Evolution - why do people disagree?

[lucaspa]

Did you know the best of the best video equipment/computers can't process information anywhere close to what the human eye can do. Are you telling me that oh wonderful evolution randomly developed something better than our latest greatest computers?

Not random. By natural or Darwinian selection. Which is a an algorithmic process to give design.

Here we have a computer chip designed by Darwinian selection that the humans don't know how it works!

3. G Taubes, Evolving a conscious machine. Discover 19: 72-79. June1998. Uses a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) chip that can reprogram its architecture. Adrian Thompson of Univ. of Suxxex used Darwinianselection to have chip write its own architecture to solve problems. First problem was to distiguish between 1 kiloHz and 10 kHz sound. Allocated only 100 logic elements out of 4,096. Chip did the job withonly 32. Thompson can't figure out how. A chip designed by a human would require 10 to 100 times as many logic elements -- or at least access to aclock -- to perform the same task. "There are properties that humans have great trouble designing into a system, like being very efficient, using small amounts of power, or being fault tolerant. Evolution can cope withthem all."-- Thompson.

Then again, you think God directly created everything biological, right? Well, God never created a DNA molecule that could also act as an enzyme. Darwinian selection did! And the humans had no idea what the sequence would be until it was all over and they sequenced the new DNA created by Darwinian selection:

20. Breaker RR, Joyce GF.A DNA enzyme that cleaves RNA. Chem Biol 1994 Dec;1(4):223-9
21. Ronald R Breaker, Gerald FA Joyce DNA enzyme with Mg2+-dependent RNA phosphoesterase activity Chemistry & Biology 1995, 2:655-660.
22. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992732 Radio emerges from the electronic soup

Now, the most recent development is that Darwinian selection is now making new inventions for technology that the US patent office is issuing patents for! Darwinian selection can invent better than humans! May take longer in biology, but it's better.
24. 12. Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out www.genetic-programming.com

 

[lucaspa]

Man. What I would do to have you guys around when it comes time for the Bible Club debates.

Will you show up at my school?

Where's your school?

 

[lucaspa]

I'm against it, reguardless of religion, because it's abosulety absurd to think we all evolved from some amoeba.

This is the Argument from Personal Incredulity.

It's also "absurd" to think that a person dead for 36 hours can live again, but you don't have a problem with that? Why not?

Or how about a Sea being parted and the waters held back so people can walk across the sea bottom, taking hours for everyone to make the transit. Absurd? Ever see it happen? Yet you think it did, don't you?

That's two reasons the Argument from Personal Incredulity has no standing and why it's foolish for a Christian to ever use it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm against it, reguardless of religion, because it's abosulety absurd to think we all evolved from some amoeba.

100 years ago, it was "absurd" to think that men would put on special suits and walk on the moon. Shows what they knew.

I see how long it took the human race to develop airplanes, something that flies, but birds and bugs and those stupid mosquitos have been flying for ages. Evolutionists, are you trying to tell me that what it too the human race to develop over thousands of years, with intelligence might I add, that through total random processes, life began to fly?

thousands of years for human civilization vs. billions of years for evolutionary processes... You really have no idea what you're trying to compare, do you?

Count to 1000. Do it now. One number per second, never stopping. You'll get to 1000 in just under 17 minutes.

Count to one billion. One number per second, never stopping. No food, no sleep, no bathroom breaks. You'll be done in about 32 years.

Are you now beginning to comprehend how long living creatures had had to figure out flight, or is it still absurd to you?

Did you know the best of the best video equipment/computers can't process information anywhere close to what the human eye can do. Are you telling me that oh wonderful evolution randomly developed something better than our latest greatest computers?

This one's already been answered, but I suppose you find it "absurd" as well.

Evolutionists need to open their eyes, you have two of them!

Yep. two eyes. Darn convenient of Evolution to provide the depth perception, eh?

Oh, I forgot, it's "absurd."

 

[IvoryRain]

Wow. Very good for you, reject materialism.

Sometimes it's the best way, and sometimes it is the only way to make those that receive stop and think of how and what they "earn" in life.

In all, this has been interesting, though I must not have expressed myself fully or exactly as my original question was only touched by very few.

