Is Evolution True? | Benzun's Perspective

[Monique]

Aint it interesting how human skin color has evolved? I think it is amazing how graded it is and that it is still preserved today. The very dark African skin tones, the middle Meditteranian one and the very fair scandinavians. Skandinavians actually lost the active gene that causes dark pigmentation, and they are at great risk for developing skin cancers when they move to regions close to the equator.

This could be an example how a niche is created, where very fair people get geographically isolated (although with all the SPF creams we have today, they could protect themselves artificially).

Genetic researchers in these days are very interested in isolated populations, I recently attended a conference on it in Italy. The genomes of these populations have special features that allow us to locate disease genes. In Finland alone there is a collection of 30 genetic disorders that has a high frequency in Finland, but which are almost non existent in the rest of the world (all the genes have been located because of the Finnish subisolates). Thus a very clear enrichement of certain rare alleles.

I wouldn't define this as evolution though, but it definitely is a mechanism of evolution.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Phobos
Your killing of the white roses would be artificial selection (if nature did it, it would be natural selection).

Naaaaa. Don't mean to rant, but humans are a part of nature. I hate the liberal/hippie/commie idea that things humans do are unnatural. Its BS. [/rant]

So deciding that white roses needed to die means that through the process of natural selection, red roses won out. They are "fitter" because by the virtue of being red, they survived.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So deciding that white roses needed to die means that through the process of natural selection, red roses won out. They are "fitter" because by the virtue of being red, they survived.

 

[einsteinian77]

I think that there are two worlds, a science world made up of truths and falsehoods, and a belief world made up of you. The science world exists now, and the belief world exists in the past and in the future. Science can only give you information it can't write the past or future since it isn't absolute. It is clear that evolution is a science and creation is a belief so what's the problem?

 

[Monique]

Science is not absolute ?? So science is relative? The exact opposite I believe :P

Anyway, it is scientifically valid to question whether evolution is true. The point is to come up with pro- and anti- evolutionary arguments and see which theory fits those arguments best.

 

[einsteinian77]

I don't mean science is relative what I meant was that science always changes and what it is a fact today may be a false tomorrow. Example, we once thought the universe would expand and eventually collapse now we think the universe is going to keep expanding, but then again it could collapse in itself. In science we can only see the information given we cannot make an absolute prediction nor tell an absolute about the past.

 

[Adrian]

"we cannot make an absolute prediction nor tell an absolute about the past."

I don't know about you, but for me, the same kind of healthy scepticism applies to all realms of life. Isn't one major problem of many religious beliefs their dogmatic and absolute nature -- the fact that they cannot be falsified?

The scientific method is not limited to natural science in the narrow sense.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
I don't mean science is relative what I meant was that science always changes and what it is a fact today may be a false tomorrow. Example, we once thought the universe would expand and eventually collapse now we think the universe is going to keep expanding, but then again it could collapse in itself. In science we can only see the information given we cannot make an absolute prediction nor tell an absolute about the past.

So science is a belief too then in your definition.

 

[einsteinian77]

"Isn't one major problem of many religous beliefs their dogmatic and absolute nature--the fact that they cannot be falsified."

But that's what makes it a belief, if you thought that it could be falsified it would be science.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
I think that there are two worlds, a science world made up of truths and falsehoods, and a belief world made up of you. The science world exists now, and the belief world exists in the past and in the future. Science can only give you information it can't write the past or future since it isn't absolute. It is clear that evolution is a science and creation is a belief so what's the problem?

So you have just contradicted your last sentence here :)

 

[einsteinian77]

"So science is a belief too in your definition"
no, to me, science is nothing but data. However, it takes a brain to come up with a the connections between the data so in that case, theoretical science, its where science and belief meet.

 

[Monique]

So you mean to say that science is objective, it looks at the evidence and a conclusion is made, while a belief is more focussed on proofing a standpoint with whatever argument that can be made. I think the line is very thin..

 

[einsteinian77]

The evidence is the conclusion, and that conclusion can change based upon new evidence. Thereof, scientific conclusions hold no absolutes its just data.

