Topic awaiting preservation: The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design (Page 5 of 6)

quote:

---

For another, the layers that fossils have been found in. Fossil remains of homo sapiens have been found in the same layer as some of the more primitive types *we are supposed to have evolved from*. How could a more primitive form evolve into something that was already there? Did we kill off other human type evolutions? To say that says that homo sapiens were already there too.

---

Don't make yourself sound stupid. Many species and sub-species can exist at the same time. We see that everyday. When a new sub-species arise in a species, other sub-species do not extinct by this simple fact. Make the analogy for a new race of dog, mice, worm, rose, .... Therefore it's not surprising to find 2 breeds of a species in layers of equal age.

Don't forget that evolution has been studied for about 140 years, and speciation takes longer than that. Evolution within species, or micro evolution if you prefer, happens on a shorter time scale than macro evolution. Unless you also question the age of the earth, there is no wonder we have much more records of micro evolution than macro evolution, yet we do have some of both. Check 29+ evidences of macroevolution and some more observed instances of speciation.

quote:

---

In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved. This occured within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendents of two separate diploid parent species.

Here's how it happened. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of it's two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the definition of a species (well, the most common definition, at least.) The paper I have corresponding to this are great. One new species, T. mirus has arisen at least three separate times.
source (including the References to the articles)

---

Regarding your interogation about someone 1 million year ahead digging the fossils of an African tribe with stone tools and whatnot, don't worry it won't be rocket science to figure the African tribe in question is of the genus homo sapiens thanks to its physical characteristics that are similar to yours, mine and that of all the humans of our time. I'm surprised you fall on that though your career in the field of medicine.



(Edited by poi on 06-26-2005 04:05)

quote:

---

No woman anywhere could be called furry.

---

I beg to differ

Damn right. I have dated a number of women who are downright furry and moan and complain piteously that modern day attitudes are so narrow that they are forced to shave, pluck and wax almost daily.

My personal observation, though off topic, is these women also all seem to have a much more enthusiastic libido than their relatively 'hairless' ststers.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I've heard two different theories about horny and hair.

The first is hormonal. Gregarious amounts of body hair can be an idication of hormanal levels. More hair = more hormones = high libidio. Not so say that women with naturally smooth skin can't be a force to reconed with.

Then there is the Ugly Woman theory. Undesirable or 'less then perfect' women don't get it as often, but when they do . . . watch out!

Could be evolution at work. Don't know. But might be fun to kick around the next time you're hanging out with your buds.

Sometimes I like to open up these really long P&oS threads and scroll down to the very last post to see to what weird tangents the discussion has taken...

...and I'd like to say that I have yet to be disappointed. You folks are doing a fine job here. Carry on.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

This link might also help you get your head around the whole concept of evolution by looking at this tree representation, which you can dig down through.

http://tolweb.org/tree/

Also the red sections on this page help explain the main picture.
http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/aboutoverview.html

Dan @ Code Town

Ok, Belladonna...(and all the rest of you "anti-Macroevolution" freaks) - then answer this, please.

Explain what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time.

You admit that microevolutionary changes exist, and happen. (given)

Please explain how such cannot become macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time. Please carefully consider your answer - it must be a) Logical and/or contain b) Biological Barriers in the explanation.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-27-2005 10:06)

/me picks up a bag of pop corn , and lie in the sofa to enjoy the show. There's some seat nearby, does anybody want to join me ?



(Edited by poi on 06-27-2005 09:46)

This is just too interesting. I am learning lots from you beladonna. I have been accused of not understanding evolution by some here, just because I believe God could have a hand in evolutionary in that he works in the physical as well as spiritual evolution. I have always understood evolution in its very basic study, but Beladonna really has done her homework.

Beladonna, I would really be interested in your explanation of the evolution theory of the eye. How you see the cell formation working together in its mechanics to produce vision in the human eye. We all hear our eyes are the windows to the soul, but they really produce human images like photos in the brain that we can look at like going thur a family picture album. I know this works together with the memory part of the brain, but I just find it amazing in that we are like computers. Cameras take pictures too and now thru technology they can be stored in the memory of a camera. So we have developed the artifical eye. But the artificical eye can't feel. Can you see a relation to the human eye and artifical eye in that the development of the human species could of been designed by intelligence of a higher form of the intelligence of Man himself?

