Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[Rhabbi]

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;258897]No, you wheren't. Not if the teacher knew anything about it. The mutations of traits are random, (well, sort of random) but it's survivability aren't.[/QOUTE]

Sort of random?

We can trace DNA in all kinds of shit. We share plenty of genes with all kinds of creatures. All humans share 97% of all our genes with chimpanzees for instance. We share plenty of DNA with anything living on earth. So it's fairly easy to work out evolutionary trees, which insidentaly correlate to Darwins orignial estimates based purely on visible physical charecteristics.

We apparently share DNA with more than just monkeys. but as we do not fully understand the encoding process that DNA uses I am not as confident about those numbers as some others seem to be. I still have problems with the way they usee DNA in leagla cases, and would not be surprised to see that future knowledge throwing out some of the current assumptions about numbers.

The problem with this discussion is that we're basically comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of evolution. There's not two different models to compare. Intelligent design has nothing. So evolution wins by default. All theories accept the purely theorical theories are imperfect. There's gaps in all of them. We have to compare what we've got and take the best one.

[QUOTE]We know how mutations can occur. We know how they survive and spread. Specisation is just a logical extension of something we allready know for a fact. If that's your only complaint you have a very weak case. My molecular biology friend hasn't got back to me yet but I'll keep you posted.

We're still back to our original problem.

Intelligent design isn't a theory. There's no Intelligent design models for how creation occured. It's so easy to criticize and throw shit when you've got nothing of your own. In many cases in science we just have to extrapolate, because it's the best we can do. Right now, evolution is all we have.[/QOUTE]

Evolution is all we have because no one wants to look at the alternatives for fear of being ridiculed.

If you believe in creationism you're stuck in a whole quagmire or problems that we have to solve before it being comparable to evolution as a theory. Answering "what god is at all?", is a good start. How it works? We assume closed systems go toward entropy, so where does god get it's external energy from? Or our models are just plain wrong, (which is extremly likely) which gives the god theory no extra points either. And then you still have to answer how god affects our world/dimension etc? What traces does it leave? On the god side we've only got unanswered questions. They've got nothing tangible at all. God as a concept is only based on extrapolation.

I don't know if you've noticed this. But all you've done this whole thread is criticize evolution as a theory without presenting anything that strengthens an alternative theory at all. You haven't built a case for anything.

I do not have to present an alternative, my point in this thread is that evolution falls short as science. The fact that I do not have an explanation does not make evolution true.

[TomOfSweden]

Sort of random?

Don't weasel your way out of it. Evolution isn't random and the mutations of genes is limited to modifications of it's base pairs. There's physical limits to what's possible. So it's not totaly random. Since we don't know what all genes do we can't say in what way they aren't random. We can just make that statement.

To make it simple
Evolution = not random
Genetic mutations = sort of random

We apparently share DNA with more than just monkeys. but as we do not fully understand the encoding process that DNA uses I am not as confident about those numbers as some others seem to be. I still have problems with the way they usee DNA in leagla cases, and would not be surprised to see that future knowledge throwing out some of the current assumptions about numbers.

I'm sorry. I might be missing something. But I don't understand how this is relevant?

Evolution is all we have because no one wants to look at the alternatives for fear of being ridiculed.

You've got to be kidding. It's the oposite situation. In the west evolutionists have been fighting midieval christian superstition for over a century now. In spite of the christians having nothing but fairytales, extrapolations from arguments from ignorance and strictly theoretical mathematical models.

There's been more money put into proving the Bible and christian god than any other field of study in the world. No other area is even close. You making that claim isn't even funny. It's ignorant to the extreme. Isaac Newtons complete catalogue of articles are without exception only about proving gods existance. It's not from lack of trying or funding. There's just a lack of results.

The theory of evolution came at the same time as Nietschze denied god openly. This instantly become a symbolic issue for the christian comunity. And today it's only the religious fundamentalists who cling to the idea of creation. Only.

I do not have to present an alternative, my point in this thread is that evolution falls short as science. The fact that I do not have an explanation does not make evolution true.

No, it doesn't. You've floated a theory about that speciasation doesn't occur spontaneously in nature which I've yet to find any credible source agreeing with. It seems to be some religious objection, which the scientific comunity doesn't seem to aknowledge as a problem.

