Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, they're not.Wolly said:Ohh but the theory of gravity and evolution are not the same type of theory Bellman!
The theory of gravity is not an observation at all. Theories aren't observations, they're attempts to explain observations.Wolly said:The theory of evolution explains how life developed over a long period of time, whereas the theory of gravity is a constant, immutable observation discovered with mathematics.
No, they're not.Wolly said:It is ignorant of you to say the theory of evolution is just as established or understood as gravity is, being that they are inherently different types of theories.
Much of modern science does not object to evolution. That is false, and you cannot support it.Wolly said:The problem is that much of modern science objects to evolution, and not gravity. To prove evolution, one has to use observation and reason, not math formulas!
I haven't seen the math that points to God. He may exert the attraction between every particle and every other particle, but I need more than your faith to believe it.Logic said:Can anyone say God?
No thanks, I've been burning so many lately that I'm getting a sore throat and runny eyes.Valkhorn said:
Straw Man, anyone?
Sorry... you confused me. I'd love to say it won't happen again, but...Logic said:You'd probably need a hell of a lot more than my faith :O.
The theory of evolution explains how life developed over a long period of time, whereas the theory of gravity is a constant, immutable observation discovered with mathematics.
I seem to be hearing three messages:
a) There is no overwhelming evidence for evolution. Since this statement can have two different meanings, Ill spell out both of them and you can confirm if you mean one or the other or both.
a-1) There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, or There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. (Two different ways of saying the same thing.)
a-2) There is no overwhelming evidence which supports the theory of evolution.
Decent basic critique.
Finally I would note that you seem to have difficulty with the use of the scientific method.
Not at all, just the assumptions that are going along with the scientific method that I have a problem with.
I have found in talking with people, that few people on either side of the issue understand the theory of creationism of ID as put forth in the Bible. A good starting point in understanding what is involved in the theory is The Genesis Record (I think that is the exact title) big book discussing the theory and what posibilities the theory allow for and what possibilities are not allowed for. To date, I have not seen sugnificant scientific data that makes better sense of more data than any other competing theory. For example, many evolutionists focus on old earth, new earth data to prove creationism false. In truth, the theory of creation as purposed in the bible (primary teaching on creationism) does not exclude the posibility of old earth creation. Now many creationists only claim young earth but this is only one strand of the theory and old earth does nothing to disprove the heart of the theory. This is only one example of what I am talking about.
The closer the match between data that ought to exist, if the theory is true, and the real-life data that does exist, the more likely it is that the theory is sound. Does that make sense to you?
Absolutely but again, we must understand the theory before we can dismiss it as not being able to predict data.
Here is another example, the DNA evidence presented on this thread in relation to trees. From the standpoint of creation as put forth in the bible, one would expect that trees that are similar would have similar but different DNA.
Creation does not say that there are no similar elements in nature, such as, alligators and croc's have similar teeth structure.
Creationism is a failed theory. It predicts data which do not exist and fails to predict data which does exist.
Certain strains of the theory yes, but not the theory as presented by the primary authority.
Of the evidence I have seen precented to support evolution, it does as much to support ID as evolution.
Again, what data fails to support the other two theories, not specific strains of the theory.
What observed instances of evolution? I thought that according to the theory of evolution, millions of years were needed to observe evolution!
What observations of evolution have we witnessed,
Micro evolution is genetics, and is consistant with ID, macro evolution is not a proven anything unless you have new evidence.
Why have both a fact and a theory? The fact is what is observed. The theory seeks to explain why the fact occurs.
According to this statement, then ID is also fact and theory.
razzelflabben said:Is eboli not passed form primaties to man? Not proof of anything but that the genetic makeup is similar enough to share certain diseases. Possible theory, it's all about the possibles.
Loudmouth said:For those who have had difficulty in understanding the OP's, I will try and summarize and use analogies where appropriate.
1. A viral genome is inserted into a cell, but the cell is not killed. This is contrary to the normal viral lifecycle. It is a rare occasion when a virus will insert its RNA/DNA and the infected cell doesn't die. An analogy: A person is bitten by a rattlesnake but the venom does not create any reaction in the person who is bitten. Secondly, each viral insertion is random, or nearly random. There are viral insertion hotspots, but this only reduces the chances from 1 in a billion to 1 in 10 million. The chances of two separate viral insertions, by the same virus, occuring at the same spot is very unlikely.
