Theory of evolution

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


Then tomorrow I start using the stairs.

Is it measurable radioactive decay you don't believe in or the consistency of the distribution of carbon isotopes throughout the geological record?

-Oz

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Azeem
And whoever said that religion halts the advance of progress...?

It really depends on what religion. Some religions are suspicious of scientific learning (such as Medieval Christianity) while some embrace it (like Islam during the Middle Ages). Then there are some that are neither suspicious nor interested...

I was actually refering to those religions whose adherents won't use elevators if in doing so they are helping to prove the theory of evolution was actually right all along.

See above posts.....

[ariano_paluda]

Originally posted by David Murray


You find it easier to believe that a big man in the sky waved his magic wand and made everything in a week than to believe that humans evolved from monkeys (who have something like 99 per cent of our DNA)

Actually we humans have more genes in common with the pig. Why do you think they use pigs for "artificial organ" research thing...?

I believe in the bible too...

A theory falls if theres is just one thing that proves it wrong...so thats why there was postdarwinism, neodarwinism and post neo darwinism..they try to fabricate it, so it fits...(impossible undertaking...)

BTW I prefer believing in a creative loving God, than in myself being the result of a lot of coincidences...

I once discussed this with a college biology teacher:

He said that evolution is gradual mutation into something better, survival of the fittest and all that. I asked him wether the eye was functional without one of its parts. No he said...then I asked him why we have eyes..since a gradual mutation couldn't make such a jump. He started saying that maybe a thousand amoebas was born with that same half eye, and they mated (what do you call it, when amoebas do it? ) then it would evolve into a 75% eye....etc. etc. Then I asked him that nasty question about survival of the fittest...a half eye is'nt fit for anything.

AP

[David Murray]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda

A theory falls if theres is just one thing that proves it wrong...so thats why there was postdarwinism, neodarwinism and post neo darwinism..they try to fabricate it, so it fits...(impossible undertaking...)

As for social Darwinism: this evolved not out of a flaw in the theory of evolution per se, rather, it was used by conservatives as a means of justifying 'scientific racism' at the time. That is to say, it was used at the time of Empire (British Empire) to justify slavery and colonialism. I don't think there has ever been a scientific flaw found in the theory of evolution but it has, like religion, been used for the wrong purposes as well as the good.

BTW I prefer believing in a creative loving God, than in myself being the result of a lot of coincidences...

Nice one, good for you.

I once discussed this with a college biology teacher:

He said that evolution is gradual mutation into something better, survival of the fittest and all that. I asked him wether the eye was functional without one of its parts. No he said...then I asked him why we have eyes..since a gradual mutation couldn't make such a jump. He started saying that maybe a thousand amoebas was born with that same half eye, and they mated (what do you call it, when amoebas do it? ) then it would evolve into a 75% eye....etc. etc. Then I asked him that nasty question about survival of the fittest...a half eye is'nt fit for anything.

AP

Okay, so here we are at a crossroads. Myself, I prefer to believe that nature gave us eyes so that we could see. In fact, since we evolved from monkeys, who had eyes in the first place, I think it's a no-brainer. You prefer to think that a big, loving man in the sky gave us eyes so we could Behold His Glory. We would be as well to be debating the meaning of life--it's pointless. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. This is where our discussion ends!

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda



[...] I asked him wether the eye was functional without one of its parts. No he said...then I asked him why we have eyes..since a gradual mutation couldn't make such a jump. He started saying that maybe a thousand amoebas was born with that same half eye, and they mated (what do you call it, when amoebas do it? ) then it would evolve into a 75% eye....etc. etc. Then I asked him that nasty question about survival of the fittest...a half eye is'nt fit for anything.

AP

This is a classic, false, anti-evolution thought problem.

Imagine a primitive sea creature with a handful of photo-sensitive receptors on its topside. It can only distinguish dark from light. What good is this? --

1. It can tell day from night

2. It can tell up from down

3. It can tell, if a large shadow passes overhead, that mayhap a predator is there to be avoided

This is actually quite a lot of useful information. Given that utility, evolution of even so complex a structure as the eye makes sense over evolutionary time -- the more photo-sensitive cells the better and thereby selected for; increased specializiation occurs as with any other evolutionary process; eventually, voila, the eye -- which has evolved independently, according to the fossil record, at least a half-dozen times.