A geographically limited group of creatures will constantly mutate and evolve. Ever so slightly, a little at a time. This much I know we can prove. In time they will differ so much from their original group that their genes are incompatible. I don't get what's not to understand? It takes so long and is so gradual that it may very well be, that it hasn't been seen in a laboratory. But that's not a argument against the theory. We know how mutations occur and we know they can become stable. From this we can extrapolate. Where's the holes in it?

We didn't see the big bang either. Good luck denying that one.

[Rhabbi]

Don't weasel your way out of it. Evolution isn't random and the mutations of genes is limited to modifications of it's base pairs. There's physical limits to what's possible. So it's not totaly random. Since we don't know what all genes do we can't say in what way they aren't random. We can just make that statement.

To make it simple
Evolution = not random
Genetic mutations = sort of random

Interesting, but the argument lacks a foundation. The physical limits on possiblity would tend to argue agaiiiiinst evolution, not for it. There is a gap in our understanding in the process that has not yet been crossed, and until then all scientist can do is offer conjecture. I have no problem with that, as long as they clearly lable it as such.

You've got to be kidding. It's the oposite situation. In the west evolutionists have been fighting midieval christian superstition for over a century now. In spite of the christians having nothing but fairytales, extrapolations from arguments from ignorance and strictly theoretical mathematical models.

There's been more money put into proving the Bible and christian god than any other field of study in the world. No other area is even close. You making that claim isn't even funny. It's ignorant to the extreme. Isaac Newtons complete catalogue of articles are without exception only about proving gods existance. It's not from lack of trying or funding. There's just a lack of results.

Not quite true, the money spent on proving the bible has been far outspent by those trying to disprove it. The one thing that clouds this is that so many people who decided to spend their time and money to disprove the Bible have ended up accepting it that they get counted as the ones trying to prove it.

The theory of evolution came at the same time as Nietschze denied god openly. This instantly become a symbolic issue for the christian comunity. And today it's only the religious fundamentalists who cling to the idea of creation. Only.

Prove that statement.

No, it doesn't. You've floated a theory about that speciasation doesn't occur spontaneously in nature which I've yet to find any credible source agreeing with. It seems to be some religious objection, which the scientific comunity doesn't seem to aknowledge as a problem.

This proves my earlier argument about the ridicule that you dismissed so cavalierly. If someone disagrees with evolution, they are fundamentalists christians, and thus not credible.

What makes one credible?[LIST][*]A Phd in Biochemistry? Dr. Michael Behe[*]A PhD in Philosophy and a Doctorate in Mathematics? Dr. William Dembski[*]A PhD in Phyiscal Chemistry Dr. James Eberhart

In addition there is an intersting book By Klaus Dose, The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers in which he states:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers (Dose 1988, p. 348)

A geographically limited group of creatures will constantly mutate and evolve. Ever so slightly, a little at a time. This much I know we can prove. In time they will differ so much from their original group that their genes are incompatible. I don't get what's not to understand? It takes so long and is so gradual that it may very well be, that it hasn't been seen in a laboratory. But that's not a argument against the theory. We know how mutations occur and we know they can become stable. From this we can extrapolate. Where's the holes in it?

You mean other than the fact that it has only been seen in a limited ssense of adaptation to environment than in the sense of changing from a simple bacteria to a multi-celluar creature? Or evolving from a fruit fly to a bee? If we cannot see an example in life forms that we have the equivelant data of millions or even billions of generations, how gradual is this process? I know we have only been watching for a couple of centuries, but early experiments have all proven to be faulty, and even the reducing atmosphere that was supposed to provide the perfect environment for producing life is being question by reputable scientists.

We didn't see the big bang either. Good luck denying that one.

In the beginning God said "Let there be light, and there was light." Why deny it?

[TomOfSweden]

Interesting, but the argument lacks a foundation. The physical limits on possiblity would tend to argue agaiiiiinst evolution, not for it. There is a gap in our understanding in the process that has not yet been crossed, and until then all scientist can do is offer conjecture. I have no problem with that, as long as they clearly lable it as such.

You're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't underdtand your objection.

If you toss a coin into the air randomly and your dimensions is whether or not the coin lands on a flat side or an edge the chances are pretty good you'll get 100% on a flat side no matter how many times you do it. You still toss the coins randomly, but the result isn't random. It's the same situation with DNA. Physical constraints.

Not quite true, the money spent on proving the bible has been far outspent by those trying to disprove it. The one thing that clouds this is that so many people who decided to spend their time and money to disprove the Bible have ended up accepting it that they get counted as the ones trying to prove it.

