Is the theory of Evolution true?

[arildno]

Religion and science get along in almost every aspect and have not fight with each other, except in evolution. to find where science and religion part ways you must look to the origins of life. This is where both science and religion lose all ability prove anything, thay both make statements that cannot be backed up, and require a person to believe that the parts that cannot be proven are of little consequence the big picture. The first and most obvious augment against religion is "where did God or Gods come from?" The biggest one for science is "Where did matter come from?" The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Nonsense. Prior to any theories or explanations, we have the following diverging point:
1. Religions ASSERT that Gods exist, whereas science assert that matter exists.

Do you see a MAJOR difference in these two assertions?

Seeing as science must be proven over and over, and if one part of that scientific theory cannot be proven or is disproven then the theory is not science and is a belief.

Nonsense.

Science and religion stand together on every point,

Nope. except for the one science that is not science, I say that they go together 100%[/QUOTE]

 

[sidhe2468]

Nonsense. Prior to any theories or explanations, we have the following diverging point:
1. Religions ASSERT that Gods exist, whereas science assert that matter exists.

Do you see a MAJOR difference in these two assertions?


Nonsense.

Nope. except for the one science that is not science, I say that they go together 100%

[/QUOTE]

I am not putting them in the same boat I am merely saying before you blatantly state that evolution is science you might want consider the fact that it cannot be proven, has never bean prove and has many holes, it is as pointless to say it is a science as saying religion is science. if you were confused and miss the point of my statement I hope this clarifies your confusion. before you say it is a science please answer the questions posed by the post I made just before this. If you cannot than Evolution is not science and if you do ill be happy to change my point of view, or find more problems for you to solve, seeing as there are many. My sincere apologies for not being clear and best regards

 

[sidhe2468]

Nonsense. Prior to any theories or explanations, we have the following diverging point:
1. Religions ASSERT that Gods exist, whereas science assert that matter exists.

Do you see a MAJOR difference in these two assertions?


Nonsense.

Nope. except for the one science that is not science, I say that they go together 100%

[/QUOTE]

Stating God exists then saying matter exists is better, only proves my point that nether are science. if matter was it is as easy as saying god was for both have no creation and cannot be. Every thing has to have a cause nothing can just come into existence of its own accord since it is not there to have a will of its own, as far as I know, matter has no will at all even now so to say in made itself is even worse than saying God a being with a will made him self, but it still remains that both are not science both are a belief. You never answered the question, where did matter came from? so please add this to the list of answers you give form my post on the problems of evolution, stated in my first reply to this post.

 

[khemix]

I may point out that unlike they might have you believe, for a the ancestor of a monkey or ape to mutate into a human it would take hundreds of thousands of helpful mutations non of which have ever bean observed. if one of the mutations in a chain of helpful mutations was bad the mutant would die and every helpful mutation wasted.

yes thousands of mutations are needed. but we had 8 million years since we split from the chimps. people don't seem to understand what a massive amount 8 million years is. look at what has happened to civilization in the last 1000 years. now clearly not much evolution happened, but it should give you an idea of what 8 million years is.

by what reason would there be only one mutant? at first yes, but if it is a useful one this mutant would have more offspring... which in turn would have more offspring etc. over time, more and more of the population would have this gene... until eventually most have it. then one chimp has another mutation, and the cycle continues. why would one dieng ruin the cycle?

As well if one mutant is born to have any chance of reproduction it would have to mate with another of its own kind meaning you have to double the number of helpful odds and have them run along the same time line for our current way of reproduction to even have a chance of evolving. the fact that we even have sex the way we do goes against evolution in that it is slow labor is unpredictable and we only have one kid at a time (two or more have a very high chance of not working out at all, hence the statement one at a time) regardless much less than say a termite or ant, if natural selection is to be given credit for evolution we would reproduce like a ant or a fast breading animal seeing as this is the most efficient way for one species to survive in a harsh environment.

only one parent needs the mutation. if you marry a blonde, chances are one of your kids will be blonde even if you have brown hair. our slow labor is derived from chimps, which derive it from another common ancestor. it worked out for them, and it works out for us. womne are still capable of having 20 children in their life time.

to add to this why would be even give berth if splitting like some micro organisms work so well for spreading a organism. Now that we have that out there, no one has ever found one of the millions of half mutated monsters and non of the ones that did not survive in fossil form, in reality we should find some of the mutant fossils the numbers of which in reality would be much more numerous than the ones we find now.

asexual organims put quantity over quality. they are very vulnerable to disease because they have similar codes. sex developed acidentally and happened to bring more diversity, which made disease less effective. fossils are extremely rare, so unless a mutant is extremely populous it won't fossilize. having said that, we have discovered many transition forms that correspond to evolution. ie. the deeper fossils are more primitive, and ones nearer to the surface tend to be more 'modern'. we see a pattern of development.

