Evolution

[aquatus1]

You doublessly know that genes are created by strings made up of four different amino acids in many different combinations. During certain periods, such as meiosis, or through outside interference, such as with radiation, environmental, or other such things, the genome is broken apart and pieced back together incorrectly. There are a variety of different ways in which this occurs, but it results in entire sequences getting flipped over, swapped out, replicated, and even, ocassionaly, new units of amino acids being added. All these new combinations result in new genes coding for different proteins or anzymes that affect the evolution of a creature.

Did that make sense?

[pipefitter]

yes. thank you. do you think the large number of new species being found are a new evolutionary cycle?

[aquatus1]

Possibly, but I really don't think we are discovering new species at any greater rate than we did before.

[weasel54849]

but everytime proof is presented, you call it gobbledygook

Speculation is not proof, if you really think it is I feel sorry for you.

Prove to me that you understand what you are talking about when you say evolution. All you have to do is pick a current theory of evolution (here's a hint: Darwinism isn't one of them) and explain what it claims and how it is supported. That's it. That's all. If you can do that, I will be more than happy to admit that you are able to argue the topic on an intelligent (albeit incorrect) level.

OK.

Instead of picking something new I will just explain bird evolution as I understand it.

Evolutionists claim that millions of years ago reptilian creatures roamed on the earth. And due to mutation it grew the beginnings of a primitive feather. That mutation spread through the species and became a dominant trait. More random mutations came that caused the feather to become more elaborate and complex. Mutations happened that caused the reptilian legs to lengthen and change into wings. The lung structure completely rearranged and somehow changed from a lung where air comes into the alveoli one way and goes out the same way, to a lung were air flows continuously through the lung in one direction. Gobs of other changes happened to produce what we now call birds, and there you have it a very simplistic overview of how the evolutionists say birds got here.

Is that what you wanted Aquatus?

I would tell you how it is supported, if it really were supported by science.

In the real world we don’t see mutations creating new traits like feathers or anything of the sort. Mutations are either neutral or destructive. Mutations can only cause a variation in what the animal already has. They will not cause new traits that have never existed before to form. That’s real world science.

We see mutations that affect limbs and appendages, but nothing that would suggest in any way that an arm could turn into a wing.

We see this in the real world.

And most evolutionists just flat out ignore the lung issue. For a bellows type lung to transform into a flow through lung while still allowing the animal to breath properly is an unsurpassable hurtle for bird evolution. Special creation makes a lot more sense, and takes a lot less faith to accept then random chance processes.

Oh…one more thing, what’s the word on my offer of a free subscription to the TJ?

[aquatus1]

Is that what you wanted Aquatus?

801717[/snapback]

No.

I made it very clear what I wanted.

If you wish to show that you understand what evolution is, then describe any theory of evolution (not examples of evolution, not creationist arguments, not half-baked concepts; pick any of the current evolutionary theories and give a brief description, the argument supporting it, and the evidence supporting the argument), and explain what that theory claims and how it supports its claim.

You claim that evolution is not scientific. I want you to show that you understand what it means to be scientific. If you cannot demonstrate an understanding of how a theory is or is not scientific, then all your arguments concerning the validity of scientific theories are moot.

Frankly, I suspect that you do not even know what the theories of evolution are, much less how they are supported. The internet will only be of limited aid to you here. This requires some actual knowledge and experience both with science generally and biology specifically.

If you cannot do this very simple thing, then you should be willing to admit that the very concept you are so strenously denying the validity of, you do not actually even understand enough to even explain, let alone deny.

To be clear:

1) Pick any of the current evolutionary theories

2) Explain what the theory claims

3) Explain what evidence exists to support the claim.

You don't have to agree that it is correct. You simply have to show that you understand what it is saying.

[weasel54849]

OK I am a bit confused. are you saying you want me to explain something like...the nebular hypothesis or punctuated equilibrium?

Edited August 21, 2005 by weasel54849

[aquatus1]

Well, not the nebular hypothesis, since that has nothing to do with evolution. Punctuated equilibrium would be fine, although I was thinking more along the lines of the older, more established theiries, such as meiosis, or replicational error.

Just give a clear definition of what the theory claims, and how it is supported, and, if you can, how it meets the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology (if you can only do the first two, I'd be willing to help you accomplish the last).

