that when we use the word "theory" we don't mean what we say we mean, well, that's not going to help in your quest to be considered enlightened. |
http://bluecollarscientist.com/ |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 07:54:38 [Permalink]
|
Thank you, Blue,for that post! It has saved the membershit & lurkers from having to endure yet another of my evolutionary rants, which I was just in the process of working up to.
How to post a link without screwing up the page format and pissing everybody off, especally me:
TinyUrl
Welcome to TinyURL!™
Are you sick of posting URLs in emails only to have it break when sent causing the recipient to have to cut and paste it back together? Then you've come to the right place. By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will create a tiny URL that will not break in email postings and never expires.
Enter a long URL to make tiny:
It's easier'n fallin' off'n a log. 
Edit: Sorry for the late welcome, but... Welcome to SFN, jc072!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/22/2008 07:59:51 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 07:56:25 [Permalink]
|
bluecollarscientist wrote: | Whatever. I don't understand why - there's obviously nothing about evolutionary theory that contradicts Christianity or Islam. |
and | only the most extreme sects of christianity reject evolution |
I partially agree with the first statement. Most forms of Christianity do not necessarily conflict with the theory of evolution. I totally agree with the second statement, and would add that the reason extreme sects of Christianity reject evolution is because their theology, their interpretations of the Bible, are in direct conflict with the claims made by the theory of evolution. That is why people like Andrew reject it.
I like to keep hammering on the idea that Christianity is not one religion. Even saying that Christianity is the banner under which many sects live is misleading because certain sects on one end are fundamentally different in every meaningful way than sects on the other end. A liberal Episcopalian who believes in Jesus as a mythical figure from which to derive religious inspiration and other Biblical stories as having meaning but not literal truth, might use a lot of the same words as a fundamentalist Evangelical (words such as "Christ", "savior", "faith", "God", etc.) but they are not using the same definitions of those words, so really they are practicing two entirely different religions.
So I understand at least intellectually why andrew must reject evolution. He ascribes to a belief system which says that if he simply believes in certain literal truths, he'll get eternal bliss, and if he doubts these truths, he'll suffer eternal torment. Reasoning is blinded by unspeakable fear. I find it a terrible shame that the name of other more mature and inspiring forms of Christianity are tainted by this kind of barbaric theology. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 11:54:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Man i think that Dr Mabusa may be right on the folder move. |
To begin with, it's Dr. Mabuse, not Mabusa. Friends call me Mab.
| Yet again I hardly know where to begin. Ah yes Macro vs Micro. Ahh well i guess that I cant bring myself, based on the evidence presented thus far, to believe that many variations in a species give rise to entirely new species. |
If you take a step or two, you'll find yourself not exactly where you were before. Let's call that micro-evolution. If you take enough steps in the same direction, you'll eventually wind up in another city. You've been asked before: what is the difference between many micro and a macro?
| How does the Archaeopteryx prove lizard to bird?? This is an entirely honest, unbarbed question, as I have never understood this. |
The answer to why you don't understand it is evident in your language.
You are saying "How does the Archaeopteryx prove lizard to bird". In science, the word prove is a no-no. To say "prove" is to imply that there is an 100% absolute Truth knowledge. In Mathematics, we use the word proof because a mathematical solution is either true or false. In practical sciences, we are trying to describe Reality. But we are using our senses (and aid our senses with instruments), senses that are limited, and far from everything we see are either black-or-white. The result will be a flawed description of Reality. Scientists use evidence to build and refine our descriptions of Reality. As time goes by, the theories goes from being 50% accurate to 75% accurate. New information comes in and the theory becomes 90% accurate, then 99%. What we are doing is to make our theories as accurate as possible. But scientists are also aware we may never reach our 100%-goal. That's why we say that all theories are Tentative. The theory will always be subject to a possible revision. That is why proof shouldn't be used in conjunction with scientific theories.
The Theory of Evolution and Common Descent has so much evidence that we can confidently say that we are at least 99.999999% there. For all practical purposes ToE is "proved" using layman's terms if not scientific language.
My answer to your question: The Archaeopteryx is one strong piece (among many other pieces) of evidence of the evolution from "lizard" to bird.
| how did the need to fly arise?? |
Haven't you wondered that yourself? Predators running around on ground can't eat you if you're flying. And if you can fly, you can reach food that ground-based animals can't reach. Both these examples will give you an edge in survival.
| If the half evolved form of a wing couldn't provide a function why would it continue to evolve?? |
You have a preconception that a half-evolved wing wasn't used for something else than actually flying. Edited to add: The Kiwi and the Ostritch have "half-formed" wings. What use are they when the ostritch can't fly?
| These and many questions like them(and other reasons of the Godly kind) are why I cannot accept the theory of evolution. |
I think the reason you cannot accept evolution is because you don't understand what evolution actually teaches.
| By no means am i implying that i don't want your opinions or the information I just so far have disagreed with, like i have said in previous posts, that they point to evolution. |
I just saw an episode of Star Trek Enterprise where an obviously wise man said "Challenge your preconceptions, or your preconceptions will challenge you."