 

[Monique]

Oh ok, I get what you are saying now, sorry about that :P

Science doesn't HOLD absolutes, while a dogma WOULD (so a dogma is a widely accepted belief, not under scientific scrutiny).

 

[Bernardo]

But what's wrong with that, holding to beliefs as yet unproven.

I have received many replies to my questions on what was the first cause. No one could say. So what's wrong with believing in a creator, it contradicts nothing in nature or science and answers the question.

Isn't there more satisfaction in being the loved and precise creature of an incredible God than simply random. It can't bring as much pleasure to look out over the mountains at a sun set and say "wow - random chance is beutiful."

To me the Big Bang is the incredible result of God's ever delicate finger touching creation. I have read nothing in this thread to even touch it.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Bernardo
But what's wrong with that, holding to beliefs as yet unproven.

Evolution has been proven.

So what's wrong with believing in a creator, it contradicts nothing in nature or science and answers the question.

You may believe in a creator, as you see fit, since, as you say, science says nothing either for or against one. The choice to believe evolution is not as easy. If you choose to disbelieve evolution, you choose to disbelieve in the scientific method, and the majority of the biological study done in the last century -- even the most basic results that you can reproduce yourself, in front of your own eyes, with a jar of fruit flies.

- Warren

 

[Bernardo]

I find your reply very closed minded.

I have never disregarded science. The belief in God does not in any way make me an ignorant deluded fool washed away in my own world of fiction.

God created a beautiful complex world that works. There are observable laws and reproducable events. If there were not, then you could convince me there was no God.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Bernardo
I find your reply very closed minded.

How?

I have never disregarded science. The belief in God does not in any way make me an ignorant deluded fool washed away in my own world of fiction.

I never said you were. (Defensive, are we?) I simply said there really is no choice about whether or not to believe in evolution. It's fact, and its factuality is demonstrated every day. Hell, even the Catholic church finally had to accept it. It is undeniable. On the other hand, your belief in a creator, as I said, is quite acceptable.

- Warren

 

[Bernardo]

You may believe in a creator, as you see fit, since, as you say, science says nothing either for or against one. The choice to believe evolution is not as easy. If you choose to disbelieve evolution, you choose to disbelieve in the scientific method, and the majority of the biological study done in the last century -- even the most basic results that you can reproduce yourself, in front of your own eyes, with a jar of fruit flies.

If I've misread you I'm sorry, there's lots more than this site going on in my life right now.

Yes you did say I could do as I pleased. But this post reads like there is a choice between God or science to me. I struggle here every day, constantly, against faithful people letting their minds fall asleap. It's my passion to think - and I read your post quickly and it touched a nerve.

That's where I'm coming from.

 

[russ_watters]

Since no one responded to the post in question (that I saw) -

Originally posted by Bernardo
I really need help on this evolutionary view. I'm not a biologist and will admit the science of evolution soon looses me.

I have some struggles,

If all there is is the physical word, and the nature of this world is cause and effect - what is the first cause? My mind just reels at this question within this view. Where did matter come from? at some point there must have been nothing or is the universe eternal? (Please don't just say the big bang - even that event must have had some cause. I can't believe energy & matter could suddely explode from nothing on it's own.)

This falls outside of the realm of science. If there is a beginning of the universe, as the Big Bang Theory implies, then there is a beginning to causality. As a result, science can say little to nothing about what made science come to be. So you're quite free to believe that God set this universe up and gave it a kick to get it started - that belief doesn't contradict science, and science doesn't contradict that belief (and that's my personal belief).

Evolution is a scientific process that is observed to occur. Many object to it because it seems to contradict the Biblical version of creation. But there is a problem: all the evidence we have points to evolution being true. So that means that either evolution IS true or God fabricated all the evidence to make it LOOK like evolution is true when it isn't. So the choice is either evolution is right or God is deceitful.

 

[Bernardo]

Although, I should say that I would prefer to believe what is more likely to be true, over what gives me more satisfaction. Magnificent or terrible, one should always seek out how the universe is, not how we want it to be.

So what is more likely to be true. Evolution can follow the train of life back to the very first living cell. It all in the 'first cell thing' I've read, and asked people in verious threads on this topic and can not find an acceptable answer for this first cell. Even for random chance and a whole lot of time, heat, material & massive vents - to accept how this cell came to be is a huge leap. How can this be the most likely truth?