Edited August 21, 2005 by aquatus1

[weasel54849]

OK.

I am not sure why you consider meiosis an evolutionary theory. It’s not like creationists disagree with it. If you think I do let me know why. It is my understanding that the idea of meiosis came to light because of Mendel’s works. Gregor Mendel was a creationist.

Basically meiosis is were chromosomes in a dividing cell are split and reproduced. Segments of chromosomes occasionally cross-over and fuse together, causing a rearrangement in the gene sequence. This explains how variations in the genetic code happen.

Support for this can be seen in such experiments as with Mendel’s pea plants.

Is that more like what you wanted?

[aquatus1]

OK.  I am not sure why you consider meiosis an evolutionary theory.  It’s not like creationists disagree with it.  If you think I do let me know why.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the classification of a theory depends on what field of science it explains, not on whether creationists agree with it or not. Any theory that deals with the phenomena of mutation of the genome throughout generations is going to be an evolutionary theory, regardless of what any particular religious sect's views on the matter are.

It is my understanding that the idea of meiosis came to light because of Mendel’s works.  Gregor Mendel was a creationist.

Medel was indeed a creationist because, well, no other theory existed at the time. His work was the foundation upon which modern genetics theory began, and which would eventually become tied in with Darwin's work.

Basically meiosis is were chromosomes in a dividing cell are split and reproduced.  Segments of chromosomes occasionally cross-over and fuse together, causing a rearrangement in the gene sequence.  This explains how variations in the genetic code happen.

Support for this can be seen in such experiments as with Mendel’s pea plants. 

Is that more like what you wanted?       

803080[/snapback]

Well done! That's exactly what I wanted, and I hope the the time you spent looking up and researching served you in good stead. So here's the thing, now: You have learned that theories are very specific things, with clearly defined phenomena that occur, and specific explanations for those phenomena. The question is: Why? Why does a theory need to defined in such a manner? What level of definition needs to be met prior to being considered satisfactory? Obviously, as you more than likely know, the theory of Meiosis is a bit more involved than the quick blurb you posted, but what would stop someone who hadn't looked up the information like you did from claiming that it was gobbledygook and that it proved nothing?

So, here's the next step: Why is the theory of meiosis considered a scientific theory?

[weasel54849]

Hey your back, I figured you either went on a trip or died. Glad you’r still with us

So, here's the next step: Why is the theory of meiosis considered a scientific theory?

Because it is something that can be observed, tested, and repeated.

Edited August 28, 2005 by weasel54849

[RaginCajun]

Hey your back, I figured you either went on a trip or died.  Glad you’r still with us

So, here's the next step: Why is the theory of meiosis considered a scientific theory?

Because it is something that can be observed, tested, and repeated.

813613[/snapback]

meisosis is a scientific theory like everything else in science......fact based, but can always be changed due to ever changing new facts and informations.

[OneEye]

Big... words... Blah...

No, I don't mind the big words. They're fun.

I always just thought of it as;

Single celled organism goes through mutation during mitosis, or dividing (or however they did it, budding, all that fun stuff). Mutations make different types or single celled organisms, all showing different traits. These all eventually keep evolving, keep mutating until certain types of algae and water creatures similar to the animal phylum (organism group) are developed. The algae makes oxygen which allow some of the animals to breathe air. The sea becomes partially crowded, plus there are predators, so certain animals start evolving and adapting to go on land. They evole even more and make CO2 in the air to help plant life survive on land, and it just goes like that.

*Simplified for the big-word intolerant*

[aquatus1]

Hey your back, I figured you either went on a trip or died.  Glad you’r still with us

I'm leaving today. This is my last day posting.

So, here's the next step: Why is the theory of meiosis considered a scientific theory?

Because it is something that can be observed, tested, and repeated.

813613[/snapback]

No, not enough, even for the basic overview that we are doing here. There is a specific set of requirements that must be met by any theory prior to being called scientific. Do you know what they are (here's a hint: I posted a link to them earlier)?

[weasel54849]

There is a specific set of requirements that must be met by any theory prior to being called scientific. Do you know what they are (here's a hint: I posted a link to them earlier)?

First you must observe an ongoing phenomenon.

Form a hypothesis and make predictions to explain the phenomenon.

Run test and experiments to confirm your hypothesis.

Make changes to the hypothesis; repeat experiment.

