Most Americans Feel Religion Is 'Under Attack,' Poll Shows

AttentionKMartShoppers · Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:15 pm

Evolution only has a FEW kinks? Evolution is one big kink.

It appears that evolution does not occur in a gradual manor but more in jumps and spurts.

Evidence that evolution occurs? (macro of course)

Changes in environment seem to spur evolution to higher rates than at other periods of history

The only facts we have indicate that environment causes oscillations in some features...but not an upward trend of accumulating adjustments. (Unless you know something I don't).

The introduction of punctuated evolution although revolutionary does not require a re-examination of all the research done in the past, it only adds a deeper level of understanding to what we have already observed.

It's circular reasoning, and there is no mechanism. And a deep understanding of what observations?

Yet there seems to be a bias against the theory of evolution which has far more empirical support

But as you and thereal confessed to august...it's circular reasoning.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:39 pm

Bgood wrote:
It appears that evolution does not occur in a gradual manor but more in jumps and spurts. Changes in environment seem to spur evolution to higher rates than at other periods of history. The introduction of punctuated evolution although revolutionary does not require a re-examination of all the research done in the past, it only adds a deeper level of understanding to what we have already observed. As far as I know physics is taught in the same manor as biology in our classes. Yet there seems to be a bias against the theory of evolution which has far more empirical support than there is towards the theory of relativity with far less evidence. I can only reach the conclusion that this is due to the implications of the theory of evolution. Because all sciences are evolving and maturing, towards a greater understanding of the physical world.

The great science has proclaimed evolution to be true therefore evolution is true.

It appears that you are willing to accept scientific evidence of the past that was made under wrong hypothesis. New discoveries do in fact demand that one return and review all previous work to see if it is true. I have never seen anything remotley convincing that would place evolution in an any more credible position than an unproven hypothesis.

I can't understand how anyone can be duped by evolution. It is absurdly complex, has an appaling lack of evidence, and is made so long after the observable events of creation that it is at best tearoom chatter.

All the oldest works made at a closer time to the begining indicate that evolution did not happen. I am alarmed that you are not far more critical of evolution, especaially at past research made before the recent hypothesis of punctuated evolution. The rediculous history of evolutionary theory is nonsense and chatter, and must be thrown in the burning heap. There continues to be no evidence to support evolution in spite of wide spread chatter and guess work about the possiblity of eliminating God from society.

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:53 pm

Here is the "minimal" evidence I refered to about bacteria evolving to utilize lactose:

B. G. Hall
Predicting Evolutionary Potential. I. Predicting the Evolution of a Lactose-PTS System in Escherichia coli
Mol. Biol. Evol., July 1, 2001; 18(7): 1389 - 1400.

"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
-Douglas J. Futuyma

Again, how does a population of bacteria changing their ability to utilize a specific energy source not considered evolution? I realize most of you will say that it is not "macroevolution", that they did not evolve hands, eyes, or brains. However, evolution is stated in the above paragraph and the example I provided of these bacteria fits into this category. I feel many of the posters here like to distinguish between macro and micro, when in fact they are both considered evolutionary advances to a population, no matter how big or small. It is like having your cake and eating it too. You either believe that evolution could have occurred or not. Clearly, this is one example of what many call microevolution, but it is in fact evolution. So, perhaps our differences were based upon semantics, so as a biologist I have here attempted to clear this by the definition above.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:05 pm

Playing with semantics? Isn't that what you're doing? You're saying that one population changing so it can use lactose is proof enough for macroevolution, that all life has descended from a common ancestor naturalistically. They are not the same thing, get over it.

Here is the "minimal" evidence I refered to about bacteria evolving to utilize lactose:

What evidence was sited? Your source is all smoke, no fire.

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:42 am

Um, the evidence I cited was the journal article in which my claim originated, which is about as legitimate as a citation can be. It's my "proof" to you that my claim actually exists, that I am not making it up. My point being, if you want to read and see what I am talking about, it is there for your reference. I feel that if I am going to make a claim to an argument, citing the information is the most appropriate way to display information, rather than making qualitative claims, such as a theory being "stupid", "sucking" or a person being "idiotic".

Ok, scrap "micro" and "macro" evolution. My point is, based upon the quote I put forth by a renowned biologist, the bacteria example is evolution. I think you might want to read my posts more carefully, for I did not state that it was an example of macroevolution. In fact, I explicitly said it was an example of what most would call microevolution. I am bringing forth the point that it seems many people are ok with "micro" evolution, but not "macro". If you believe evolution can occur, I think it is only fair that you believe it can occur on all levels... like I said, you are having your cake and eating it too. Make a distinction: either agree or disagree but don't concede to one and argue the other.

Evolution is, simply put, change over time. It is much more difficult to prove that species diverged or converged and descendant populations brought new innovations and adaptations to systems and therefore new species. This does not mean it did not happen and I can see the difficulty in believing that it may have. However, I think if many of us give biologists and scientists as a whole, time and effort to put forth into any theory, more and more supporting (or non-supporting) evidence will surface. Science is an ever-changing field, so one day the argument of evolution vs. creationism may be a ludicrous debate... but until then, evolution remains the most reasonable scientific explanation of how species have come about.

B. W. · Post by **B. W.** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:09 am

Does anyone know what the law of probability is concerning random events over a period time (Earth Age) designing one single complex living species?

Next, does anyone know where the first seed came from to grow the first single blade of hay?

Better yet, has anyone solved this one: which came first — the chicken or the egg?

If the egg was first, who sat on it to be hatched?

