Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Subduction Zone]

Bible doctrine.
The sanctuary law given to Moses dictated by GOD required a blood sacrifice that pointed forward to the Cross

Able offered a blood sacrifice
Genesis
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Always been a Blood Sacrifice required for sin

Nothing new under the sun

Merely reinterpreting the Bible after the fact. Plus why are you claiming that your version of God is so primitive. Why would he need a blood sacrifice? Why is killing things the only way to get the God of the Old Testament's attention?

 

[HitchSlap]

Merely reinterpreting the Bible after the fact. Plus why are you claiming that your version of God is so primitive. Why would he need a blood sacrifice? Why is killing things the only way to get the God of the Old Testament's attention?

I wonder if there's an app for that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder if there's an app for that?

For which one? Killing massive animals or reinterpreting the Bible?

 

[klutedavid]

Sure, that would be nice, but you didn't answer my question: what is your source for the assertion that dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record?

Hello Speedwell.

When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous, they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.

R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington,
"Biomechanics & the Origin of Insect Flight"
Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner & R. J. Wootton,
Cambridge University Press, 1991.

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Speedwell.

When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous, they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.

R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington,
"Biomechanics & the Origin of Insect Flight"
Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner & R. J. Wootton,
Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Has anything new turned up in the intervening 25 years? Given the way science moves on, that is a long time ago. You wouldn't get away with a source that old in a journal paper or thesis without showing that there was nothing newer.

But we should move on to the point you are making. Supposing that the fossil record for flying insects is not as complete as we would like, what does that get you?

 

[sfs]

A wise scientist will try to prove himself wrong because it is without a doubt that once he or she publishes that others will be trying to prove that scientist wrong.

That only happens if you produce results that anyone cares about. If you produce really boring findings, no one cares and you're safe from scrutiny.

ETA: Or so I've heard.

 

[Astrophile]

If dark energy and dark matter, have never been measured or observed, how are you able to quantify the effect of dark energy and dark matter?

Astronomers have observed the effects of dark matter and dark energy. The gravitational effects of dark matter explain the rotation curves of galaxies, the velocity dispersions of elliptical galaxies, the kinematics of clusters of galaxies, and the fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background. Dark energy explains the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe. If you want to know how the effects of dark energy and dark matter are quantified, I warn you that you will have to read some high-level papers on galactic astronomy and cosmology.

However, you appear to have missed the point of my post. You said,

Yet astrophysics claims, that the visible universe is less than 5% of the real universe. How can science rely on observational data, when the bulk of the data is beyond the realm of observation or detection.

In other words, you appear to accept the reality of dark energy and dark matter and are using them to cast doubt on the rest of the findings of science. The purpose of my post was to explain that the dark matter and dark energy that constitute 95% of the universe are important only at galactic and cosmological scales, and are irrelevant to geological and biological processes.

 

[Astrophile]

The idea of evolutionary theory proposes two broad explanations for life on this planet. The first explanation, all species are related to one another in a hierarchy construction. Secondly, all species that exist are generated by preceding species.

It is as obvious that 'all species that exist are generated by preceding species' as it is that all individual living things have parents. At present, neither individual living things nor new species come into existence by spontaneous generation.

This idea that species generate other species is pure speculation.

So where did the first members of a species come from? Did they arise by spontaneous generation, without parents?

For example, the dragonfly, the earliest example found in the fossil record, is dated at around 325 million years old. There are no preceding ancestors of the dragonfly in the fossil record. The dragonfly just suddenly appears in the fossil record and fully formed, not a transitional entity. Today the dragonfly we observe is smaller than the ancient dragonfly, yet is identical in every way, an exact copy. Almost no genetic variation over a period of 325 million years is observable.

You would have to discuss this with entomologists and palaeontologists. However, you should notice that there are about 3000 extant species of dragonflies, belonging to 348 genera and eleven families - Dragonfly - Wikipedia . Do you accept that all these families and genera are derived from a single common ancestral species of dragonfly? Also, do you accept that the Upper Carboniferous rocks that contain the oldest fossil dragonflies really were deposited about 325 million years ago?

 

[Astrophile]

Hello Jon.

Good post, though things are not as straight forward as you might think. The theory of general relativity sure provides a reasonable explanation for gravity. But there are problems with the theory.

Anomalies and discrepancies
There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways. (gravity.wikipedia)

We do need a better theory than the theory of relativity.