That’s the scientific method and that is something that evolution doesn’t abide by.

Like when I asked for test results that showed reptiles producing feathers, what did you give me? Nothing. All you gave me were some people’s ideas, and there was nothing in there that proved reptiles can or ever have produced feathers. I will say again, if you honestly turned a critical eye to evolution you would see that it doesn’t meet your own standards.

Aquatus I am not following you. I don’t see what your point is. Meiosis doesn’t contradict creation. I don’t see why you think it does. I am not sure where you are going with this, so make your point soon.

[Don Quixote]

Aquatus1, seeing as you are leaving soon I will not attempt to involve you in a debate. However, can you answer one question for me? (Thank you)

My question is as follows;

Aquatus1 you are an avowed, die-hard, ardent, evolutionist. You believe that this life is all there is and that when we die we are . . .to put it bluntly . . .worm food.

Why then do you spend so much time and energy on debating evolution vs creation? I mean I can understand why a Christian debates, a Christian believes that your beliefs have eternal significance, but an evolutionist believes that when you die you end, and all your beliefs matter not at all. So why do you use up what little life you have left on "pointles*" debate?

*Pointles from an evolutionary viewpoint

[aquatus1]

First you must observe an ongoing phenomenon. 

Form a hypothesis and make predictions to explain the phenomenon. 

Run test and experiments to confirm your hypothesis. 

Make changes to the hypothesis; repeat experiment.

That’s the scientific method and that is something that evolution doesn’t abide by. 

Like when I asked for test results that showed reptiles producing feathers, what did you give me?  Nothing.  All you gave me were some people’s ideas, and there was nothing in there that proved reptiles can or ever have produced feathers.  I will say again, if you honestly turned a critical eye to evolution you would see that it doesn’t meet your own standards. 

Aquatus I am not following you.  I don’t see what your point is.  Meiosis doesn’t contradict creation.  I don’t see why you think it does. I am not sure where you are going with this, so make your point soon.

814568[/snapback]

I will make my point now, and then I am leaving for a while.

The scientific method is a set of simple guidelines, rules of thumb, so to speak, for scientific theories. Their level of importance is similar to the idea of looking both ways when crossing the street; basically, good rules to live by, but hardly hard and fast rules that are the be all and end all of crossing streets. Real science is far more complex than that. Scientific method is an excellent introduction at the high school level. When you are talking about real world science, however, it is nowhere near enough.

When you deal with real world science, you go beyond the simplistic scientific method and enter the realm of scientific methodology. Because science is so convoluted, one cannot dictate the steps that are to be followed, but only the requirements that must be met. That is what the pre-requisites of scientific methodology are. They are five specific needs that must be met by a theory prior to being considered scientific. If any of these five are not met, the theory fails and remains a hypothesis until they are met. Every existing scientific theory must meet these five pre-requisites. I explain the five pre-requisites in two places; you can look up the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, on page five of the Debates pages, or you can also look up my member topics and look in the Proof of Evolution thread I started. In these, you will find a throughout explanation of why creationism is not a scientific theory, and why evolution is.

The trouble you are having as that you are under the impression that Darwinism is the be all and end all of evolutionary theory. It isn't. It isn't even a modern theory. The new version of it, neo-Darwinism, is indeed an evolutionary theory, but it is only one of six theories, and there are others waiting in the wings. The theory of Meiosis is one of these theories as well. When you claim that evolution isn't scientific, you are grouping together every single theory, including meiosis, into that claim. Now, obviously, this is not what you mean to do; this is why I am going through all this. I am trying to get you to realize that the claim you are making is not about evolution in general, nor is it even about modern evolutionary theory. The claim that you are making concerns only one single portion of evolutionary theory, one-sixth of the most basics of theories, and none at all of the many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of supporting theories in various other fields, such as geology, astronomy, and botany.

In point of fact, even if you were correct and the entire theory was faulty, it still wouldn't mean evolution would collapse, because there is still an abundance of evidence that continues to support it; but that is actually not even too important at this point. Now that you know that you are making a claim against a specific theory, actually a portion of a specific theory, and not against some abstract, all-encompassing "Evolution" conspiracy, you need to take the next step, beyond the high-school scientific method, and find out what it is that would be required by real scientists in order to take your claim seriously. In this particular case, what you need to do is meet the requirements for Falsification, which is most likely a concept that you have never heard of, but which is an absolute must for a theory that is to be considered scientific.