Ocularly Yours,

Oz

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Azeem
If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

Because we can make a living without being really smart; among telling examples are car sellers, congressmen, moderators, etc ...

[DAVOUT]

Ozymandias,

Richard Dawkins wrote some very interesting books about evolution, and your explanation is on the same line. The most difficult element to grasp is the enormous amount of time available.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Ozymandias,

Richard Dawkins wrote some very interesting books about evolution, and your explanation is on the same line. The most difficult element to grasp is the enormous amount of time available.

I suspect that's because we're limited to our (sorry, I can't resist this stuff ) Biblical "three score and ten" years or so of life. Hundreds of millions of years are outside the scope of anything our brains evolved to contemplate, as it wasn't in any way necessary for our survival (then again, cf. my hopefully wry comment above about frontal lobes).

I'm certainly familiar with Dawkins; it is also interesting to note that "punctuated equilibrium" seems well-supported in the fossil record -- the environment (and thereby the life forms within it) stay relatively stable over a long period of time, then the continents shift Just So, climate changes and evolution kicks in to rapidly cull those whose gene pool contains the elements to adapt from those which don't.

-- It's also ironic that we can glibly attest a belief in the Infinite (as in, the extent of a Divinity's purview) yet struggle with infinitesimal fragments of such, as a 100 million years must a priori be. Again borrowing from the Bible, "A thousand ages in Thy sight are as the passing dawn ..."

Humbly Yours,

Oz

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Is it measurable radioactive decay you don't believe in or the consistency of the distribution of carbon isotopes throughout the geological record?

-Oz

The latter. More so I believe that results can be greatly skewed by changes in pressure and/or tempature. Go to Washington and you will can find fossils of fish that were alive when Mt. St. Helen's (sp?) blew, but now carbon dating dates them to be thousands of years old.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


The latter. More so I believe that results can be greatly skewed by changes in pressure and/or tempature. Go to Washington and you will can find fossils of fish that were alive when Mt. St. Helen's (sp?) blew, but now carbon dating dates them to be thousands of years old.

Thousands of years is considered within an acceptable margin of error on a scale of 10s to 100s of millions of years (1,000 years = .001% on 10 MM and .0001% on 100 MM). Geologic / evolutionary time dwarfs human-perceived time. Put another way, assuming a skew of 1,000 years, carbon dating is 99.999% accurate; skew of 10,000 years = 99.99% accuracy, etc.

-Oz

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Thousands of years is considered within an acceptable margin of error on a scale of 10s to 100s of millions of years (1,000 years = .001% on 10 MM and .0001% on 100 MM). Geologic / evolutionary time dwarfs human-perceived time. Put another way, assuming a skew of 1,000 years, carbon dating is 99.999% accurate; skew of 10,000 years = 99.99% accuracy, etc.

-Oz

First of all, I really don't remember the exact amout the dates were off. Secondly by the same logic you used: In my example fossils that were a day old apear to be (i'm guessing) 10,000 years old. That is a huge amount of error.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


First of all, I really don't remember the exact amout the dates were off. Secondly by the same logic you used: In my example fossils that were a day old apear to be (i'm guessing) 10,000 years old. That is a huge amount of error.

By analogy, you're attempting to apply a microscope's accuracy to a telescope. Carbon dating is used, by paleontologists, for relative accuracy within the 10s - 100s MM years range. So the dinosaurs became extinct ~65 million years ago; no one AFAIK is trying to pin it down to 64,994,037.385 years, on a Thursday.

-Oz

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Azeem
If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

because biological evolution is an extremely slow process, and we save the weak and even allow them to propagate, defeating the surivial of the fittest darwinesque theory.

now, mechanical evolution. much much much quicker, and much more directed. thats the way to go

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by UberKruX


because biological evolution is an extremely slow process, and we save the weak and even allow them to propagate, defeating the surivial of the fittest darwinesque theory.

now, mechanical evolution. much much much quicker, and much more directed. thats the way to go

My only caution is to be careful with the word "fittest": Darwin et. al. meant/mean "best adapted to current local conditions" as opposed to any "objective" criteria for "fitness".

-Oz

[ariano_paluda]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


This is a classic, false, anti-evolution thought problem.