[uber_quick_note] If bella donna had done her homework she/he wouldn't tell that much bulls**t about Evolution, like the African tribe thing or the denial of macroevolution. [/uber_quick_note]



(Edited by poi on 06-27-2005 15:50)

quote:

---

but they really produce human images like photos in the brain

---

Nope, way I understand it the brain creates the 'pictures' eyes just provide the input.

Intelligent design?

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Vertebrate_eye

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/63/72016.htm?z=4051_00000_7001_to_22

quote:

---

But the artificical eye can't feel.

---

Aside from the pain one might feel from an injury, neither can our eyes. The implication in your statement is that the eyes have emotions, they don't.

Neither do they convey emotions nor are they any sort of window. They are a sac of slightly viscous fluid and have no motility save that granted them by the muscles attched to them.

The eyes are credited with all manner of communication abiulities where, in fact, it is the facial muscles which actually create the body language which carries those messages.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Still waiting for an answer...

No takers?

quote:

---

but Beladonna really has done her homework.

---

You can see form the issues I raised for Belladonna, that she has not done her homwork well enough. We are talking about basic assumptions which are being used as a basis for a view, which are severely flawed.

If I have the time I may consolidate and clarify those issues, as I would like to hear a response still.

I actually get a kick about this issue. Intelligent Design triggers a knee-jerk reaction about Creationism, neh? Let's leave creationism and religion out of it for a moment; kind of as an intellectual excercise.

My own pet theory that I've always loved toying with revolves around the inroduction of the cro magnan species. I like to think we came to earth as more of "accidental design" - think Hitchhikers Guide; a spcaecarft full of doofuses (doofii?) crash land here, wipe out the neanderthal, and become... us. Man, if I was a student dealing with a poor teacher espousing a religious slant to the ID process, I'll bet I could make their life hell! It would be fun.

So! I see two seperate issues here. (1) Where did life come from originally, what does it all mean? And (2) how did life originate here, on this planet? The first question belongs in a philosophy class, the second can be approached scientifically, and may possibly include "Intelligent Design". Who says that intelligence has to be divine? Suppose it's just really old, and really smart? The universe has been around a long time, it's a bit arrogant thinking we're the first and smartest beings in the history of the universe. Maybe we're just a million year old science experiment gone awry.

Or, it could be evloution too. =) Science advances by posing awkward questions and then postulating unlikely, yet theoretically "proveable" answers to those questions.

Your pal, -doc-

(Edited by DocOzone on 06-27-2005 19:10)

Hey, it's the Doc! Or, at least, that was the Doc. Must've been passing through.

I've always toyed with the idea that we terraformed this planet, then populated it - that we are re-designed versions of ourselves (adapted to the gravity and environment peculiar to this little rock).

Perhaps that is an ID theory? I certainly don't believe in God, but I have little patience for the constant 'trimming' of facts to successfully fit the theory of evolution.

Reading back on this, and seeing how many seem to jump all over ID as a religious idea, I am not sure what to think. In fact, I'd say this deebate has me thoroughly confused.

ID looks to me to be a possible alternative approach to the origins of life (on this planet) without resorting to "God did it" - the suggestion that it wasn't all an accident, but without simply dumping the whole bucket through the intestines of religion with a good dose of salts.

From what I've read here, I'm way off the mark.... maybe... I think. Um.

People jump on it as a religious idea because that is how it is being wielded, as a way to get biblical creationism into the science class.

It is also being used to discredit the science behind evolution without using science, but by using politically motivated speach, and faulty statistics.

It is also being used to discredit the scientific process as a whole. It is a means to limit further exploration. What it says in a nutshell is, "We can not adequitly explain things, so it must have been done by a higher power." It does not say, "We can not explain these things so lets keep researching these things." It is a brick wall against science.

These types of anti-scientific and religious focused should not be allowed into a government (secular) scientific class, let alone mandated into a science class.

Dan @ Code Town

^ yeah.

The problem comes in because the idea of some higher power having a hand in our creation/evolution is far different from the 'Intelligent Design' outlook.

ID, as an organized movement revolving on a biblical creationist view is becoming a very dangerous thing. It uses a great many falsehoods to sway public opinion for the sake of essentially hijacking our science classes in the name of christianity.

Which is far different than saying, as a general view, that we could be someone's neglected experiment or that god made us.

quote:

---

The eyes are credited with all manner of communication abiulities where, in fact, it is the facial muscles which actually create the body language which carries those messages.

---

For sure the eye is then window to the inner spirit. Wouldn't you agree to that. Yes the brain tells the eye to moisten with tears, to wince, to glare, etc, but the eye still shows the emotion. The eyes convey meaning. What I am trying to say here is the eye is the window to the heart, which in the metaphysical is the spirit of a person. They brain cannot function without the heart muscle. Try to tell me how this can this can be explained by evolution in mutation of cells in selection and adapt theory?

