Evolution

[Mzungu]

1) There is no Scientific Proof of Macro-evolution, only extrapolations. What i mean by "Scientific Proof" is referring to the scientific method, which involves replicating observations in the lab. From what i have found so far, the closest we ever got is proving variations within a species "Microevolution" i.e breeding snakeskin guppies from wild guppies. But somehow this is extrapolated to assume that if we can get snakeskin guppies, that we can possibly turn guppies into dogs. There is NO record of anyone line breeding a species and transforming it into another species. Certainly with all the experiments that people are doing with ephemeral animals such as fruit flies, someone must have turned one into a cat by now... But no... fruit flies are still fruit flies.
IMHO, extrapolating that guppies will eventually turn into dogs from microevolution is as much FAITH as believing that maybe a god or aliens put us here. Extrapolation based on faith is not "Scientific Method".

Hence I still classify darwinistic evolution as "Theory". Even Einstein had to send his scientists to russia to stare an eclipses in order to OBSERVE the effects of his theory before the scientific community even agreed to consider to make it a "Law". IMHO we have not yet OBSERVED macroevolution.

I think it will be impossible to observe macroevolution in the laboratory or anywhere else in one lifetime, or even the entire lifetime of the human species. Simply because it happened over millions, even billions of years, as Mark touched on.

I think expecting to see something happen of this magnitude right before our eyes is unfortunate in that it is one of the expectations of those who attempt to disprove evolution, and it's simply not gonna happen. You will never see a guppy change into a dog. Not only did that not happen in the past, but it won't happen for us, either. Putting aside the fact that guppies and dogs didn't exist in the past, there's also the fact that guppies (and other teleosts) that exist today have evolved over millions and billions of years into what they are. They're very specialized. This is similar to the assertion that, "I didn't evolve from no MONKEYS!" Yeah, you're right, you didn't.

I think one of the toughest parts for us humans in all of this is to simply grasp the unfathomable amounts of time that life has existed on this planet. We want to see results...NOW. And because of that, we will always be disappointed. Seeing microevolution in our lifetime is for some reason not enough to be able to view that in larger terms, which is completely understandable but, like I said, unfortunate.

[wesleydnunder]

Just did a quick google, and from Wikipedia:

Pedagogical definition

In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [7]

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[8]

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe untested but intricate hypotheses in addition to repeatedly confirmed models. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form X theory is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (e.g. should I believe something or not?)

That's really all I mean. Just that scientific "theory" is not the same as "theory" in the vernacular sense.

Gotcha! Thanks, MB.

Mark

[Mzungu]

2) Irreducibly complex systems. Darwinistic evolution is contingent on the premise that everything we see today is created by small incremental changes over a long period of time.
The fact remains that there are many organisms & systems that we observe today that cannot possibly be formed by small incremental changes. One such thing is the human eye or complex cell systems as noted by microbiologists Dr. Michael Behe & Dr. Michael Denton. ( Don't take my word for it, go read their research papers).

Even Darwin himself realized this, and was troubled by this because it pokes holes in his theory:
"I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me feel uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" - Charles Darwin, April 1860

I'll be glad to elaborate on irreducibly complex systems, but this will take a thread in itself.
My question is why don't "scientific minded" schools teach this which is after all microbiology?... oh wait... because it pokes holes in evolutionary theory...duh! In my opinion it is wrong to discount & censor valid science simply because it doesn't jive with personal bias.

IMHO the term "irreducibly complex systems" is silly. It sounds neat, but it just doesn't float my boat, LOL.

It may just be because it's a term put out by proponents of Intelligent Design, but I think it also has to deal with the fact that if one thinks something is irreducibly complex, then they're just not looking hard enough.

Yeah, proponents of this term like to cite the eye as an example. But it doesn't work. For the same reason as I stated above, they're looking for something that they can say irrevocably PROVES that the eye evolved from this proto-eye, to this mid-level-eye, to this 'now'-eye.

I believe there also exists the argument that the eye is so flingin' flangin' complex that if one itty bitty thing goes wrong, the whole concept flies out the window. Then why am I typing this while wearing contacts? And why do I think my fiance is colorblind? (heehee)

[Mzungu]

3) Morality. If indeed everyone has gotten here through "survival of the fittest", then what's wrong with Hitler eradicating weak genes from the population by rounding up people with down syndrome, physical handicaps and stuff and shooting them in order to improve the human race. In fact, one can make the argument that Hitler was doing the world a favor by eradicating bad genes that could hurt the human race.
Macroevolution underminds basic ethics and intrinsic human value because bad genes are inferior and should be eradicated.

I think Mark said it best:

"All life on the planet, except man, is still operating under the rule of survival of the fittest (non-domestic animals and plants, that is). We humans are devolving. Medical advances have led to our watering down our gene pool, keeping alive people with genetic disorders so they can be passed on in stead of being eliminated."