One of the problems is the daunting complexity of space time.

Even Einstein was mathematically too primitive, to explain his theory in a mathematical manner. He enlisted help from a gifted mathematician. When Einstein released his theory, I read somewhere, that only a handful of mathematicians could understand his theory.

This does not bode well for a future, upgraded general theory
of gravity.

The fact that modern theories of gravitation are not perfect doesn't mean that they are useless. Even when astronomers had only Newton's theory, it was good enough for them to use the perturbations of the orbit of Uranus to predict the position of the planet Neptune to within 1°.

Modern theories of gravitation, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, allow us to measure our position on the Earth surface to within a few metres using GPS. They also allow astronomers to make accurate predictions of, for example, eclipses, transits and occultations, meteor showers, the movements of planets (particularly Mercury) and binary stars, and the appearance and movements of comets. It has also enabled astronomers to measure the masses of the supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei.

Even if we need better theories of gravitation, our present theories are good enough for most practical purposes, and that suggests to me that scientists are not far off the mark. Any better theory will have to do as well as general relativity both in explaining observed phenomena and in predicting future events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Speedwell.

When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous, they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.

R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington,
"Biomechanics & the Origin of Insect Flight"
Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner & R. J. Wootton,
Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Yes, we are all well aware of that. You still don't know how to ask proper questions. Perhaps you should try to learn why scientists do not think that this is a threat to the theory of evolution at all.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Speedwell.

Thanks for your reply.

Has anything new turned up in the intervening 25 years? Given the way science moves on, that is a long time ago. You wouldn't get away with a source that old in a journal paper or thesis without showing that there was nothing newer.

Your the fellow waving the flag for the evolution of life forms,
you tell me. I am asking for the fossil evidence to support the idea, that the dragonfly has evolved.

But we should move on to the point you are making. Supposing that the fossil record for flying insects is not as complete as we would like, what does that get you?

Science is all about evidence, observable evidence. If the evolution of winged insects is not observable in the fossil record, then say so. Don't leave me sitting here, perplexed at the failure of those who proclaim evolution, to bother to support their evolutionary theory.

Through the smoke and mirrors, it certainly appears to be a gaping hole in the evidence to support the theory.




There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, we are all well aware of that. You still don't know how to ask proper questions. Perhaps you should try to learn why scientists do not think that this is a threat to the theory of evolution at all.

Hello Zone.

Your aware that there are no recorded observations, of the evolution of winged insects in the fossil record. This obviously
is an issue for me, for some reason, it presents no issue for you.

Any lack of observable evidence should indicate an issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Speedwell.

Thanks for your reply.

Your the fellow waving the flag for the evolution of life forms,
you tell me. I am asking for the fossil evidence to support the idea, that the dragonfly has evolved.

Why? It seems to be a rather foolish request.

Science is all about evidence, observable evidence. If the evolution of winged insects is not observable in the fossil record, then say so. Don't leave me sitting here, perplexed at the failure of those who proclaim evolution, to bother to support their evolutionary theory.

How about trying to learn more first so that you can ask proper questions? That is more reasonable than demanding others explain to you what you obviously can't or won't understand.

Through the smoke and mirrors, it certainly appears to be a gaping hole in the evidence to support the theory.

Nope, your inability to understand does not make this a hole. Try again.

There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.

Yes, we know this. I already pointed that out to you. You really need to learn a lot more so that you can ask meaningful questions. You are making the error of trying to refute a theory that you do not understand by asking questions that only demonstrate your ignorance about this topic. Here is a suggestion, try to learn first, then see if you can refute it.

You are approaching this problem backwards right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

Your aware that there are no recorded observations, of the evolution of winged insects in the fossil record. This obviously
is an issue for me, for some reason, it presents no issue for you.

Any lack of observable evidence should indicate an issue.

But there are mountains of evidence for evolution.

Once again learn first, then see if you can refute.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Astrophile.

An interesting topic.

The fact that modern theories of gravitation are not perfect doesn't mean that they are useless.

A more precise description of the problem, mankind is experiencing difficulty in coping with the vast complexity of space time. I still have difficult in understanding, that the grand theory of everything, was not developed decades ago.

I am seriously questioning Astrophile, whether we will ever, unlock the mysterious puzzle that the universe presents.