Start looking at the world around and how many mutations must have gone into making the complicated things you see around you. then look up the parts of the "simple" single cell organisms that started evolution and you will see the down fall that plagues evolution from the start to the end. This is assuming you do not look at the provability of a inanimate object getting life and the ability to reason. To think that not even a modern man can make a brain that works as good as the one we have let alone a inanimate object making its self

look at the 'life' your computer is capable of. pure inorganic metals working in relatively simple ways. something man has created in the last 100 years. computers have perfect reasoning ability.

be thankful we are capable of what we are, for it is truly amazing compared to all other animals.

 

[sidhe2468]

yes thousands of mutations are needed. but we had 8 million years since we split from the chimps. people don't seem to understand what a massive amount 8 million years is. look at what has happened to civilization in the last 1000 years. now clearly not much evolution happened, but it should give you an idea of what 8 million years is.

by what reason would there be only one mutant? at first yes, but if it is a useful one this mutant would have more offspring... which in turn would have more offspring etc. over time, more and more of the population would have this gene... until eventually most have it. then one chimp has another mutation, and the cycle continues. why would one dieng ruin the cycle?



only one parent needs the mutation. if you marry a blonde, chances are one of your kids will be blonde even if you have brown hair. our slow labor is derived from chimps, which derive it from another common ancestor. it worked out for them, and it works out for us. womne are still capable of having 20 children in their life time.



asexual organims put quantity over quality. they are very vulnerable to disease because they have similar codes. sex developed acidentally and happened to bring more diversity, which made disease less effective. fossils are extremely rare, so unless a mutant is extremely populous it won't fossilize. having said that, we have discovered many transition forms that correspond to evolution. ie. the deeper fossils are more primitive, and ones nearer to the surface tend to be more 'modern'. we see a pattern of development.

look at the 'life' your computer is capable of. pure inorganic metals working in relatively simple ways. something man has created in the last 100 years. computers have perfect reasoning ability.

be thankful we are capable of what we are, for it is truly amazing compared to all other animals.

now I would like to ask where the sex organs came form in the first place. Where the ability to reason and where life itself came into being, without a brain, without the ability to reason without any ability to reproduce. the laws that hold up evolution state that life itself is a unbeneficial purposes and should never have existed. I would also like to point out that since our current organs for reproduction where not present in single cell organisms you would have a hard time finding anyone to use them on... life has to have a beginning and it dose not come from nothing. the fact life even exists without any reason, rationality or destine is evolutions biggest problem.

I noticed you used the argument that we do have a middle fossil i bag to differ we have two similar fosses but none that transcend species or any half rock half animal life... never have we proven that any thing can change from one kind to another genetic differences happen all the time but not to the point of something completely new. As for computers you have missed the point that they still rely on a creator and did not make themselves and do not come close to the reasoning ability of humans since all information put in it comes for documents produced by humans.

 

[khemix]

life is nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions working the right way. as cynical as that may sound, it is true one way or another. we've already synthisized organic molecules in the lab using purely inorganic materials. all these complex features like the brain didnt come out of the blue, they evolved gradually over the course of billions of years. reason is billions of neurons working the right chemical reactions - it helped animals, so the trait of reason was passed down. as you know, simpler organisms such as bacteria don't have reason... they are still life though. why does life exist? chance. it all results from luck.

sex organs didn't appear at an instant, they were present in single celled organisms in a primitive form. as time went on these evolved into sex organs, over the course of billions of years. you underestimate how easy it is to have a mutation. a single amino acid can have devastating effects.

as for proving evolution, we have experiments that do it. bacteria... because they have very short life spans we can study thousands of generations. we've tested various forms of resistance and it worked.

 

[D H]

and i just realized this thread is 2 years old. bummer.

No joke.

Religion and science get along in almost every aspect and have not fight with each other, except in evolution. ...

Not a good start for one's first post at PF. You dredged up a two-year old thread for the sole purpose of writing a non-scientific rant in a decidedly scientific forum.

That said, Welcome to PF, sidhe2468!

The biggest one for science is "Where did matter come from?" The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

There is no law of conservation of mass. We know that mass can be converted into energy; we used that knowledge rather destructively to put an abrupt end to World War II.

The correct law of conservation of energy. Since mass is simply a bound form of energy, conservation of energy encompasses the older concept of conservation of mass.