What are you talking about?

Dan @ Code Town

One thing I always wonder about is why nobody mentions the fact that we question our origins because we are.

To take an analogy, imagine we all play Russian roulette with a machine gun. At the end you are surprised to be alive and question the reasons of your presence here. On the other if you had lost, you wouldn't be here, and wouldn't wonder why you're here.

I mean: life -- and intelligent life in particular -- may well be due to "random", the known universe may well be just one with its specific fundamental values ( charge of the electron, mass of the quarks, forces, extended/curled dimensions, ... ) among many other universes with different fundamental values. Some having similar laws of physic and utlimately some forms of life, some others radically different with, for instance, more extended physical dimensions, fewer forces ( in the sense of the ElectroWeak, Strong and Gravitation forces that we are familliar with ). In such a multiverse, the physic of each universe would be specific and would lead to a huuuge variety of outcomes, among which we are ... and since we are there and able to reason we question the hows and why of our presence.
But there may be no why, just some how.


DocOzone: Glad to read you!

WarMage: God only knows.


Whatever, I'm impatient to hear Belladonna's answer to WebShaman's question. And to avoid her some unpleasant scrolling through this thread, and help her answer faster, let's quote the question :

quote:

---

Explain what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time.

You admit that microevolutionary changes exist, and happen. (given)

Please explain how such cannot become macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time. Please carefully consider your answer - it must be

a) Logical and/or contain b) Biological Barriers in the explanation.

---

That's a very good point, poi, and one that I have considered often. It is what Americans might refer to as "irony" on a universal scale, methinks.

If there is a "why", short of finding a message somewhere from "Ms. G. Od, creator of The Universe" revealing the world's purpose* we really couldn't possibly determine what it is - not by thumping and slapping eachother in arguments about it, anyway.

*(assuming that it wouldn't be hidden, burned, buried, or smashed into oblivion by some religious authority or other, intent on maintaining ignorance)

For me, it highlights the absurdity of speculating on the "why" of it, when the ascertainable truth of the universe is simply "how". We may not even have any of the right answers to the way of things yet, but scientific understanding is certainly a more plausible goal than theological persuasion.

Surely there have been enough discussions about the divide between science and religion for this not to be a prevailing issue?!?

Putting aside ID/Creationism for a moment...

What I have a problem with is the way science has been tainted by belief systems already (of a sort). I've always thought that the Origin of Species was fundamentally sound in its observation of geographical diversity in animals, and evolution itself is observable in a wide range of organisms in a wide range of circumstances - but over the short space of time that the Earth has supposedly been inhabitable, the theory falls far short of convincing me of the origin of all life on this planet, or at least of the accuracy of its timeline.

So many holes have cropped-up since its inception that the widely-believed Theory of Evolution has become practically biblical in its nature - defended to such an extent that even demonstrable contradictions and new scientific understanding are fervently rebuked.

So, unfortunately, there is an absence of contention. Perhaps nothing much grows in the shade of such a fundamental scientific establishment, heralded to the forefront of popular thinking by its audacious heresy at the time of publication.
Maybe the theory of evolution will be realised when the technology has been developed to adequately prove it* but I want a scientist to think about- rather than to believe their scientific theory.

Just like obsessive belief, when you are absolutely convinced something is true, you will find the evidence for it - whether it exists or not.

*(as maybe we'll invent time machines - if they're fashionably plausible rather than an axiomatic impossibility this year - as it seems even carbon-dating is a discredited science in the face of contradictions to the established timeline)

Critical thinking seems to be an elusive concept when it comes to evolution, but a little imagination could go a long way, too.
The founding priciples of science were born from certain people's ability to think beyond traditional constraints. The very cause of science was furthered by those brave enough to take a stand against the oppression of perceived heresy in view of what they saw as incontravertible logic/proof.
Look at us now - even some children know that an alchemist could not have turned lead into gold, but that it is theoretically possible* - yet we still cling desperately to compellingly discredited scientific beliefs, further compounding otherwise sound (though incomplete) scientific laws and hindering the advancement of scientific theory.

*(but highly impractical due to the scale of the reactions that would have to be initiated, and the expense of the technology that might be required)

Where are the pioneers? Where are the advances in science born of theoretical physics dreamed-of over a century ago? Why have we become bogged-down by arcane science while refusing to theorise on greater possibilities?