Now, as I said, this is my last day posting on the forum for awhile. If you wish to continue this, however, for the purposes of learning, not debating (because, frankly, there is no more here to debate than there is to debating the principles of addition), I will be more than happy to correspond through e-mail, although I will likely only respond once a week.

So, ultimately, here are the points: Learn what scientific methodology is. Learn what the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology are. Learn why a given theory (any theory, be it the pythagorean theorem or meiosis, or even Darwinism) meets the five pre-requisites. Apply the five pre-requisites to creationism. This should illustrate to you why darwinism is regarded as a scientifically valid theory, while creationism is not.

Now, here is the important thing: Does Darwinism being scientific and creationism not being scientific mean that the former is correct and the latter is not? No. No, it does not. What it means is that, according to the information that we have, this is the most probable explanation for the given phenomenon. No more, no less. That creationism is not scientific in nature does not in any way invalidate it as a religious belief; it does, however, make it pointless to compare it to a scientific theory.

If you wish to continue this, e-mail me. Otherwise, I wish you luck in your education.

[aquatus1]

Aquatus1 you are an avowed, die-hard, ardent, evolutionist. You believe that this life is all there is and that when we die we are . . .to put it bluntly . . .worm food.

Why then do you spend so much time and energy on debating evolution vs creation? I mean I can understand why a Christian debates, a Christian believes that your beliefs have eternal significance, but an evolutionist believes that when you die you end, and all your beliefs matter not at all. So why do you use up what little life you have left on "pointles*" debate?

814674[/snapback]

This is an excellent question, and because it is, I will spend the time to answer it before I leave.

The reason this question is so good is because it highlights a very important, and quite often incorrect, assumption that many creationists (and even ardent christians) make regarding scientists.

I do believe in evolution, of that there is not doubt, but the reason that I defend it here so strongly is not because I believe that it is correct, but rather, because it is being mis-represented. In other words, what I love is scientific methodology. I love the process that brought the knowledge of evolution to light. I defend the Big Bang with the same avowed, ardent, die-hard, enthusiasm as I defend evolution, not because I am certain that it is the absolute right answer, but becuase it is an explantion that has been brought about using a methodology designed to eliminate arguments of authority and subjective viewpoits, and focus instead on the data that we actually posess. It is important to realize that I am not an evolutionist, but rather a scientists, and I defend the methodology that created evolution from those who misrepresent it to the point of outright fabrication.

Scientific methodology is a method used to arrive at logical and objective explanatiuons for specific phenomena. It is a formual used to find answers of a measurable nature. It is not a system of belief. Science requires objective and logical support for its claims. Belief does not. What then, does this mean? It means that a belief does not need to justify itself. All it needs is faith. Does this, then, make it and science natural enemies?

No. It does not.

A person can belief in evolution for the reason that it meets all the requirements of scientific methodology. They can also not believe it, and still admit that it meets all the requirements of scientific methodology. They can understand evolutionary theory backwards and forwards, inside and out, explain it, teach it, make it do handstands, and still decide to continue to have faith in creationism without the slightest trace of hypocrisy. Because faith does not require logical support, faith can exist in conjunction with science. To be perfectly frank, this forum is the first time I, in my entire academic experience, ever met an atheist evolutionist. Everyone I know personally is a christian of one sort or another (another is Hindu, but that is about it).

So, and person who supports evolution is not necessarily an evolutionist, with all the negative blind faith connotations the word usually has, nor is an evolutionist or a scientist necessarily and atheist. That still leaves unanswered the question of "Why?"

In evolutionary terms, the question is indeed pointless. Evolution, however, is a theory, like mathematics and gravity. It is a formula used to derive the answers of our past existance. It is not a system of belief, nor is it a philosophical search for the soul. I would not more attempt to use science to define myself than I would use mathematics to write an english paper; it is simply the wrong tool for the job. Why do I debate? I debate because I belive in education. I debate because I object to all forms of ignorance. Most of all, I debate because I object to libel, even if it is unconscious. In the same way a devout believer would object when someone claims that the bible is a book for brainwashing the gullible masses, so do I object when the claim is made that evolution, or any other theory, is misrepresented and then claimed to be wrong through that misrepresentation. It galls at me, in the same way that one feels when an innocent person is framed for a crime they are innocent of.