I'm not arguing with the science at all. Without science I can not explain the dinosaurs, I can not explain the apparent age of the earth. I need both science and faith.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Bernardo
to accept how this cell came to be is a huge leap.

But let me guess -- the assumption of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator who left absolutely no conclusive evidence of his own existence is a much easier leap to make... right?

- Warren

 

[Jikx]

what theory or mind of thinking was it where it was stated things are, because they are?

To put into context, if "randomness" did not create the environment we have today, we would never exist, hence never be around to even discuss it...

 

[Bernardo]

To put into context, if "randomness" did not create the environment we have today, we would never exist, hence never be around to even discuss it...

You are right. I realize that if all there is is the Big Bang, lots of time then us. The simple fact that we are here indicates that the universe supports life. This debate isn't about evolution at all, it's about the origins of life. One side is convinced there is a design brought into being by God, the other that there is life because of how our universe designed itself. Evolution is describing the process. Was it random? Was it directed?

This debate is older than all of us, and still rages on.

I will say this in defence of my position,

The Bible was given to us to help us come into a relationship with our creator, not to satisfy our curiosity. A world with all the answers given to us would be very unsatisfing. Scripture describes matters of nature, not in the technical matter that science uses, but in the conversational language of every day. Describing how the world appears to the eye. Figuing out the details was left for us, because that's what we do. We are humans, far from animals, this world and all its secrets are within our grasp to uncover. This also glorifies God.

I know you don't agree on this matter. I would appreciate that we accept our differances and continue to discuss this matter side by side.

 

[Loren Booda]

Bernardo,

I'll add that to my philosophy.

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by Bernardo

Evolution can follow the train of life back to the very first living cell.

------------------------------------



no this is false, for starters, what about lipids and the RNA world, true this is not evolution, but a branch of it, called:

abiogenesis!

Evolution is the change in freq of allele genes (in the gene pool ) and Natural selection!

Evolutionary theories, do way some evidence - and evidence supporting abiogenesis (how life started) is fastly gaining new data - specially with oxidative chemistry, lipids, RNA, etc

 

[Bernardo]

That was interesting reading.

I just spent some time looking at abiogenesis and it seem to be where this debate holds it's roots.

From what I read it seems that the crux of research is on determining the makeup of the atmosphere at the time. The articles seemed very focused on the concentration of hydrogen atoms in the atmosphere. Apparently hydrogen inhibits the formaition of advanced cells.

How am I doing?

 

[Loren Booda]

The Gaia hypotheses, a la James Lovelock, explains the probability of life during planetary history in part through proportionality of atmospheric gases.

What seems to be the concentration of hydrogen that inhibits life, and anyway, what planet has the gravitation to prevent H₂ escape?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

what planet has the gravitation to prevent H₂ escape?

Jupiter

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

All right look. We know how modern life evolved from the single cell. We know how complex biological molecules evolved from simple molecules like carbon dioxide and ammonia. Invoking a supreme being for the sole purpose for explaining the one step in between of going from the complex biological molecules to a simple cell just because we haven't a complete explanation of how it worked is a bit silly, isn't it.

 

[Loren Booda]

G. T., you would not therefore use Jupiter as an example of the supression of life by hydrogen (especially in its solid state)?

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Naaaaa. Don't mean to rant, but humans are a part of nature. I hate the liberal/hippie/commie idea that things humans do are unnatural. Its BS. [/rant]

So deciding that white roses needed to die means that through the process of natural selection, red roses won out. They are "fitter" because by the virtue of being red, they survived.

Overall, I agree. Humans are definitely part of nature. But "artificial selection" is still on the books, which is why I made the distinction. Humans have a unique impact on the planet, so it's not so wrong to look at it as a separate mechanism. PErhaps the word "artificial" should be replaced with "anthropic" or something like that.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Phobos
Overall, I agree. Humans are definitely part of nature. But "artificial selection" is still on the books, which is why I made the distinction. Humans have a unique impact on the planet, so it's not so wrong to look at it as a separate mechanism.