This is NOT a religious argument (being essentially atheist, as I am) but the complete opposite - a cry for sanity! Keep religion out of science, and FFS, keep science non-religious!

If ID is a stepping stone to religion in science, then we're all doomed - but there is already something gravely wrong with the establishment, of which The Established and Inarguably True Theory of Evolution (as opposed to evolution theory) is just a humble example.

_________________________________
And yes, I completely lost the plot again, but typed too much to throw it away. My bad.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

Edit: a little more clarity (this means very little) and a little less repetition.

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-28-2005 02:06)

I have to disagree.

I think that we are making astounding advances, and I think that we are challenging the established ideas daily.

Shit slashdot was reporting Zombie Dogs today. People are still fighting for cold fusion, we are getting rail-guns, and solar sails, and positive estimates on quantum computers as opposed to the still 100 years away stuff I have been hearing in the past.

We are on a logarithmic scientific curve. A century ago they would have never dreamed of the things we have to day. A century ago people who thought we might fly were still crazy. 50 years ago people who thought we might get to the moon were crazy. 30 years ago the idea of a personal computer was crazy, and the internet was something noone would have even thought of.

We are right now in the beginnings of an information revolution. The internet was just the beginning, look at the storm that Wifi is creating. We will soon be connected anywhere we go, every second of everyday.

We are devoloping far more advanced augmentative technologies, and we have a robot acting as a receptionist, and minuture robots that a wealthy person could purchase wo do bailet. I think we are flying, and we are only going to get faster.

They have the prototypes done for $50,000 flying machines that are the size of a car.

We have private citizens building their own space ships.

We have a space station.

We are working on a multinational fusion power plant.

What more could you be looking for? Where should we be going? Why with all these advances do you think we are slowing down?

Technology doens't flow in the way it was envisioned, it takes its own course, and I think it is doing pretty good for itself.

Dan @ Code Town

I have to disagree as well. Won't go into more detail at the moment, but WM did cover some of my points.

There are certainly those who approach science with a religious mentality. But that is the minority...

Fair enough, point taken (esp. as regards scientific engineering and electro-mechanical inventiveness).

But the moon? How does one get to the moon nowadays?

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-28-2005 03:08)

On that topic, a giant book written by James Mitchner called Space is a great read on the topic of space the moon and why we did and do not continue to go there. He does great historical fiction, but it gives you some real background on the space race, the look at its motivation, and the reasons that it failed. I highly recommend that anyone interested in the cosmos read it. It is a tough read but well worth it.

My own take on the issue. It is a big rock right next to us that we have already been to, and doens't hold any huge gains. Probes to mars and to titan and other earth like bodies is much more interesting, and can have a whole lot more scientific value.

Putting a human into space is a waste of resources, is dangerous and does not get as much benefit for cost as putting a probe down on the planet. Putting people into space is just for show, and has little to do with science.

It is exploration, but we have better methods of doing that given the enviornment out there. You can not put a person into space have him travel a bit and then sit down, set up a house and study the area. When you put a human out there you expend a vast amount of energy, and by the time the human is there you are already starting to worry about getting the human back.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

and doens't hold any huge gains.

---

WHAT!!??

Yes it does! It holds enormous amounts of helium-3! And that, my friends, is the cheap energy source of the future!

Because of the Gravity Well that the Earth produces, it is relatively easy to use rail-gun techniques, powered by Helium-3 (which the Moon has more than enough of) to very economically send Helium-3 in large amounts to the earth.

The only real thing holding such an endeavor back is a) Lack of Water (which they may have solved - searching for water on the Moon) and b) Privatisation of Space.

That is one of the reasons that I was so excited with the civilian attempt into Spcae succeeding! It opens a way...it points in a direction - UP!

Oh, and for the record - I vehemently disagree with WH.

As for the comments from the Doc (Hiya Doc - been awhile) - well, I leave that open in my belief. But irregardless of whether life evolved naturally here, on Earth, or is part of a greater natural scheme of Evolution (or was "terraformed" or "cultured" on earth) - the path from that point STILL follows a path of Evolution.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-28-2005 08:15)

Sorry I opened such a can of worms with the Micr/Macro thing. But it is facinating stuff no matter if you are for it or against it.

Poi--thanks for those links up there in your post. Most of that stuff I've read before, but it lead me to a lot of other new things and angles to look at. Great link

WarMage--those links? you insult my intelligence. But I forgive you.