 

[revolutio]

Sometimes it's the best way, and sometimes it is the only way to make those that receive stop and think of how and what they "earn" in life.

In all, this has been interesting, though I must not have expressed myself fully or exactly as my original question was only touched by very few.

People here have selective attention. They talk about what the want to and mold it vaguely into what the OP is about.

Come on, where's the fun in thoughtful discussion? We want arguments darn it!

 

[Bushido216]

?Que es OP?

 

[troodon]

?Que es OP?

Hold down Alt and type 0191 to get an upside down ?

-¿Dondé están los dinosauros?
-Nadie sabe.

 

[Bushido216]

Seriously, though, what is an OP?

 

[Arikay]

OP=Original post
OP=Opening post
Etc.

the original post that started the thread.

 

[Bushido216]

Gracias, senor.

 

[lucaspa]

In all, this has been interesting, though I must not have expressed myself fully or exactly as my original question was only touched by very few.

I thought the original question was clear except for that bolded "theory". That was a little distracting in context.

However, you will find in any discussion that a lot of people hear (or read) what they think you said and not what you actually said. You simply have to sort thru the responses and respond to the ones that actually did address your question.

As I said, I think Berry found the answer. (You should also read what Berry thinks is the threat of creationism to science.)

 

[wblastyn]

And I've never seen a good explanation of how we went from splitting in two for reproduction, to sperm, eggs, and something that feels real good.

Btw, I think "it feels real good" to make you do it more so you'll have a better chance of passing on your genes.

 

[lucaspa]

And I've never seen a good explanation of how we went from splitting in two for reproduction, to sperm, eggs, and something that feels real good.

Well now, if you don't look, you won't find, will you?

1. C Zimmer, The slime alternative. Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept) Amoeba Dictyostelium is single celled, but forms multicelled organism with differentiation when food supplies are low. Sexually reproduces sometimes, forms a cyst, and then asexually divides with the new genetic material. Also forms an eye of sorts from individual cells that act as lenses. Cells act and use same proteins as phagocytes in immune system.
2. DL Kirk Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. Reviewed by G Bell in Development: Volvox. Science 282: 248, Oct. 9, 1998. Volvox (an algae) is a model system of multicellularity. Has fewer than 20 cells and only two types: soma and germ cells. Has single celled relatives, notably Chlamydomonas.
3. Evolution of Sex. Science 281: 1979-2010, Sept. 25, 1998. A series of 8 review articles discussing the topic.
3a. http://www.nature.com/nrg/focus/evolsex/

 

[Cantuar]

I think there was a thread a little while ago that challenged creationists to come up with someone who accepted creaitonist theories based purely on a science and who did not have a religious motivation to do so. There were none brought up.

That question was asked on a creationism-evolution thread on another board a few months ago. The creationist who'd precipitated the question by claiming all these people rejecting evolution on scientific grounds could only come up with one who had rejected evolution BEFORE becoming a biblical-literalist Christian: John Woodmorappe. And looking at his biography, even that doesn't seem to be true.

 

[TheInformedOne]

Why are people against the theory of evolution?
1) It is not proven
2) There isn't exactly any overwhelming evidence
3) We don't even know if it actually is possible (they can't even prove that)
4) Evolution, despite what some people say cannot coexist in some nice fantasy world with Genesis 1, they do contradict.
5) All of the Above

 

[TheInformedOne]

Someone who rejects evolution on scientific grounds, have you ever heard of Kent Hovind?

 

[David Gould]

Someone who rejects evolution on scientific grounds, have you ever heard of Kent Hovind?

Assuming you mean "someone who accepts evolution on scientific grounds" I will continue:


Aaargh! My eyes! My beautiful eyes! For the love of someone you love, please, please don't bring up "Hovind" and "scientific grounds" in the same sentence.



Sorry, we have all seen Hovind. I suggest you research his many claims a little further before you use what he calls "scientific grounds".


Aargh! Now you have me doing it! It burns, mummy, it burns!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Someone who rejects evolution on scientific grounds, have you ever heard of Kent Hovind?

Please, tell me you're joking and/or trolling.

If not, do not embarass yourself by attempting to associate Kent Hovind with anything remotely scientific.

Before you embarass yourself any further, search these boards for posts about "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

I find TheInformedOne's stance and his name contradictory.