Seeing as science must be proven over and over, and if one part of that scientific theory cannot be proven or is disproven then the theory is not science and is a belief.

You have a misunderstanding of science. Scientific theories, unlike mathematical theorems, cannot be proven true. If they could there would be no need to confirm a scientific theory. Mathematical theorems, once proven true, are true forever. The scientific method that underlies all of science relies on evidence. Observations that agree with what some scientific theory predicts would have be observed is confirming evidence of the theory. While confirming evidence does lend credence to the theory, it does not prove the theory correct. Scientific theories represent our best understanding of how things work. Every scientific theory has provisional status.

[QUOTE}except for the one science that is not science[/QUOTE]
I don't know if this oblique reference is to evolution or cosmology, but in either case you are wrong. Both evolution and cosmology are science. Both have well-developed theories bolstered by immense amounts of confirming evidence. Neither is a "proven to be true" science, but that is a straw man. There is no such thing as a "proven to be true" science.

I may point out that unlike they might have you believe, for a the ancestor of a monkey or ape to mutate into a human it would take hundreds of thousands of helpful mutations none of which have ever been observed.

This is a scientific forum, so it is best to back up statements like that with references. An entire branch of science, paleoanthropology, is dedicated to collecting evidence of the evolution of humanity. To say that they haven't observed anything is just plain wrong.

The fact that we even have sex the way we do goes against evolution ...

You have this exactly wrong: Sex is one of the key driving mechanisms behind evolution.

... and we only have one kid at a time (two or more have a very high chance of not working out at all, hence the statement one at a time) ...

That is completely wrong.

Now that we have that out there, no one has ever found one of the millions of half mutated monsters and none of the ones that did not survive in fossil form, in reality we should find some of the mutant fossils, the numbers of which in reality would be much more numerous than the ones we find now.

This is a oft-used, and completely wrong-headed distortion of evolution. That said, biologists have discovered many intermediate species, such as primitive whales with legs, a variety of horses, and a lot of different humanoid species.

You never answered the question, where did matter came from?

Science's main job is to explain how things are, not how they came to be. Explaining origins is nice, but not essential. That said, there is no inherent contradiction between the conservation laws and theories about the origin of the universe. It is energy that is conserved, not mass, and there are some very good reasons to think that the total energy of the universe is zero. Even if the total energy of the universe is not zero, so what? There is still no contradiction. The conservation laws result from various symmetries of space and time, and space and time were not symmetric at the instant the universe came into existence. The laws of conservation may not apply at this singular moment.

 

[arildno]

Stating God exists then saying matter exists is better, only proves my point that nether are science. if matter was it is as easy as saying god was for both have no creation and cannot be.

This is unintelligible.
You are obviously without capacity to distinguish between facts and fancy.
We KNOW that matter exists, it is a fact.
We do NOT know that God exists, that may well be a fantasy.

Do you understand that this is a major difference??

Unless you show a clear ability to appreciate this crucial difference, you are not to be regarded as intellectually competent to discuss the issues of various theories' justifiability.
In particular, you are not to be regarded as a valued contributor to the important debate on what set of indicators should be regarded as the standard by which we justify assertions, or dismiss them.
Nor are you to be considered capable of discussing the origins of anything.

 

[lonton]

Whether God existence or not is not really important, because human beings come into existence with different abilities, understandings about any particular things in discussion. They can give the others better notions of certain social behaviors. The updated version of a particular software offers better functionality to users for example, but since this world is NOT actually perfect, how can you expect a particular book or person's idea to be complete or perfect ? Use the main idea with what one comprehends to improve one's life. Such an improvement had better offer also positive impacts on society and other people's lives for the best.

 

[arildno]

Whether God existence or not is not really important,

Eeh, really?
A universe WITHOUT the existence of an omnipotent being is surely a completely different universe WITH such a being in existence?

because human beings come into existence with different abilities, understandings about any particular things in discussion.

Sure enough, but why does that diminish the importance of the question whether there exists a God or not??
Why is it at all relevant?

They can give the others better notions of certain social behaviors.

Who are "they"? The religionists??
It is certainly true that atheists may teach religionists quite a bit about what constitutes morality, but not the other way around.

The updated version of a particular software offers better functionality to users for example, but since this world is NOT actually perfect, how can you expect a particular book or person's idea to be complete or perfect ?

Eeh, the relevance being??

Use the main idea with what one comprehends to improve one's life.

What "main idea"?
That if you happen to do actions contrary to the asserted laws of God, then it is right and proper to burn in hellfire for an eternity?
Just because the omnipotent being is capable of effecting this?