Jade-- I have know idea how the eye developed. It's remarkable, no doubt about it.

And I agree, the whole african thing was stupid. I myself dismissed it almost as soon as I posted it. The truth is, technology has it's own evolution going on, and you can trace it's path. And it's headed back toward all third world countries.

Now to answer the question. No WS, I can't give you and logical or physical reason why microevolution can't lead to macroevolution. And even if I could, it wouldn't mean squat, because it would still be an assumption on my part.

But before you jump for joy, read on.....

First I want to say, some seem to make assumptions that my "religious background" keeps me from accepting evolution. Don't make assumptions. My background was not in the least bit religious. Quite the opposite is true. My background from childhood is science. This is why I went into medicine. Science led me to God. So don't assume.

I have read and researched a LOT on evalution in my lifetime. From our point in history now all the way down to the microscopic world. (In case you never heard of it, some interesting reading for all you scientists out the would be the theory on the RNA world--look it up. Very interesting theory) I'm no expert by a long shot, but I'm no "babe in the woods" either. And I don't want to get into some "great debate" here on a message board, because truthfully, it's too hard to debate this kind of thing unless you're in a face-to-face situation, where back and forth ideas can flow easily. Simply becasue there is so much information to discuss.

So I'm going to kind of sum up why I don't believe in the "universal common ancestor" or macroevolution. First I'm going to say that I see science "big wigs" as no different than polititions. Science is supposed to be totally unbiased, and they will ALL swear that they are and point to the Scintific Method, and how "it's not the outcome, but the proof, that matters". But think about it folks. When you realize that we are ALL human and want to be right about things, mix in the HUGE egos of "learned" and "degreed" scientists, and mix in political funding which can make or break a career depending on if your'e researching the thing that being funded or not, and making breakthroughs to continue getting funding....well, you can see how a lot of science can get very biased. Please don't deny it. How can experiments be biased? They can't, in and of themselves. If done the way they ought to be done. But laypeople put a lot of faith in a scientists word. Be he a doctor of medicine, or a microbiologist. Because we don't have the means of getting in a lab and seeing "first hand". If you read enough material, from enough different sources, it's not hard to see how scientific jargon, just like legal jargon, can be used to "lead the sheep".

They also like to say that if something is NOT "scientifically" proven then it's not a fact, it's an assumption. But there are a lot of genuine assumptions made when dealing with evolution that haven't been proven scientifically as fact, yet the whole theory of evolution is presented as a "scientifically proven" . One big one is in the question of thermoregulation. Now there are good arguments to logically say that it could have happened. But if you read enough material, and keep in mind the climate of the time, and just how much random developing would have to be done in order to pass it on, and the size of a lot of dinosaurs and how thermoregulation would affect them, and which lines led to the birds and mammals, you will see that it is a very big assumption. And scientists know this. So now they are redefining what cold-blooded and warm-blooded mean. DON'T LET THE JARGON FOOL YOU FOLKS. Laypeople can easily be fooled if you use big enough words and start breaking things down into smaller and smaller "sections" within "sections".

I am not saying that it COULDN'T have happened. I'm not even saying that it DIDN'T happen. I'd have to prove that, and I can't. But at the same time, it can not be proven that it did happen. The assumptions made are sketchy at best, but they say it HAD to have happened because it is the only LOGICAL explanation for birds and mammals to evolve from reptiles. Sadly, it can't be shown how it may have happened or came about with any degree of certainty because tissues don't fossilize. And scientists jump all over that.

There are bone progressions, very few, that show that how reptiles evoved into mammals. Look them up, trace them for yourself. But when you step back, and look at ALL the body systems, and how diverse they are. And take into account all the things that would have had to happen simultaneously in a whole lot of different species to take effect and "move on", then throw in the statistics of "random" and it gets really mind boggling. And to base that on a few fossil progressions is mad.