2. The non-lethal viral insertion happens in a germ line cell. This would include eggs or sperm. The cells that make up your functional body, such as organs or muscle, are somatic cells. Germ line cells, in contrast, only serve as reproductive cells. Also, the number of somatic cells outnumber germ line cells by many orders of magnitude. Just guessing, but a ratio of 1:million might be accurate. Therefore, for this to happen in a germ line cell is rare.
3. The infected germ line cell is part of a reproductive event. For instance, out of the million of sperm, 1 or two are infected. One of those sperm end up fertilizing an egg. Again, we are talking about a one in a million chance.
4. This insertion then becomes part of the entire gene pool of a population. This viral insertion must make it from one individual to the entire population over numerous generations. An analogy: Everyone in the world coming into contact with the same dollar bill. This would take time and chance, and not every dollar bill would make it into everyone's hands. Therefore, not every viral insert makes it into the genome of every organism in a population.
Why endogenous retroviral insertions are strong evidence for common descent:
The chances of two populations, not just individuals, of having the same viral insertion in the same exact spot in their DNA sequence is extremely small. Even if two different species were infected by the same virus, the chances of the ineffective virus inserting in the same spot is close to impossible, or highly improbable. Then you have to add in the fact that these ERV's are found throughtout two different populations. Again, this is improbable. However, if your theory is that humans and apes had a common ancestor, and the common ancestor had these viral insertions, then it would be expected that apes and humans would have viral insertions that are identical. This is what we find. The theory of common ancestory explains why a highly improbable event (two different species having the same ERV) is in fact probable.
An analogy: Two students right a 3 billion word thesis. The professor reading the theses finds that they are almost identical. On top of this, the teacher finds that in one paragraph, not only is the wording identical, but the misspellings are identical. Would the teacher conclude that, given the chance of two people misspelling the same word in an identical paragraph is small, the two authors copied off of each other? Or that one author copied off of another? Of course, and for good reason. It is this same reasoning that ERV's support common ancestory between apes and humans.
gluadys said:In order to deal with this question, we are need to deal with two other questions:
1. What is evolution? How do you know it has occurred and you have observed it?Because most of the people I talk to are not scientists, I talk about the lay persons definitions for such things. What is evolution? A theory in which the explaination of how life came to being is explored, through the idea of common decent. How do you know it has occured and you have observed it? I do not know of any evidence to support the assumption that we do know the evolution has occurered nor have we been able to observe it.It is groupings of animals. As to my discussions with non scientists, it is what identifies a lion as a lion rather than a tiger.2. What is a species?
If they are theories, then there are no wrong and right answers, if it is fact, then there is absolute proof, for example, we can fly around the earth, take pictures from outerspace, etc. This moves us from the realm of theory to fact when dealing with the issue of the world being flat.And even before we deal with these questions, there is another issue to deal with.
Whose answers to these questions do we accept?
And when talking to the general public, it is vital to either preface everything with the definitions you want to use or to discuss the subject according to the popular definition. This is called teaching.Different groups and individuals, different dictionaries, offer different definitions. Some of these definitions are good, some bad, some just use different criteria.
Much of the creo-evo mutual incomprehension derives from the fact that each camp defines "evolution" and "species" differently. Using creationist definitions (even when transferred to ID) means that some instances of "evolution" as defined by science are disallowed by creationists as not being "evolution" by their criteria.
AgreedIn order for us to understand each other, we need to get around this dilemma of one person offering an example of evolution based on one set of criteria, while the other person refuses to accept it as an example of evolution based on a different set of criteria.
Basic high school and college education as well as general population understanding of the questions given. I have many times stated that I am not a scientist and since the scientific community is small in comparison, one must understand what is generally understood, vs. what is understood by only a few that keep changing the rules.So, my first question is: what are your personal responses to the questions above?
Second question: what are the sources you have based these responses on?
Grant it I have been out of school for a while, but that is the basic source of my definitions.Third question: do you think, if you looked into a standard biology textbook, you would find it defining these terms in the same way you do?