Well, you're right there. I mean, the power of humanity to cause the extinction of all beings on Earth, including themselves, is completely without parallel in Earth's history.

As I see it, "artificial selection" is a very powerful form of natural selection, and thus deserves to be classified on its own, but still referred to as part of nature (much like "sexual selection" is often referred to seperately from "natural selection" but is clearly a part of nature).

PErhaps the word "artificial" should be replaced with "anthropic" or something like that.

To avoid complications, yes, I think this is probably a good idea. The problem is not that "artificial" doesn't capture the appropriate meaning, but that most people have a skewed idea of what "artifical" means. Perhaps "synthetic evolution"?

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Bernardo
... Evolution is describing the process. Was it random? Was it directed?...

Excellent overall post, Bernardo. As chroot said, the proof of evolution is there. Science describes the process. Whether or not there is a God directing it all is a matter of personal belief, not science. Or at least, that is not a question science can answer at this time.

 

[agnostictheist]

re

Overall, I agree. Humans are definitely part of nature. But "artificial selection" is still on the books, which is why I made the distinction. Humans have a unique impact on the planet, so it's not so wrong to look at it as a separate mechanism. PErhaps the word "artificial" should be replaced with "anthropic" or something like that.

No I disagree, anthropic seems to idicate, so kind of fine-tuning, or narrow framework in which life can be found, the common critic to this is that we find ourselfs in a small pocket, in which life can be found! (which is not unique) so we can ask these questions - while there are other pockets that do not have this senerio!

Evolution is a process, and Evolution DOES not NEED God, on the other hand Evolution does not or is not an argument aganist Gods existence, for example in the form of philosophy one can argue God created a holist, perfect universe (in whole - that its perfect in that it does not need god, why is a creator needed after creation...it simply is, or BE!)


of course this in turn doesn't mean God does exist.


back to evolution, has mention, while abio... does not a full explination yet of how life arose (those this gap is closing ) depending on where science fails, religion should not thus pick up the puzzle... we don't make foundation arguments bassed on current ignorance! - even if there is a "supernatural agent" the default answer is not god-did-it!


Evolution shows that species can change, adapt to the envirment, and this also shows that complexity aroses, form what was once "the most simplist point - from a "random" or chance event...and then progress to more complex, because there is no place to move, however evolution (say of horses) shows that this can thus go in reverse, and complex structures can be lossed!

 

[Bernardo]

Chemicalsuperfreak,
Invoking a supreme being for the sole purpose for explaining the one step in between of going from the complex biological molecules to a simple cell just because we haven't a complete explanation of how it worked is a bit silly, isn't it.

I think this is narrowing things down a little too much. People didn't suddenly come across this cellular dilemma and say, "oh man my paper's due in two hours... I know I'll call it God."

There are many creation stories, every faith on Earth has one. Many of them attribute man kind to some kind of accident of the god's, a byproduct of celestial orgies or whatever.

The biblical account of creation is quite different, and I think would be interesting for anyone here to read. Considering it was written by Moses approx 6000 years ago;

Here's the rundown - first nothing, then light, then cosmic water, then cosmic water separated from terrestrial water by an atmosphere, the cycle of day/ night begins, the sea teems with living creatures, then plants, then animals, then humans - who by the way were formed from the dust of the earth.

What's contradictory in this to evolution or abiogenesis? Pretty good considering it was written in the time of ancient Egypt long before the theory of evolution.

 

[agnostictheist]

Hi Bernardo,

Frist off let me say I am in fact a Romman Catholic, but what you said above seems to be claiming victory before the argument has even got under way, the following should not thus be taken has atheistic however.

The biblical account of creation is quite different, and I think would be interesting for anyone here to read. Considering it was written by Moses approx 6000 years ago;

We have no way of knowing if the Torah, and for that matter genesis was writin by moses, in fact most scholars doudt it!

thats not to say thus moses didnt exist and the story in a general sense is not true, for it could of been condensed.

also Genesis was writen, but was borrowing myths from other cultures eg the flood... epic of Gilgamash: and even our creation of us being made form dust is closely related to many afican myths, and even the sumerian/babylonian myths of man created from glay. (those there are simalities there are vast differences to)

Here's the rundown - first nothing, then light, then cosmic water, then cosmic water separated from terrestrial water by an atmosphere, the cycle of day/ night begins, the sea teems with living creatures, then plants, then animals, then humans - who by the way were formed from the dust of the earth.