Anyway, there are other questionalble things. If you look down the right lines, you can find them. Science has made it such a maze that it gets hard to follow the right lines, but it can be done. I can not possibly write long enough to go into them all. There are huge assumptions made by fossil data....that turns out to be just a tooth, or bone fragment. There are gaps that get ignored or explained away. There are so many things that could be found out about the beginnings of evolution with bacteria and single celled organisms that could be proven correct. Those simple cells are still around. And they multiply fast enough to be able to watch the very beginnings of evolution happen under a microscope. They can recreate environments in labs if they needed to. But in literature that we can get our hands on and read, it's still all just theory and assumption on how simple one cell plant and animal life and bacteria formed. Or how separate sexes came to be. Those are things we could see in a microscope. And if anyone says they can't, I'd like to know why they say we couldn't. Because the fact is that we know simple one-celled organisms still exist today. Even the most simplest, the retro virus, is still around. And if they are still here, then they should still be mixing it up in the same way they did in the beginning. Evolution you say? They are still here, but they aren't the same as they were way back then? They are just as evoved as we are? Yes, they are just as evolved as we are, but they are simple one celled structures. How much different can they get? There structure is still the same, no matter if it's now or a billions of years ago. And no matter how much there genes may change. One cell can make a billion more in no-time flat. The whole idea of evolution is that life will find a way, albeit "randomly" if you like, but there should be no end to evolution. So, scientifically speaking, it should still be happening.

Experiments are being done on the molecular level. Since the 1950's. And they have all failed.

Anyway, I'm sure all I just said will be argued and explained away, and my thinking will be called ignorant and uninformed. And that could be true. I'm still researching the microscopic world, so we'll see. I'm not going to sweat the small stuff, but there is a God. Somewhere. And I will continue to believe what I do, and so will everybody else here. And that is cool with me. I don't call any of you ignorant and irrational for your beliefs, please don't call me that for mine.

Now I want to propose a theory that's very far fetched, but could happen if evolution is correct. It's nothing new, a whole lot of people have thought up and thought about this theory before, and some of you even mentioned it in a few of the posts above. I'm just going to turn it into a sequenced story in my own words here. Modern humans should continue to evolve. We know that we are more obese now as a whole than we were. Technology has done this. Some are becoming more health conscious, but still on the whole we are unhealthy as a species on the whole. But technology is increasing. We are learning more and more, computers are becoming more efficient. One day, machines will do all of our work, So we'll be running the computers more then than we are now. Our heads will get bigger as our brain grows--we eat better becasue we know all the bad stuff good food does to you. Our brains reap the benefit. Our bodies however, atrophy. Disuse. Can you see that it COULD happen? It could, according to evolution. Our skin becomes paler and paler from being inside running all the computer to farm and build and everything. Aren't we beginning to look like the little grey men from outter space? Technology has increased to the point of distant space travel. More and more distant is reached as centuries go by. OOPS, we've used all our planet's resources. There is something gone that we need. No problem, we've found other planets that have the same materials. We send a few hundred out to go do the job. So these few hundered go to this distant planet to get what we need and bring back. Can't take all the technology that we know and use, too many computers. Can't build the stuff on the knew planet because all materials are raw, so we have to go back to the very basics of manually digging down in the earth. Oh, we can't do that. Are bodies aren't strong enough. Or we just don't want to. Or we can but get tired of working so hard. Let's say we can do it, we just get tired of all the labor after awhile. The "laborers" are on the verge of mutiny. It's not fair, they say. Hey, there's apes around here. Let's get them to do it. They try, but they just can't think well enough to do the job. Hey, lets splice our genes with theirs and create something that can think a little better. Boom. Humans and Gods come into existance on a planet far far away.

Of course, I am very very sleepy right now, been up for about 36 hours for work, and this could all be drivel evolving right out of my delerious-from-sleep-deprivatied-mind. But as I said, it's not anything new, that hasn't been thought of by a lot of other people.


Lot's of holes. Lots of different things that could happen to make it turn out different. Lot's of twists and turns that could happen that could explain away religious beliefs such as a savior and the promise of a return at the end of days to rescue you, because we created you and put you in this predicament please believe in me when I say that I'll be back and all that. But it could happen. And when you think about that, you have to think, maybe it did happen. Right here on earth. Personally, I don't believe that it happened at all. Still, even if it did and is destined to happen again, it all had to start somewhere, somewhen. So there is a God no matter how you look at it. That's my belief. Please don't berate me for it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-28-2005 12:37)

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-28-2005 13:12)

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-28-2005 13:14)

(Edited by Belladonna on 06-28-2005 15:07)

Whew, I am sure glad she didn't want to

quote:

---

And I don't want to get into some "great debate" here on a message board

---

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

This may prove instructive to some, confounding to others and damnable to a certain few; Google Search

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by WarMage on 06-28-2005 17:56)

I am still waiting for an answer, not an attempt at avoiding the question.

quote:

---

No WS, I can't give you and logical or physical reason why microevolution can't lead to macroevolution.

---

Then I rest my case.

quote:

---

Please don't berate me for it.