Imagine a primitive sea creature with a handful of photo-sensitive receptors on its topside. It can only distinguish dark from light. What good is this? --

1. It can tell day from night

2. It can tell up from down

3. It can tell, if a large shadow passes overhead, that mayhap a predator is there to be avoided

Hear this: human footprints have been found INSIDE a dinosaur footprint...but that example (and many more for that matter) isn't made public..why? it doesn't support evolution!!! So we are having a basic "war of religion": the religion of evolution, and the religion of a deity...creationism has been blamed for not doing anything but finding the faults in evolution...I cant say wether thats true or not, but one thing I know is this..the above example (and many more) is simply ignored by the the scientists, that support evolution..If you're interested, I could find a website containing some examples...of why creationism "fits the bill" and evolution does not.


Try doing the math of the chance of this happening (evolution)..
and also try reading romans chapter 1 verses 18-32 ( I know its the bible, but give it a shot anyway...) I read secular science magazines even though I don't believe in most of it...Is broadening my horizon..You should definately try the same..

AP

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda


Try doing the math of the chance of this happening (evolution)..

This gets into an entirely different scientific debate, over the so-called "Anthropomorphic" nature of Creation; the details would be a digression (even from this thread! ) but I'm sure you can Google it easily enough.

[...] and also try reading romans chapter 1 verses 18-32 ( I know its the bible, but give it a shot anyway...) I read secular science magazines even though I don't believe in most of it...Is broadening my horizon..You should definately try the same..

AP

I am an Episcopalean and have been quoting the Bible throughout, albeit spottily and with tongue-in-cheek. Romans I 18-32 ("The Guilt Of Mankind") has to do with the disobedient to God -- I don't recall Creationism in the 10 Commandments, nor do I believe myself " ... filled with unrighteousness ... wickedness ... full of envy, murder ..." Okay, I'll cop to the next one, "debate" -- but I mean, really, to introduce "Who, knowing the judgment ... are worthy of death ... [and] have pleasure in them that do them"?????????????????????

Sorry, but isn't that getting a tad personal????

-Oz

[BlueWaldo]

x

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


By analogy, you're attempting to apply a microscope's accuracy to a telescope. Carbon dating is used, by paleontologists, for relative accuracy within the 10s - 100s MM years range. So the dinosaurs became extinct ~65 million years ago; no one AFAIK is trying to pin it down to 64,994,037.385 years, on a Thursday.

-Oz

By MM do you mean million? Because carbon dating is not used for anything that onld. Carbon dating isn't even used on the order of 100k years.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


By MM do you mean million? Because carbon dating is not used for anything that onld. Carbon dating isn't even used on the order of 100k years.

My mistake, slipping from the generic to the specific -- you're correct re: carbon, but elements such as U235 (half-life = 713 MM - million - years) are also used, so my basic point -- is the decay of isotopes in question -- remains. (Other isotopes commonly used -- besides Carbon 14 -- are Potassium 40, Rubidium 87, Thorium 232, and Uranium 238.)

Thanks!

-Oz

[BlueWaldo]

My point is that if the samples had been kept in a lab for those millions of years then the tests would be just fine. However on a sample that has been sitting outside for thousands of years and has been in unknown conditions (say a huge flood), you cannot assume the test to still be accurate.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo
My point is that if the samples had been kept in a lab for those millions of years then the tests would be just fine. However on a sample that has been sitting outside for thousands of years and has been in unknown conditions (say a huge flood), you cannot assume the test to still be accurate.

Actually, you can -- it takes more than just a million years in salt water to alter the rate of nuclear isotope decay.

For a decent intro / overview for the matter at hand, see:

http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bi...iol106_L9.html

Best,

Oz

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Actually, you can -- it takes more than just a million years in salt water to alter the rate of nuclear isotope decay.

For a decent intro / overview for the matter at hand, see:

http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bi...iol106_L9.html

Best,

Oz

I don't claim to be an expert. All i know is there is petrified (sp?) wood in washington that was a forest 20 years ago.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


I don't claim to be an expert. All i know is there is petrified (sp?) wood in washington that was a forest 20 years ago.

Petrification is simply the process of other minerals taking the place of wood and water. It has nothing to do with, nor any effect on, radio-isotope decay.

Your point is of interest, however, in that we begin to see -- and this is by no means a criticism of you, who have conducted your side of this debate with both reason and gentility -- that misunderstanding of the issues being discussed is, as always, perhaps our greatest difficulty.