If the chicken was first — who made the chicken?

If by random chance — what of the law of probability for this single species?

If by intelligent design — what of the law of probability for this single species?
-
-
-

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:10 am

If you believe evolution can occur, I think it is only fair that you believe it can occur on all levels... like I said, you are having your cake and eating it too. Make a distinction: either agree or disagree but don't concede to one and argue the other.

Why? Why, if scientists observe e coli using glucose better, should I believe that all life can be explained as a long line of mutations? I mean, it has yet to be shown that natural selection is a mechanism (the only evidence on it shows that natural selection only causes traits to oscillate back and forth in populations...Icons of Evolution, Darwin Finches) capable of causing macroevolution. The bacteria is still the same bacteria, it can just use glucose better somehow (though how would be interesting to know). Especially when the evidence does not support macroevolution.

If you believe evolution can occur, I think it is only fair that you believe it can occur on all levels

Why? Evidence for micro, none for macro...

like I said, you are having your cake and eating it too. Make a distinction: either agree or disagree but don't concede to one and argue the other.

I am disagreeing on macroevolution, agreeing on microevolution, but I am not both disagreeing and agreeing on the same subject at the same time.

Evolution is, simply put, change over time.

Don't trifle with me using that definition, nobody is in disagreement over that definition. You put it TOO simply. So simply that we'd be talking about something else if we were to use that definition.

It is much more difficult to prove that species diverged or converged and descendant populations brought new innovations and adaptations to systems and therefore new species.

I'd say impossible, as there's no evidence for it.

This does not mean it did not happen and I can see the difficulty in believing that it may have.

Not being able to find the Boogey man under my bed doesn't mean he isn't there...but why believe in something with no evidence....ooohhh, yes, I forgot...it "supports" a materialistic worldview (using circular reasoning).

However, I think if many of us give biologists and scientists as a whole, time and effort to put forth into any theory, more and more supporting (or non-supporting) evidence will surface.

So, let's not argue until all the evidence is in...hhhmm...first, how would we know when "all" the evidence is in, and why wait? We can come to conclusions without all the evidence. It's possible. I mean, you want to come to the conclusion that evolution can explain your origins naturalistically...despite the lack of evidence for it.

Science is an ever-changing field, so one day the argument of evolution vs. creationism may be a ludicrous debate... but until then, evolution remains the most reasonable scientific explanation of how species have come about..

No it's not. There's no evidence for it. And if we shouldn't come to conclusions without all the evidence, then STOP coming to conclusions!

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:53 am

B. W. wrote:Does anyone know what the law of probability is concerning random events over a period time (Earth Age) designing one single complex living species?

But that is not what is occuring. The propability of random changes leading to another species is what should be calculated. In other words changes lead to unexpected outcome not to expected outcomes.

B. W. wrote:Next, does anyone know where the first seed came from to grow the first single blade of hay?

The idea is that single celled organisms began to organize themselves into colonies. The first "seed" would have occured when an individual cell emmigrated from the now estabilished colonies of cells to begin a new colony.

B. W. wrote:Better yet, has anyone solved this one: which came first — the chicken or the egg?

In the scenario of evolution the egg comes first. It is not that chicken came out fully formed, the idea is that the changes took place within a population of birds which eventually took on unique characteristics, which we recognize as belonging to chickens.

B. W. wrote:If the egg was first, who sat on it to be hatched?

A mother bird belonging to the population of birds which eventually took on the characteristics of a chicken. This happens because this population has become isolated from other sexually compatible birds.

B. W. wrote:If the chicken was first — who made the chicken?

In creation the bird was created by God.

B. W. wrote:If by random chance — what of the law of probability for this single species?

Again this is not the correct probability to solve for. The probability that a gene pool will change over time is 1.

B. W. wrote:If by intelligent design — what of the law of probability for this single species?

In this case the outcome is predetermined, and again in this case the probability is 1.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:49 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I can only reach the conclusion that this is due to the implications of the theory of evolution. Because all sciences are evolving and maturing, towards a greater understanding of the physical world.

This sounds like a religious faith in what science might/could find out.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:49 pm

Again this is not the correct probability to solve for. The probability that a gene pool will change over time is 1.

So what. Gene pools change, yes...they oscillate, or they lose information...but I think you've grabbed onto a strawman, you're not talking about the change being talked about.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:52 pm

Heh, I just noticed that you used my Chairman Mao spray.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:58 pm

"Yours?"

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:00 pm

How did you find that picture? I made it for a Counter-Strike spray.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:35 pm

Evolution was the work of a scientist that rejected his christian heritage. It is a construction of the mind and has no evidence.

Evolution is an attack on religion and indoctrinates children into the New World Order in which all reminders of God are removed, and man can proclaim that truth proceded from his own lips.

The further one researches in to ancient times the less one sees of this evolution grabage. Early man indicates from his writings that there is a God.

Of course all the self proclaimed enlightened men of today would consider those early men barbarians that don't understand truth like us geniuses today do.

I'm sure God will let them have their own way.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:53 pm

You left out the preceeding sentence. Which took the following statements out of context.

Yet there seems to be a bias against the theory of evolution which has far more empirical support than there is towards the theory of relativity with far less evidence.

Forge wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I can only reach the conclusion that this is due to the implications of the theory of evolution. Because all sciences are evolving and maturing, towards a greater understanding of the physical world.
This sounds like a religious faith in what science might/could find out.

No, what this means is that science is not absolute. It is always subject to change based on new observations. Which makes science very unlike religion.

The conclusions in science are based on observations we have made thus far.