Such an improvement had better offer also positive impacts on society and other people's lives for the best.

What improvements?

That it is better to beat your children when they are disobedient towards the laws of God, for surely it is better to inflict a momentary pain upon them, than that your loved children should suffer for all eternity in hell?

 

[sidhe2468]

No joke.

Not a good start for one's first post at PF. You dredged up a two-year old thread for the sole purpose of writing a non-scientific rant in a decidedly scientific forum.

That said, Welcome to PF, sidhe2468!


There is no law of conservation of mass. We know that mass can be converted into energy; we used that knowledge rather destructively to put an abrupt end to World War II.

The correct law of conservation of energy. Since mass is simply a bound form of energy, conservation of energy encompasses the older concept of conservation of mass.


You have a misunderstanding of science. Scientific theories, unlike mathematical theorems, cannot be proven true. If they could there would be no need to confirm a scientific theory. Mathematical theorems, once proven true, are true forever. The scientific method that underlies all of science relies on evidence. Observations that agree with what some scientific theory predicts would have be observed is confirming evidence of the theory. While confirming evidence does lend credence to the theory, it does not prove the theory correct. Scientific theories represent our best understanding of how things work. Every scientific theory has provisional status.

[QUOTE}except for the one science that is not science

I don't know if this oblique reference is to evolution or cosmology, but in either case you are wrong. Both evolution and cosmology are science. Both have well-developed theories bolstered by immense amounts of confirming evidence. Neither is a "proven to be true" science, but that is a straw man. There is no such thing as a "proven to be true" science.



This is a scientific forum, so it is best to back up statements like that with references. An entire branch of science, paleoanthropology, is dedicated to collecting evidence of the evolution of humanity. To say that they haven't observed anything is just plain wrong.


You have this exactly wrong: Sex is one of the key driving mechanisms behind evolution.
That is completely wrong.


This is a oft-used, and completely wrong-headed distortion of evolution. That said, biologists have discovered many intermediate species, such as primitive whales with legs, a variety of horses, and a lot of different humanoid species.


Science's main job is to explain how things are, not how they came to be. Explaining origins is nice, but not essential. That said, there is no inherent contradiction between the conservation laws and theories about the origin of the universe. It is energy that is conserved, not mass, and there are some very good reasons to think that the total energy of the universe is zero. Even if the total energy of the universe is not zero, so what? There is still no contradiction. The conservation laws result from various symmetries of space and time, and space and time were not symmetric at the instant the universe came into existence. The laws of conservation may not apply at this singular moment.[/QUOTE]

The law of conservation of mass states matter cannot be created or destroyed, the one you planed on putting in its place was the law of conservation of energy this states that the amount of energy put into something will have the same amount of energy come out, or stored but the numbers do not change. It is true that if you prove science then it is true. If on the other hand you prove thousands of thing right on the basis that in order for what you see to be true than something must have been in place in the past to make it such, than every thing before it cannot be proven due to the assumption that it works because of a unproven theories.

now to the point of sex drives. Sex is a complicated set of chemical codes hormones and pheromones that drive one organism to reproduce. If any part of that complicated system is not present then it is broken, to prove this remove the male reproductive parts and see how long the sex drive remains. In order to have any chance of sex even becoming the drive for something to change from inanimate to animate you would have to say dirt had sex and had the parts to do such, in order for that to be the drive to change into a living organism. Correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that gasses, Non animated dirt and chemicals in other forums feel, think, have sex, or even have a will from which evolution would make it change. If you are to say evolution gave life you then place evolution as a being with a will to dominate and the ability to force change. In essence you have made evolution God since nothing can affect its own change. This in itself leaves the question if nothing is, where does the want to evolve come from? If you say something always was you are making the assumption that before anything else was it was, this then becomes the same problem you have in proving god. If you cannot prove god is and that makes it a religion, not being able to prove anything has existed for ever, if it has, not being able to prove where it comes form makes evolution improvable and in turn a religion as well. Science cannot be a belief it must be tested and proven, and if anything is built on a belief it also cannot be science because in part it was never fully proven.

If you can see matter but not god but nether can be proven to have a beginning you must say matter is, was, and is always present. this dose not prove evolution it only make one have to believe that some thing can have no beginning and no end, if you must believe something and it cannot be proven that again makes it a religion. if evolution is only a religious view held by some scientists since not all hold to it, it should not be in our textbooks, and definitely should not be taught as proven true.

 

[russ_watters]

Anti-science crackpottery in a two year old thread. Thread closed.