All research that didn't suport the christian view of the world was illegal in all western countries for over a thousand years. It's an impressive feat of revisionism you're trying to pull off. I doubt even most christians will fall for that one. I'm guessing this little detail just slipped your mind. Christian fundamentalism has been the norm for so much of western history its easy to forget that it was only just recently we as a culture became free of its opression.

If you try to find a grant for your research, most grants are still religious all over the world. Christian scholars in particular are, compared to their secular counterparts still rolling in money.

Prove that statement.

Science can prove evolution. If you deny it, that means that you have another source for your truths of the world. In todays vocabularly we tend to call people who fanatically cling to religous texts above all else as religious fundamentalists. Its only down to linguistic use.

This proves my earlier argument about the ridicule that you dismissed so cavalierly. If someone disagrees with evolution, they are fundamentalists christians, and thus not credible.

According to my molecular biologist friend, (who also has a Phd) there is no controversy in the scientific comunity. All scientists in biology quoted for denying evolution have all been missquoted. The debate on evolution is on minor details about how it works, not if it works. The blunt truth is that the problems found by the religious comunities just don't exist. It's not a question about creationism being ignored unfairly. They don't have a case yet. They lack a theory. Utterly and completely. Creationsim is an idea for a theory. What needs to be done now is for a scientist who believes in ID, to sit down and make a cohesive theory and then test it. This has yet to happen.

I'm just speculating now, but it could also be down to money. The christian market for having their faith confirmed by a scientist is huge.

You mean other than the fact that it has only been seen in a limited ssense of adaptation to environment than in the sense of changing from a simple bacteria to a multi-celluar creature? Or evolving from a fruit fly to a bee? If we cannot see an example in life forms that we have the equivelant data of millions or even billions of generations, how gradual is this process? I know we have only been watching for a couple of centuries, but early experiments have all proven to be faulty, and even the reducing atmosphere that was supposed to provide the perfect environment for producing life is being question by reputable scientists.

My friend answered that one. Evolution just works and plenty of proof exists.

In the beginning God said "Let there be light, and there was light." Why deny it?

He he. That whole book is nothing but metaphors. You can justify and explain anything with the Bible. Anything.

[Rhabbi]

You're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't underdtand your objection.

If you toss a coin into the air randomly and your dimensions is whether or not the coin lands on a flat side or an edge the chances are pretty good you'll get 100% on a flat side no matter how many times you do it. You still toss the coins randomly, but the result isn't random. It's the same situation with DNA. Physical constraints.

That is a persuasive argument, but as of yet no one has proved that certain compounds have to combine in certain ways. Chemical reactions are predictable, but the leaps of faith that I need to go form complex chains of molecules, to the interactions that drive life seem to be almost impossible. To take your anology, that quarter seems to be coming down on its edge way to much to be random.

All research that didn't suport the christian view of the world was illegal in all western countries for over a thousand years. It's an impressive feat of revisionism you're trying to pull off. I doubt even most christians will fall for that one. I'm guessing this little detail just slipped your mind. Christian fundamentalism has been the norm for so much of western history its easy to forget that it was only just recently we as a culture became free of its opression.

If you try to find a grant for your research, most grants are still religious all over the world. Christian scholars in particular are, compared to their secular counterparts still rolling in money.

I can find a number of researchers that would disagree with that. You are letting your bias show here. If Christians controlled the purse strings the way you think they do i could name at least one major grant that exists in the US that would cease to exist.

Science can prove evolution. If you deny it, that means that you have another source for your truths of the world. In todays vocabularly we tend to call people who fanatically cling to religous texts above all else as religious fundamentalists. Its only down to linguistic use.

This does not sound like Fundamnetalist language. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=owner%3Aarn

According to my molecular biologist friend, (who also has a Phd) there is no controversy in the scientific comunity. All scientists in biology quoted for denying evolution have all been missquoted. The debate on evolution is on minor details about how it works, not if it works. The blunt truth is that the problems found by the religious comunities just don't exist. It's not a question about creationism being ignored unfairly. They don't have a case yet. They lack a theory. Utterly and completely. Creationsim is an idea for a theory. What needs to be done now is for a scientist who believes in ID, to sit down and make a cohesive theory and then test it. This has yet to happen.

There is only one way to answer that, it is total rot.

Actually, you might be surprised about the level of controversy that exists inside the scientific community outside of the western world over Darwin's theories. We do not have the freeedom to challenge the icons of science here in the west the way they can in China, for example.