"Improving" the human race is something that humans have taken into their own hands and made subjective. If we were actually living "as nature intended," I probably wouldn't be alive. Nor would many of us. The problem is that we're taking a concept and bombarding it with personal opinions, i.e. Hitler and what he and many others thought would represent the "perfect" human. Eugenics is just us playing "God." So I don't think morality has a place in evolution as a scientific concept. Just because along with morality comes humans, and I think we've proven that we don't like to just accept what Mother Nature serves us.

[Nickintex]

I agree that the fossil record is incomplete, nacra. They're finding new ones daily, though. As to the chronology of rock strata, there are tectonic explanations why certain sedimentary rocks can pre-date those below them, as you've already found.

One of the newer fossils discovered in Montana was a type of raptor with feathers. To me, coupled with things like bone densities and skeletal structures, this suggests that birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurs; not all dinosaurs, but certain species.

There will never be a complete fossil record as not every population of a certain organism will leave a fossil. There are many species known from very imcomplete of fragmentary remains. One group that is very well documented is whales. From the amphibious Ambulocetus to modern whales, several steps in their changes have been recorded. Unlike pterosaurs. There is no fossil known of an ancestral pterosaur that has arms that have not become wings yet. They just show up on the Triassic with already functional wings. However, in their course of evolution until the Cretaceous, they did lose teeth and tails and became larger in size.

[Darbex]

Nacra you made an especially good point to me about Morals. Devoid of religion and a belief in evolution, why shouldnt we just run around and do whatever we want? Wouldnt it be better to rid the world of the stupid and sick so that only the fittest survive and to create a super race. Maybe where Hitler got it wrong was that he picked one race and should have blended races together as that is the best race because you can specifically breed the best out of every race.

[sunrise]

Nacra you made an especially good point to me about Morals. Devoid of religion and a belief in evolution, why shouldnt we just run around and do whatever we want? Wouldnt it be better to rid the world of the stupid and sick so that only the fittest survive and to create a super race. Maybe where Hitler got it wrong was that he picked one race and should have blended races together as that is the best race because you can specifically breed the best out of every race.

Pagans! ....... Sounds like your referring to Pagans.

[wesleydnunder]

Nacra you made an especially good point to me about Morals. Devoid of religion and a belief in evolution, why shouldnt we just run around and do whatever we want? Wouldnt it be better to rid the world of the stupid and sick so that only the fittest survive and to create a super race. Maybe where Hitler got it wrong was that he picked one race and should have blended races together as that is the best race because you can specifically breed the best out of every race.

The Athenians of ancient Greece tried that. It didn't work for them. As long as we humans have a sense of conscience and empathy for others it won't work. Just as species physically evolve, they also socially evolve. At one time in human history it was ok to marry your own sister. It was ok to eat other humans. It was ok to practice fratricide, patricide, infanticide. Our societies have evolved and we with them. We now know that many of our societal taboos are there for a solid, scientific reason. Other social practices stem from how we "feel" about each other and our world.

As for morality, that has evolved too. What was once accepted as moral; fratricide and patricide for instance in the ancient Nordic cultures, is no longer. What is moral to us is what society accepts as a whole as being right and good for us. When something no longer fits society's idea of righteousness, it goes away; cannibalism.

We keep trying to correct what's wrong physically within our race in the face of overwhelming failures. We keep trying.

Mark

[myjohnson]

I believe in monkeys.

[eklikewhoa]

Evolution is no joke!

I watch it happen all the time and Pokemon put truth behind it!

Charmander evolving into Charmeleon

Charmeleon evolving into Charizard

[Darbex]

[Nickintex]

Here is what I'm curious about. Why do Christians have such a beef against the idea about evolution, besides "the bible/God says so"? You don't hear about Christians protesting against physics, medicine, astronomy, etc. It's always about evolution. I would like an honest answer from some creationists. Since you guys do not believe in the change in life over millions of years, what do you have to say about the fossil records? No, dinosaurs were not something that was made up to to be featured in movies like "Jurassic Park" and "Carnosaur".
And why do I never see protesters in front of science museums? Just curious since I have always been STRONGLY interested in prehistoric life forms.

[marauder_77868]

Nick...
It's because evolution, an inexact, unproven theory at best, is being pushed down our throats as the only alternative, as scientific fact. It's being done primarily to attack faith and religion, with no alternative being given, which, to a scientist with an unproven thory, should be anathema.

[stevenallenbarnard]

Evolution is no joke!

I watch it happen all the time and Pokemon put truth behind it!

Charmander evolving into Charmeleon

Charmeleon evolving into Charizard

That's F**king awesome. I'm a 30 year old pokenerd and you just made my day

[Nickintex]

Ok. But you still did not tell me about the fossil records. Did somebody fabricate dinosaur skeletons as anti-Christian propaganda? Did somebody paste hair on an elephant, froze it in a block of ice and said don't believe in Jesus? I know I'm oversimplifying things, but do you get where I'm coming from?