Are you talking to a group of scientists, or a group of people who are trying to understand science? That would change the answer.Finally: how would you like to resolve this dilemma of different people using different criteria to define what is and is not "evolution"?
Exactly, however, adaptations are not rules out in the ID theory stated in the bible nor is evolution (the totality of the theory) proven by the same. What we have proven is that genetic adaptation is observable and documentable.I want to assure you that I am not seeking to duck your question or the defence of evolution in the sense of common descent. But I have often seen creationists (not so much IDers) reject what scientists consider clear evidence of evolution on the basis that it is "not evolution, only adaptation". I see you distinguish between "genetics" and "evolution"--and we will need to clarify what that distinction is.
My position is that if the micro-instances of evolution which we can easily document are merely "adaptation" or "genetics", then so is macro-evolution. So is common descent. For scientifically, there is no known difference in the processes which produce small evolutionary changes and those that produce speciation and differentiation on larger scales.
So define.So, I believe it is important that we agree on the definitions we will use (and I have a bias in favour of using the standard scientific definitions) before we continue.
What do you say?
I try, but get things done slowly sometimes, so not problem.P. S. I have much to comment on in your other post too, but it will have to wait until this evening.
I understood this, I just didn't understand it being directed at me and not general discussion but that's okay, some interesting points none the less. ThanksTomk80 said:This is referring to the fact that if you reject evolution as a theory with enough scientific backing, the same holds for germ theory. The theories are arrived at by the same process. So if the process isn't right with evolution theory, why would it be right when germ theory is considered.
.
Let's look at your own words, paragraph 2 and I quoteTomk80 said:What is proven by ring species is that species can gradually change, till they are so far apart that the species at the beginning/end of the ring cannot reproduce anymore. From this you can infer that new species can develop through gradual changes. This is evolution as fact.
There is no reason to assume these changes have a boundary in some way. If you have a good reason, I'll be very interested to hear it.
Ring species is talking about genetics in the same way everything in evolution is talking about genetics, namely that genetic differences give rise to phenotypic differences, which ultimately make the differences between different groups of animals from the same species so large that they won't be able to reproduce anymore. I don't understand how this is a problem. I also don't understand what you mean with 'pure genetics'?
Yes, that is what you do in science. Based on observation you make an assumption which you subsequently try to disprove. Here, there is no reason to think the assumption is incorrect. Hence, the theory stands.razzelflabben said:Let's look at your own words, paragraph 2 and I quote
There is no reason to assume these changes have a boundary in some way.
See the use of the word assume. This referes to lack of evidence to support this assumption. Thus we have theory not fact.
razzelflabben said:gluadys said:Finally: how would you like to resolve this dilemma of different people using different criteria to define what is and is not "evolution"?
Are you talking to a group of scientists, or a group of people who are trying to understand science? That would change the answer.
razzelflabben said:And when talking to the general public, it is vital to either preface everything with the definitions you want to use or to discuss the subject according to the popular definition. This is called teaching.
A theory in which the explaination of how life came to being is explored, through the idea of common decent.
It is groupings of animals. As to my discussions with non scientists, it is what identifies a lion as a lion rather than a tiger.
razzelflabben said:gluadys said:And even before we deal with these questions, there is another issue to deal with.
Whose answers to these questions do we accept?
If they are theories, then there are no wrong and right answers, if it is fact, then there is absolute proof, for example, we can fly around the earth, take pictures from outerspace, etc. This moves us from the realm of theory to fact when dealing with the issue of the world being flat.
I have many times stated that I am not a scientist and since the scientific community is small in comparison, one must understand what is generally understood, vs. what is understood by only a few that keep changing the rules.
Exactly, however, adaptations are not ruled out in the ID theory stated in the bible nor is evolution (the totality of the theory) proven by the same.
What we have proven is that genetic adaptation is observable and documentable.
So define.
Let us look at the paper I read for information at the end of the article it say, "The division was not absolute: some members of the sub-populations still find each other and interbreed to produce hybrids. The hybrids look healthy and vigorous, but they are neither well-camouflaged nor good mimics, so they are vulnerable to predators. They also seem to have difficulty finding mates, so the hybrids do not reproduce successfully. These two factors keep the two forms from merging, even though they can interbreed. "Tomk80 said:What is proven by ring species is that species can gradually change, till they are so far apart that the species at the beginning/end of the ring cannot reproduce anymore. From this you can infer that new species can develop through gradual changes. This is evolution as fact.