The moral? Things may not always be what they seem. The precursor of the wing (your half-wing) could have had another function.
| I have looked up, twice now, the definition of theory and would appreciate the claims of my ignorance on it to stop. |
Then please start using the correct definition of the word "theory" in context. When discussing the Theory of Evolution, the word theory must be used in its scientific context. To do otherwise is dishonest, and obfuscating. Like when you said (paraphrased) "evolution is just a theory".
I will now give the definition of along with some interesting info on the word. Theory:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<snip>
According to the National Academy of Sciences, Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
|
Now you know in which context to use the word theory.
The Theory of Evolution refers to a comprehensive explanation of important features of biological life that is supported by many facts gathered over time.
Edited to add a thought. (in red above) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/22/2008 12:03:49 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 12:11:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Thank you, Blue,for that post! It has saved the membershit & lurkers from having to endure yet another of my evolutionary rants, which I was just in the process of working up to.
How to post a link without screwing up the page format and pissing everybody off, especally me:
TinyUrl
|
Or you can use our forum's own system to handle long links, by embedding them.
Do like this: first get the url-tags --> [url] and [/url]
Then modify the start tag by adding ="" making it look like this: [url=""]
Place the link inside the quotation-marks. Then write whatever between the tags, like "this page says..."
If this looks cluttering you can check this how-to.
Edited spelling. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/22/2008 12:13:58 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 22:53:07 [Permalink]
|
Bluecollar said:
there's obviously nothing about evolutionary theory that contradicts Christianity or Islam.
|
Not so.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all claim that humans were a case of special creation. Only a very liberal translation of the tenets of those religions, where little to none is taken literally, allows for no contradiction by the ToE.
The most ignorant and stupid members of those religions, who take every word of their holy text as literal truth, are by no means a small group either.
So there is plenty of contradiction to go around.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 03:20:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by filthy
Thank you, Blue,for that post! It has saved the membershit & lurkers from having to endure yet another of my evolutionary rants, which I was just in the process of working up to.
How to post a link without screwing up the page format and pissing everybody off, especally me:
TinyUrl
|
Or you can use our forum's own system to handle long links, by embedding them.
Do like this: first get the url-tags --> [url] and [/url]
Then modify the start tag by adding ="" making it look like this: [url=""]
Place the link inside the quotation-marks. Then write whatever between the tags, like "this page says..."
If this looks cluttering you can check this how-to.
Edited spelling.
|
That's the way the rest of us do it. I've just become too dog-lazy to spell it out. Anyhow, what you end up with looks something like this:
]url="the address: www. & so forth"[name of site or phrase]/url[
Note that brackets have been reversed so's the sample won't try to work. A click on the blue globe in the tool bar will give you the [url] stuff.
Actually, with a little practice TinyUrl is a tad quicker but not nearly as much fun.
Thanks Doc -- I knew you'd come through!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/23/2008 03:24:15 |
|
|
|
BlueCollarScientist
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 14:20:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Bluecollar said:
there's obviously nothing about evolutionary theory that contradicts Christianity or Islam.
|
Not so.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all claim that humans were a case of special creation. Only a very liberal translation of the tenets of those religions, where little to none is taken literally, allows for no contradiction by the ToE. |
Oh, I'm familiar with what they claim, but look what has to be done to manufacture this supposed contradiction:
"Small random changes at the molecular level occurred over time and were selected by nonrandom processes for successive perpetuation, which in turn has given rise to a variety of phenotypes; therefore people can't be special."
Tweak the latter part of that with "special creation" or whatever metaphysics is to hand, and it still makes as much sense as saying "my car broke down, therefore the universe is a jelly donut."
Religious people may say there is a contradiction between evolution and their religious sources, but I don't have to believe them. The ten thousand or so Christian clergy who participated in the Clergy Letter Project take issue with such claims, and I do too. |
http://bluecollarscientist.com/ |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2008 : 14:24:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Thanks Doc -- I knew you'd come through!
|
You're welcome!  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Pelayo
Skeptic Friend
USA
70 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 14:38:55 [Permalink]
|
Which creation "theory" shall we teach? Norse, Greek, Hindu, Zoroastrian, or the hundreds of others? In the encyclopedia of creation myths theories the Genesis one is rather late. It is very simple to understand; people who insist on Genesis being taught are agitating for the teaching of religious dogma.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Conservative Christian :D