For me, that is not pointless at all. For me, this is an opportunity to educate, to teach. Not to convert, because, frankly, I have little interest in what oither peoples beliefs are, but rather to ensure that they are correct in understanding mine. If they choose to not believe in evolution, I have no problem with that, as long as they do so knowing what evolution is. Teaching a person about science, about scientific methodology, and having them learn something, is a wonderful feeling, better even that having someone declare that they have decided to follow evolution instead of creationis (I have had two people make that claim to me, so I know whereof I speak).

So, in short (too late, I know), I debate evolution because I wish to advance knowledge. I debate because I wish to fight ignorance. To me, teaching is what makes something worthwhile. To me, education is my legacy. Never assume that an atheist does not believe in spirituality; Mine is clear and well defined, forged through many experiences, both positive and negative. And don't confuse spirituality with religion either. You have taken the first step beyond the world of definitions that knew of before, and I don't envy you the confusion that you will be facing in the coming months, maybe even years, but I do envy you the ride, and I wish you the very best of luck. If you have any other questions, please consider me a source of information, and e-mail me. Good luck.

[DemonWatcher]

I am not reading past page six because all i see is reciprical arguments.

I have a question for aquatos and the weasal, between 35 and 7 million years ago, there is evidence showing that there were bipedal as well as quadripedal apes, isn't it there for possible that one of these ape "species" or sub-species, i want both of you to explain this using which form you choose Evo or Cre.

p.s. i saw this in nature magazine and on discovery, htough the actual date escapes me.

[Pharoah]

There are too many possible explanations for this subject it becomes quite useless.

^

Well, it sounded good, eh'?

I just agree with the Big Bang theory. But thats just me.

[muddyfrog]

Ok I just read this whole thread.

Not being mean or anything...

BUT....

aquatis: You sound very smart sooo...

1) your close minded.

OR

2) You are not understanding what weasel's argument is.

I do believe in evolution but I have to say I agree with weasel here.

You keep saying you can't prove creation wrong because it is not a theory.

Can you not prove a child wrong who says he can fly.

For now though I will suspend my belief, For I never gave creation a chance.

Hey aquatis here is a little exercise for you...

Believe creation is real and try to prove that evolution is wrong. Do that for oh 30 days. the reason for that is that being human you do not see your own bias. I know this from personal experience. Im sure you do as well.

I don't have any experience in evolution past high school, so I can't be involved in the argument. I see tactics and I see behaviors readily though. If I was forced to trust one or the other of you and wasn't allowed my own research I would trust weasel. Your arguments aquatis seem much more weasely than weasel's

as a side note:

I have never read the bible or been made to go to church. My parents have never said anything about god for that matter. well I was meditating and thought why not talk with him. Ask him a question or something; couldn't hurt right?

Anyway lets just say I believe in god now.

I do disagree with much of Religion though.

Hey weasel can I have that subscription. I am always looking to aquire new knowledge.

-Sincerely

MuddyFrog

Edited September 23, 2005 by muddyfrog

[indeed]

pssst ... everyone who is asking aquatis questions, he is having a break and might be back after new years

[jamesuss]

now the way scientists say it goes is that plants came first then they made enough oxygen for animal to live but where did the animal come in? because for this to work they would of had to evolve from a plant, and how the hell can that happen, i mean i dont have a clue about any animal/plants or heard of any. so how do ya think it happened??

Well, I always heard single-celled animals started as animal-like creatures. The problem was that competition for food became too fierce. The speculation is that some of them figured out a nifty trick: photosynthesis. That gave rise to plants which in turn gave rise to more complex animals which in turn gave rise to...well, you get the point.

[LyCaN123]

Hey i once heard an interesting theory that we came from space from a meteorite in a different form and then we evolved.Sounds weird but u choose.

[Nadal]

now the way scientists say it goes is that plants came first then they made enough oxygen for animal to live but where did the animal come in? because for this to work they would of had to evolve from a plant, and how the hell can that happen, i mean i dont have a clue about any animal/plants or heard of any. so how do ya think it happened??

Perhaps we were orginally a Autotrophic bacteria that evolved two ways considering to their enviroment...first came algea then land plants. The other type of this microscopic organisim evolved into fish then to mammals and reptiles on land.