Well if you want to be like that, the frist life was under the sea, but accoding to a strict fundermental and litural interpration of the bible in a scienfic sense, it was plant life...what about poor cyannobacteria?

What's contradictory in this to evolution or abiogenesis? Pretty good considering it was written in the time of ancient Egypt long before the theory of evolution

this:

then X then Y then Z.. bible

evolution says: (we CAN)

we may start with X.. and some of X's develops, seprates diverge - to Y (there can be Y2) and some Y's seprates and chnages into Z's (and ;possible Z2)

in this case there is no then this then that! we have a PROCESS, your comment already is loaded in that it seems to hide the axiom that evoultion is "Inteligently desgined".

and if God worked in that way, in the way you seem to argue above why would God be so crap? in that he ID a system that works clockwork-like yet for some reason generates copying errors, for example when DNA replicates itself?

 

[Bernardo]

The only point I was trying to make in my post was that God wasn't simply 'created' by mankind to simply explain away scientific unknowns.

As for the creation account, my point was that I don't find science challenging it to the point where a decision to believe one or the other is being forced opon me. creation does not mean no evolution whatsoever, or that the study in aboigenesis is a waste of time. I believe that when the universe was brought into being there were already rules established that were kept in motion by God to end up with the world we have today.

As for the author of the Pentateuch, you are right there is a debate ongoing.

There are several references to Moses as the author within the text in Exodus, Leviticus & Deuteronomy. Also both early Jewish & Christian tradition give authorship to him, the early Jewish historian Josephus also credits him with authorship.

Recently though the technique of source criticism seems to indicate the books came from four sources. This has been labeled the ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ and is based on a theory that the finished document came from four independent documents with all of them brought together around 400BC. There are many theories on how the documents came to be merged I honestly don't know them all.

Given the self-claims of the Pentateuch & early tradition I still find it acceptable to give Moses credit. Evidence does indicate he was the author – but we need to remember that terms like “author” are inappropriate when referring to Near Eastern Literary works, because they carry modern implications that were absent in that era, though I admit I use the term often.

I really don’t think it’s inappropriate to hold to a view while other views are being established.


As far as thinkning I could possibly present any post that would leave people here speachless, or offer the final say on any topic, I have no believe in that. Which is, actually, why I'm here.

 

[Mentat]

People, let's try to stray away from a discussion of biblical creationism. This is what gets evolution threads locked, and this one could probably still be useful, but not if it's going to become a debate between the Genesis account and the Darwinian approach.

 

[Bernardo]

That would be fine. I'm learning a TON here and would hate for the thread to get locked up.

 

[Monique]

So the question was: is evolution true. Evolution is a very broad concept, exactly which part is up for discussion?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Monique
So the question was: is evolution true. Evolution is a very broad concept, exactly which part is up for discussion?

Good point. I mean, it's been re-established that the principle of evolution must be true; but perhaps the theory that such a process is what gave rise to the assortment of beings that exist today is what is being questioned.

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by Mentat
People, let's try to stray away from a discussion of biblical creationism. This is what gets evolution threads locked, and this one could probably still be useful, but not if it's going to become a debate between the Genesis account and the Darwinian approach.

and this is a case-in point Darwinian approch is NOT evolution (not saying you said that)

to ask our question Evolution (biological and social) is FACT, there may come a time when anther explination explaines the data better, and predicts more things, and then evolution will either "change" or be scraped, at the moment the evidence states evolution is fact - I wouldn't use the term true... its makes science seem like the pursuit for truth its not, even those lots of scientists like to seek truths form science (and they might gain some)

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
and this is a case-in point Darwinian approch is NOT evolution (not saying you said that)

to ask our question Evolution (biological and social) is FACT, there may come a time when anther explination explaines the data better, and predicts more things, and then evolution will either "change" or be scraped, at the moment the evidence states evolution is fact - I wouldn't use the term true... its makes science seem like the pursuit for truth its not, even those lots of scientists like to seek truths form science (and they might gain some)

While, I do believe the evolutionary theory is true. It is not a fact. Science can never prove anything to be true for sure it can only prove it not to be true.