There is no reason to assume these changes have a boundary in some way. If you have a good reason, I'll be very interested to hear it.
Ring species is talking about genetics in the same way everything in evolution is talking about genetics, namely that genetic differences give rise to phenotypic differences, which ultimately make the differences between different groups of animals from the same species so large that they won't be able to reproduce anymore. I don't understand how this is a problem. I also don't understand what you mean with 'pure genetics'?
Both is fine.gluadys said:razzelflabben:
Thanks for the comments.
Thanks. Could you tell me when you say that there is no overwhelming evidence for evolution, do you mean the statement(s) I labeled a-1 or a-2 or both?
Absolutely. in fact, going from the original theory of Creationism as precented in the bible, there are only two absolutes, one is that God (supreme being) created the world and all that is in it. The second, that all living things reproduce after it's kind. It's kind is not specified and is open to many different interpretations. The general idea as best as I can tell is that lions, will reproduce lions, etc. This opens up a world of possibilities some of which can co-exist with evolutionary theory. For this reason, the only way the C could be disproven by science is it 1. We prove no God exists. This is not possible to do and most scientists will acknoledge this. or 2. To prove that family groups (not sure what technical term is being used today) evolve into new family groups (I have seen no evidence to prove this either) For further discussion, see my previous post on species rings. Also note, they are still salamanders which is consistant with the theory. Now as mentioned before, evolution has different strains if you will, that can be proven or disproven. C has this same characteristic, strains that can be proven or disproven, for example, old earth, new earth.Also do you agree that both creationism and ID contain elements of evolution? If not, why not?
The only assumptions I have problems with are that evolution is fact. And that there is overwhelming evidence to support E and disprove C/ID. Appart from that, I have very little problem with science or even E. But I find the assumption that there is overwhelming evidence, and the assumption of fact that does not exist, offensive and misleading. I have some problems with belief system but that is a totally different thread and was touched on in this thread. The heart of that disagreement is that when one moves a theory to a fact, without appropriate data, it becomes a belief system and thus opens the door for philisophical and theological discussion. It is only when theory is accepted as theory that these discussions are inappropriate.Could you specify a few of the more important assumptions going along with the scientific method which you object to? Not a list of twenty please. Two or three will be enough.
The last research I saw was inconclusive but did lean toward old earth. Without the conclusiveness, I consider both theory and do not really lean one way or the other. As I study new evidence, this can easily change.I take it then that you do not include yourself in the Young-Earth Creationist camp. That is the one that gets the most attention as it is most out-of-sync with all science--not just evolution. But they are also a relatively recent phenomenon. Most creationists from about 1840 to 1950 were Old Earth Creationists. I understand the ID movement includes people with a variety of viewpoints on this issue. It does make it easier to concentrate on evolution when we remove the age of the earth question from the table.
The purity of the theory originates in the biblical account of creation. God (supreme being) created the world and all that is in the world. Each was created to reproduce after it's kind. As discussed earlier, there is no set on what kind means but my research suggests family groups, eg lions to lions, tigers to tigers, etc. Mules would evidence to support this theory in that mules cannot reproduce.I am, in fact, much more interested in following through on what each theory allows for, prohibits and requires.
Absolutely, the statement beingYou did not say whether you agreed with this statement or not. Do you?
Which supports my position of disproving C/IDRight. There is no way to make predictions on the basis of a theory that is not understood. If one attempts to do so, the predictions will not be correctly derived from the theory.
But you have misunderstood what they have been saying. They have not been referring to trees as in pine, oak, palm, etc. They have been referring to phylogenetic trees.
Phylogenetic trees are to biology what family trees are to genealogists. The "tree" is a diagram that shows the family relationships between species.