Best Regards,

Oz

[ariano_paluda]

Originally posted by Ozymandias






I am an Episcopalean and have been quoting the Bible throughout, albeit spottily and with tongue-in-cheek. Romans I 18-32 ("The Guilt Of Mankind") has to do with the disobedient to God -- I don't recall Creationism in the 10 Commandments, nor do I believe myself " ... filled with unrighteousness ... wickedness ... full of envy, murder ..." Okay, I'll cop to the next one, "debate" -- but I mean, really, to introduce "Who, knowing the judgment ... are worthy of death ... [and] have pleasure in them that do them"?????????????????????

Sorry, but isn't that getting a tad personal????

OOPs...I forgot pointing out the part that I wanted to highlight....what Paul is ALSO adressing in the mentioned scripture...is that by looking at the wonder of creation, there is no excuse for denying the existence of a God, and that was merely the fact I whished to point out...sorry if I offended you

AP

[ariano_paluda]

wish is without "H" after "w"

write that a million times

wish is without "H" after "w",wish is without "H" after "w",wish is without "H" after "w"......

AP

[arazok]

Originally posted by Azeem
If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

Actualy the average IQ from the early/mid 1800's to modern day has increased by about 20-30 points (from 80-90 to 110-120 today). This trend continues in industralized countries to this day...we ARE getting smarter.

Also, for some who thing that the universe and all of it's many wonders are just to great NOT to have been created by god...I ask where did god come from? Both are equal wonders, the existance of the universe does not prove the existance of the god.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda


OOPs...I forgot pointing out the part that I wanted to highlight....what Paul is ALSO adressing in the mentioned scripture...is that by looking at the wonder of creation, there is no excuse for denying the existence of a God, and that was merely the fact I whished to point out...sorry if I offended you

AP

Apology accepted.

Thank You,

Oz

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


I don't claim to be an expert. All i know is there is petrified (sp?) wood in washington that was a forest 20 years ago.

I am just pointing out that in Washington serveral thing that are supose to take longer than I believe the world has been around to happen happened over night.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by arazok


Actualy the average IQ from the early/mid 1800's to modern day has increased by about 20-30 points (from 80-90 to 110-120 today). This trend continues in industralized countries to this day...we ARE getting smarter.

Also, for some who thing that the universe and all of it's many wonders are just to great NOT to have been created by god...I ask where did god come from? Both are equal wonders, the existance of the universe does not prove the existance of the god.

The IQ of an individual is relative to the average IQ of the population measured, and this average is by definition 100. Probably the figures cited results from other evaluations of intelligence than the IQ test (which I think was developped at the end of the XIX° or beginning of XX° century).
I dont know of any proof that the mental human potential has increased in the historical times.

[Buckets]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda
I once discussed this with a college biology teacher:

He said that evolution is gradual mutation into something better, survival of the fittest and all that. I asked him wether the eye was functional without one of its parts. No he said...then I asked him why we have eyes..since a gradual mutation couldn't make such a jump. He started saying that maybe a thousand amoebas was born with that same half eye, and they mated (what do you call it, when amoebas do it? ) then it would evolve into a 75% eye....etc. etc. Then I asked him that nasty question about survival of the fittest...a half eye is'nt fit for anything.

AP

To elaborate on Ozymandias' response to this:

First, imagine a photosensitive cell evolving. Not too much of a stretch, right? And this cell could be quite useful.

Next, imagine these cells organized into clusters, on the outside of the body, not unlike compound eyes of insects (though without the sub-organization). Not a great leap here either, adding the ability to perhaps guage the direction of light.

Next, imagine these clusters concave, to the point the opening is quite small. this would protect the light sensitive cells and allow a more accurate sense of the direction of light. I believe spiders have such eyes.

Next, imagine developing a protective transparent membrane at the opening. Not a shabby mutaion, if i do say so.

Next imagine this membrane's shape developing into a lens, thus allowing the light receptors to get even more accurate about what direction or angle the light is coming from.

Now, from there, is it hard to imagine the development of an iris, colour receptors, eyelids, lashes, tears and all the other good stuff that helps us and so may other species see in their own way?

This 'eye argument' is very old, and long since debunked creationist propaganda, which causes me to doubt that your 'biology teacher' was of professional calibre or even real at all. i am no studnet of biology and this seems simple enough to me. In short i have a hard time believing you at all, ariano_paluda.