Another thing that bothers me about our current evolutionary theory.

In reading "On The Origin of Species" (which was a great book btw) it was obvious that "evolutionary theory" was only a philosophy, which was based his observations and studies of many, many treatise of that time, but Mr. Darwin did not understand the mechanisms behind his theories. Although, it was not extremely scientific it laid the foundation for all evolutionary thought even to this day. What I am afraid of - is that scientist today are starting with his ideas and working backwards. It would be nice if a new breed of scientist started from (scratch) the information we have today, without the influence of Mr. Darwin (Wallace, Mendel, ect...)

It would probably lead us in the same general direction, but sometimes it seems like scientist are too subjective and are trying to prove his philosophies. Which puts them in the same category as Creationist trying to prove Creation.

One other note about evolution and Mr. Darwin. The word "evolve" was only mentioned one time in the entire book - the last word in the book.

Nautica

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by nautica
While, I do believe the evolutionary theory is true. It is not a fact. Science can never prove anything to be true for sure it can only prove it not to be true.

Another thing that bothers me about our current evolutionary theory.

In reading "On The Origin of Species" (which was a great book btw) it was obvious that "evolutionary theory" was only a philosophy, which was based his observations and studies of many, many treatise of that time, but Mr. Darwin did not understand the mechanisms behind his theories. Although, it was not extremely scientific it laid the foundation for all evolutionary thought even to this day. What I am afraid of - is that scientist today are starting with his ideas and working backwards. It would be nice if a new breed of scientist started from (scratch) the information we have today, without the influence of Mr. Darwin (Wallace, Mendel, ect...)

It would probably lead us in the same general direction, but sometimes it seems like scientist are too subjective and are trying to prove his philosophies. Which puts them in the same category as Creationist trying to prove Creation.

One other note about evolution and Mr. Darwin. The word "evolve" was only mentioned one time in the entire book - the last word in the book.

Nautica

Sure science can prove facts. It proved that the earth, in fact, is round. That microorganisms,in fact, can cause disease. And that humans and all living organisms, in fact, evolved from a single common ancestor.

Fact- Information presented as objectively real. (american heritage college dictionary)

When you look at it objectively, evolution is obviously a fact.

I have not actually read "The Origin of Species", so I can not say exactly how much actual data that text contains, to call Darwin's theory of evolution just a philosophy is ridiculous. Darwin collected decades worth of scientific evidence to support his theory. Which is why his name is accredited to the theory instead of contemporiaries who had the same hypothesis with little data. And while he didn't know about molecular genetics he certainly understood natural selection, which is the prime mechanism of evolution.

Scientists today aren't trying to prove Darwins theories. Darwin did that himself. Scientists don't have to "start from scratch" because they're aware of the evidence and realize the theory of evolution for the fact that it is.

Which is a far cry from creationists. Who start with their own personal belief and decry it despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that they are, in fact, wrong.

 

[agnostictheist]

Sure science can prove facts. It proved that the earth, in fact, is round. That microorganisms,in fact, can cause disease. And that humans and all living organisms, in fact, evolved from a single common ancestor.

short run down here:

Science does not prove - unless within the context of the experiment, and under the context of "beyond a reasonable doudt"

Science is about facts, he can hardly call something a fact if its not "true" - in the sense of the experiment ( I somewhat made a claim above about is evolution true...and I said i would avoid that term, well I think that depends on what you pin "true" to being, so i was a little heavy handed)

Science can only "prove" SOME postive claims, thus asking for the evidence of a non-existing X is idiotic.

Science is the pursuit for Knowelege, and thus facts: NOT TRUTH it tells us Hows not the WHYS?

the scienfic method, has Idea>maths model supporting idea called a theory which generates PREDICTIONS AND EXPLINATIONS > testing

many people forget the predictions, Intelgent desgin is a prime example of this and why its not a science!

science is a self correcting, and adaption process!