Check out the Tree of Life project at the University of Arizona. http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
Also the short tutorial on cladistics and cladograms at the University of Berkeley's online Museum of Paleontology.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad4.html [/quote] I read up on some of it, and found somthing interesting in your latter referal,
"But, before we begin this journey, hear this warning in the everlasting words of Father Jacobus (from Hesse's Magister Ludi):
-- To study history one must know in advance that one is attempting something fundamentally impossible, yet necessary and highly important. To study history means submitting to chaos and nevertheless retaining faith in order and meaning. It is a very serious task, young man, and possibly a tragic one. "
Further support for my opinion.
It explains that the source of the similarities and differences are both God or supreme being which every you hold to. The source is God.True, but it does not explain the source of the similarities or the source of the differences. Evolution explains both.
Show me how the theory is failed, I have shown you the primary theory.All versions of creationism I am familiar with are failed theories regardless of their stance on the age of the earth. So you will have to show me why the "primary authority" is exempt.
My perticular strain is as stated above. Other strains are best discussed by those who hold the view as they have a better grasp on thier own views and reasons for their views.You may need to guide me a little on ID theory as I am less familiar with it than creationism.
It sounds like a fair evaluation of some of the strains.My impression is that a fair number of IDers are basically theistic evolutionists or close to it, so naturally evidence which supports evolution would also support their vision of ID. The crux will be those ideas in ID which are not in agreement with evolution. I am thinking here of irreducible complexity as defined by Behe and specified complexity as defined by Dembsky.
see aboveI may be dealing with a "specific strain" of creationism here. If so, you can correct me and provide the version of the "primary authority" and why it is exempt from this criticism.
Now the way I understood the research you presented for review, this is streatching things a bit, give me some time to review it again.Creationism affirms that living species are divided into groups (which may include anywhere from one to many species) commonly called "kinds". Each kind is a separate, distinct creation, and the common ancestor of all species within the kind. There is no genetic relationship (though there may be genetic similarity) between one kind and another.
On the basis of this assumption, we can predict that living things cannot be placed on a single phylogenetic tree, but that each kind must have its own separate phylogeny, unconnected to that of other kinds.
see aboveEvidence to date does not support the assumption of several different and unconnected phylogenetic trees, but rather the assumption of the common descent of all species, and their placement on a single phylogenetic tree.
Until E can show macro evolution, E is an unsupported and unsupportable theory in the say way.ID affirms the existence of "irreducible complexities" especially at the level of molecular biology, for which no evolutionary pathway is possible. No incontrovertible instance of such a phenomenon has been found. It is also difficult to see how the existence of any irreducible or specified complexity can ever be documented without a means of discriminating between intelligent design and design by natural selection. Until this problem is overcome, ID remains an unsupported and unsupportable theory.
And this same so called evidence, or observations can explain the theory of C or ID as well. So again, we come back to my basic problem.You have already been pointed several times to observed instances of speciation. No, the theory of evolution does not require millions of years to see evolution. The key is not how many years, but how many generations. We can see evolution happening in species which have a rapid generational turnover---including speciation. It is only in species with a longer life span that it becomes impossible to observe evolution within a human life span. And for some species, it is not possible to observe evolution even within recorded human history. That is true of our own species for example. However, since evolution is the same process in all species, long or short lived, we have no reason to suspect that evolution does not occur in longer-lived species. Science, after all, requires that a phenomenon be observable, directly or indirectly. It does not necessarily require that it be personally observed.
I do not see any that disprove C as I have presented it nor that prove E without question. Show me again, I may be dense, but I do believe in seeking truth.Again, go to the references you have already been given. If any are not clear to you, come back with questions.
But genetics, are not the totality of the theory, at least not on the level that we currently can reproduce or obseve genetics. Genetics as we know them to date can also be used to explain C and ID.What do you mean by "genetics"? Both micro and macro evolution involve genetics and both require more than genetics. And depending on the particular version of ID being presented, macro evolution is consistent with ID.
Don't know where that will get us but give it a go. The tract of this thread is that E does not have overwhelming evidence to make it fact, nor is there sufficient evidence to disprove C or ID.ID will not be a fact until it can meet the challenges I set out above:
a) a way to discriminate between natural and intelligent design, and
b) an incontrovertible example of a biological phenomenon which has been intelligently designed rather than naturally designed.
To keep the discussion a little on track, I would like to start focussing on the relationship of genetics and evolution. Is that ok with you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?