Even when astronomers had only Newton's theory, it was good enough for them to use the perturbations of the orbit of Uranus to predict the position of the planet Neptune to within 1°.

A marvelous fellow, probably one of the greatest scientists in history. But the complexity of the universe seems to be increasing, the deeper we look into the universe, the stranger it becomes. I have even heard some of the folk, working on the results from the Hadron Collider, suggesting we may need a new form of mathematics to explain the data.

Modern theories of gravitation, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, allow us to measure our position on the Earth surface to within a few metres using GPS.

I agree, an incredible advance in technology. This also allowed the confirmation of tectonic plate movement in Geology.

They also allow astronomers to make accurate predictions of, for example, eclipses, transits and occultations, meteor showers, the movements of planets (particularly Mercury) and binary stars, and the appearance and movements of comets. It has also enabled astronomers to measure the masses of the supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei.

Yes, but the chain is breaks at the weakest link, regardless of how strong the chain appears to be. It is the weaknesses in the theories, that most strongly declare the eventual failure of the theory, to accurately describe the full data set.

Even if we need better theories of gravitation, our present theories are good enough for most practical purposes, and that suggests to me that scientists are not far off the mark. Any better theory will have to do as well as general relativity both in explaining observed phenomena and in predicting future events.

I am a purist, the theory needs to be absolutely descriptive of the observations. An approximation of the truth is not acceptable, for me that is anathema.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Zone.

You are repeating yourself.

But there are mountains of evidence for evolution.

Just don't ask whether the observable evidence exists.

Once again learn first, then see if you can refute.

I asked for the evidence and there seems to be no evidence.
A theory must be supported by observable, objective, hard evidence.

 

[Gene2memE]

Your aware that there are no recorded observations, of the evolution of winged insects in the fossil record. This obviously
is an issue for me, for some reason, it presents no issue for you.

Any lack of observable evidence should indicate an issue.

Pssst...:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/02/origin-insect-flight
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/11250008009438706
The Insect Wing, Part I. Origin and Development of Wings from Notal Lobes on JSTOR
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/16/6515.full
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/93.short
Body plan innovation in treehoppers through the evolution of an extra wing-like appendage : Abstract : Nature
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1793/20141823.short

 

[Speedwell]

Your the fellow waving the flag for the evolution of life forms,
you tell me. I am asking for the fossil evidence to support the idea, that the dragonfly has evolved.

I am not "waving the flag for the evolution of life forms." I am a bystander, a layman. The theory of evolution seems credible to me, but it is only a scientific theory and could, as such, be overturned by new evidence at any time.

The fossil record is, and will remain, incomplete due to the happenstance of fossilization events. The situation is rather like that of putting together a jigsaw puzzle for which the cover displaying the completed puzzle has been lost. The process is painstaking and arduous, but it is possible to get a general idea of what the picture is long before the puzzle is completed. In the case of the fossil record, it is not the absence of some of the pieces which would spoil the theory, but the discovery of a piece which did not fit with the emerging picture. So far this has not happened. Given that there are many lines of evolution for which the fossil record is all but complete, and given that there is a fully characterized biological mechanism adequate to produce the necessary evolutionary changes, I see no problem in accepting the theory provisionally (as all scientific theories are accepted) and wait to see what happens next. Personally, I have nothing to lose by it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

You are repeating yourself.

I know, that is because you are repeating yourself. You keep making the same mistakes that show you have no understanding of the sciences to speak of.

Just don't ask whether the observable evidence exists.

Your inability to understand the evidence does not mean that it does not exist.

I asked for the evidence and there seems to be no evidence.
A theory must be supported by observable, objective, hard evidence.

You asked an unreasonable question. You don't know enough to understand why your question was unreasonable. And the theory of evolution is supported by observable, hard, objective evidence.

Once again, learn first and then try to refute. Not too many people will be willing to help you if you keep presenting this current attitude of yours.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even if we need better theories of gravitation, our present theories are good enough for most practical purposes, and that suggests to me that scientists are not far off the mark. Any better theory will have to do as well as general relativity both in explaining observed phenomena and in predicting future events.

Yes; given the number of confirmed predictions of general relativity, it seems likely that it is the expression of a more complete theory within some bound or at some limit, much as Newtonian mechanics is an expression of GR in the limit where the effects of GR are insignificant (i.e. a Newtonian universe with absolute time and Galilean invariance).