And that humans and all living organisms, in fact, evolved from a single common ancestor

I don't think so, last thing I read, this might of been over turned in that the "tree" had many roots so to speak, and they tend to cross genetic information: so we have lots of simple life forms crossing genetic info to each other eg some kind of horzental transfer?

When you look at it objectively, evolution is obviously a fact.

I fully argee!

I have not actually read "The Origin of Species", so I can not say exactly how much actual data that text contains, to call Darwin's theory of evolution just a philosophy is ridiculous.

to true, Darwin did suggest some mechanisms for evolution those he left his work open, for example he suggested sexual and natural selection!

he proovided the evidence, SOME people claimed his work to be a philosophy I dont! nor do many evolutionists, but like I said evolution has moved on form then, so using the orgin of species to state evolution is a philosophy would be silly! and is a work of fundermentalists! and the scienfic fool.

And while he didn't know about molecular genetics

again I agree, and anther reason why evolution is not darwin, in fact I think that darwin did suggest that if we had a two genes, say black and red, then we would gain something inbetween (which is not the case in basic genetics)

also darwin focus was on the indverdual while modern evolutionists is on groups! hence the "modern syntheis" approch.

Creationists that dare say "darwins theory of evolution is false and thus evolution is a fake" are in fact sealed there ingorance, way not ask them about genetic draft next time!(which darwin had no idea of)

Scientists today aren't trying to prove Darwins theories. Darwin did that himself. Scientists don't have to "start from scratch" because they're aware of the evidence and realize the theory of evolution for the fact that it is.

darwin in general was right, but scientists have shown that darwin was in error on a few things, it doesn't help matters that there was other editions of the origin of speacies... five i think? or more? and that people tend to use the one that fits there needs, when in fact even if they do, the theory and facts of evolution have evolved

 

[Bernardo]

Creationists that dare say "darwins theory of evolution is false and thus evolution is a fake" are in fact sealed there ingorance, way not ask them about genetic draft next time!(which darwin had no idea of)

Sorry, but I'd just like to clear something up real quick. Just so you all know this because I know you'd want to know.

There are two main creationist views;

1) literal 7 day creationist - who believe just like the name, creation was completed in 6 literal Earth days with God resting on the 7th.

2) progressive creationism - me. Guided "evolution".

Thought you'd like to know - just so you can direct your critisim properly and perhaps offer a little grace to some as well.

 

[Loren Booda]

I'll go with #2, with natural science "guided" by the divine gift of free will and personal deity.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Bernardo
Creationists that dare say "darwins theory of evolution is false and thus evolution is a fake" are in fact sealed there ingorance, way not ask them about genetic draft next time!(which darwin had no idea of)

Sorry, but I'd just like to clear something up real quick. Just so you all know this because I know you'd want to know.

There are two main creationist views;

1) literal 7 day creationist - who believe just like the name, creation was completed in 6 literal Earth days with God resting on the 7th.

2) progressive creationism - me. Guided "evolution".

Thought you'd like to know - just so you can direct your critisim properly and perhaps offer a little grace to some as well.

In the vernacular "creationist" specifically implies the literalist type, ie someone that denies evolution.

 

[nautica]

To Chem super

As I stated earlier, I fully agree with evolutionary theory, but I still will not admit that "On the Origin of the Species" was much more than a philosophy, which Mr. Darwin himself, also, referred to his work as.

Yes, He had read and studied many works of that time as well as completing his own studies (Pigeons)and yes he was a brilliant man, but as I said, he did not under stand the mechanisms for "Natural Selection".

While most of his ideas have been proven at least to some extent, some of his ideas were completely absurb. Allow me to include a quote in his book.

"The evidence that accidental mutilations can be inherited is at present not decisive; but the remarkable cases observed by Brown-Sequard in guinea-pigs, of the inherited effects of operations, should make us cautious in denying this tendency."

There were many other points, which he did not understand and fully admitted. He, also, believe that the idea of any mass extinction was completely absurd.

This post is no way meant to discredit Mr. Darwin, but to point out the ignorance of the day, which, personally, I hope does not "subjectively" lead scientist of today in the wrong direction.


Another comment on Sexual Selection, yes Mr. Darwin included it in this book, but only after criticism from the "naturalist" of the day.

Nautica