---

But we must...we live for this... it is what we do... =) As for, there is a god and, that is your belief... well that is the point precisely...your 'belief.' You can of course provide no proof of existance. As someone recently pointed out there is more evidence to support the existance of the mythical King Arthur of roundtable fame than there is to support the existance of jesus christ. And as for 'it all had to start somewhere' well sure but why do 'suppose' something of a higher order must be involved. Why not just plain old and not-so-simple chemical cosmic soup?

On the matter of scientific 'ishkabibble' (goobledeegook) designed to garner further research money or a confused & uninformed acceptance of a notion... Yes,certainly, that element is present and most certainly in the field of medicine particularly in the development of 'medicines.' That said it's been my observation that when 'questionable'findings are 'published' other.. perhaps more dilligent members of that community will tear it apart in short order.

quote:

---

that could explain away religious beliefs such as a savior and the promise of a return at the end of days to rescue you.

---

For me... nothing ever... could explain this away. =)


[edit] Would one of you MS's please correct whatever it is that's giving us that horizontal scroll.. I'm off the right side by about 5 feet. =) thnks... and if it's me... sorry. [/edit]

(Edited by NoJive on 06-28-2005 17:13)

quote:

---

I am still waiting for an answer, not an attempt at avoiding the question.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No WS, I can't give you and logical or physical reason why microevolution can't lead to macroevolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then I rest my case.

---

It's like this. It is all going to come down to the microscopic world. If micro led to macro, then we will be able to recreate it and prove it in a lab under the microscope. So far all experiments have failed without question. One day it MIGHT happen in a lab. But so far it hasn't. And until it does, the whole theory of common origin is up in the air IN MY EYES. If simple cells cant do it, then larger complex organisms can't do it. So nothing is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not yet, and quite possibly not ever.

So don't rest your case just yet, the real jury is still out on evolution.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Climb a tree. You might be closer to the moon, but you're no closer to landing on it.

Um - that was probably a brain fart.

BD, you still have not answered the question - and your "tiptoeing" around it is not what was asked for.

Either answer it, or don't.

If you can't answer it, then your reasons against Evolution are not based on sound reason and/or logic, and also not on the evidence at hand.

And thus, I rest my case.

Just because you can not currently show something in the lab does not mean the science is bad.

I work with algorithms. They have tons of them, and the really good ones can not yet be applied. It doesn't mean that the science behind the algorithm is bad or that the jury is still out, it means that our mechanics have not yet caught up to our thinkers.

We can theorize about a number of things, and have great proofs about them, it doesn't mean we can do it in the lab.

The fusion power plant that is going to be constructed in France. The theories and the math behind it is really solid, and has been for years and years. But applying that knowledge is a whole lot harder than one might think.

That is why you have titles like theoretical _x_ in so many fields. I know a ton of theoretical physisists. They do great work on things that they will never be able to actualize in their life times. They are working using solid mathematics that can prove many a thing that we can not even see yet. We will be able to see these things one day, it is just that the math and physics are so much more percise than engineering.

Dan @ Code Town

Wait wait wait fellas.

I never said the "science was bad because it hasn't been proven yet". I clearly wrote that one day, it MIGHT JUST HAPPEN in a lab. Didn't I? I did say that, right?

WebShamen, you ARE a shamen. You weave magic with words. I think I love you.

I DID answer your question. I cannot give any physical evidence or logical reasoning why microevolution can not lead to macroevolution. Because the physical evidence isn't there yet.

There are some fossil proofs, but I've already went through how those can be perceived as misguided proofs for some people. Still, for some, that is enough proof to say and believe that macroevolution DOES happen, and all life is decended from one universal common ancestor. To me, it is NOT enough proof. For you, it IS enough proof.

But THE proof, the microscopic proof, that a single simple life form can macroevolve into something entirely new and different, has not been shown yet. And the fact is, if simple cells can't do it, then there never would have been any larger more complex organisms to evolve in the first place.

To see it happen would be CONCLUSIVE proof! And it is a proof that IS within our grasp to realize! Unlike theorizing about dinosaurs, which we will never have the specimens necessary to study in a conclusive way. It would not be able to be denied by ANYONE ANYWHERE. And if it happens in my lifetime, I will happily eat all my words and change my opinion to the view of common origin! This is the piece of evidence that "I" need in order to change my beliefs. And if it doesn't happen in my lifetime, I will go to the grave believing that life was created seperately, not all from the same simple organism.

So, again for emphasis, I answered your question. I can't give you any proof that it didn't happen, and you can't give me any proof that it did. You can point out all the fossil records you want, I've looked at them all, studied them all, and to me, it's not enough proof to say that it did happen for sure, that all life came from one single simple life source.

I'm not saying "I'm right and you are wrong". And I am not trying to force my belief that there is not enough evidence to proove it on you! If you look back on my posts, I have really done nothing but accept your view as your own and respected it as a VALID opinion. I'm not out to proove you wrong and me right. I am just stating my beliefs-based on the evidence as I perceive it. Key word being "I". I'm the one who believes in God, but you're acting more the zealot than I am! You are demanding proof that I can't give you, and you know that I can't give you. Therefore, in your eyes, and in the eyes of science everywhere, the opinion that there is no common origin is viewed as NOT VALID.

I'm demanding more proof from science before I will believe the view of common origin. And that proof CAN be found in microorganisms. I am not totally disregarding the possibility of it. I am saying that right now, I don't believe it. I don't think it happened, nothing anybody says at this point will sway me, I can think for myself and draw my own conclusions of "my truth" based on the evidence available. I am no sheep that will be led by either science OR religion blindly by the nose with my eyes closed.

So BBBAAAAAAHHHH, BBBBAAAAAAHHHH

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

And I should point out, in case it wasn't clear, that my reasonings for not believing it have NOTHING to do with religion. I am looking at only real live proof that I could see with my own eyes. Period. And right now, there's not enough proof FOR ME.

Even if it is prooved that we all are from a single common origin, I will still believe there is a God. And that is a totally separate issue, I think we all agree on that. How I perceive God may change, but I will always always believe there is a God.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Hey Belladonna

As far as I am guessing your ideas of "god" obviously originate from Judeo-Christian theology, correct?
If so, how do you look at the fact that Judaism was no different that any other cultural belief that sprang out of ancestral pagan beliefs? We have pretty solid historical backgrounds how Jews were influenced by different cultures how they adopted ideas from other cultures and how different tribes of jews worshiped different dieties, most of them being nature dieties at first.

Obviously you will agree that pagan beliefs are false ones and there are no fertility goddess of some sort or white muscular man with a beard throwing thunders on Mt. Olympus...

I know that philosophy and ideas are far more complex in Jewish mythology rather than Greek. But you know...they are really not that different in terms of purpose and developent.

And as I read your thoughts, I can see that you futher yourself interpret your personal definition of what diety/god should be...

and it's really confusing why people do that, maybe it is hard to cope with reality...perhaps it is hard for most to see world without concept of "right" and "wrong" or some sort of "divine justice"...just maybe.

BD, you obviously passed up the link that PO1 posted - 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, so I am posting it here again.

There is evidence of Macroevolution.

But that is besides the point. My question was to provide proof that microevolution could not become macroevolutionary changes over a long span of time (Time being measured mostly in generations here).

The scientific community can provide proof that microevolution can lead to macroevolutionary changes (and has - just click the link).

By not providing proof to the contrary, that leaves one arguing that namely microevolution cannot lead to macroevolutinary changes over long periods of time pretty much without legs to stand on.

And I don't consider myself all that good with words - I can name a number of Members on this board who dwarf my meager skills - DL-44, twItch^, DarkGarden, Master Suho, Michael, and I am sure there are others, that I have left out.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-29-2005 22:40)

WS, Do you even read half of what I write?

I thanked poi for that link. Meaning I used it. Meaning I read it. And it was nothing new to me. I have read most of that stuff before. The link in and of itself is very impressive. I don't disagree with that. But I have stated why I don't think the evidence is conclusive. Read my big long post again if you are confused about that.

I'm going to say it again in much simpler terms, and then maybe you can grasp it. I have read the 'FEW' proofs from fossil records that point to micro leading to macro. I have followed the lines of taxology down thier many twisted and turned lines, looked deeply into the question of thermoregulation. And I have been looking into it for a pretty long time. And all those few proofs show me is that science is scrambling hard to make their proof fit their theory.

Does my point of view make the theory wrong? NO! I freely admit that the theory may prove to be dead on!

Why do you keep talking in circles and ignore my statements about the experiments going on today? Are you afraid to go there? Afraid that microbiology may prove your precious theory wrong? Because it CAN go either way at this point. You don't even acknowledge that fact.

Yet you "claim" to deal in reality.

Say it. Say the fact. Say out loud that if microbiology fails to prove macroevolution, then the whole theory of common origin crumbles to dust. It's not that hard to say and accept really. I can accept that if it proves out correct, then I'm the distant, distant kin of a chimpanzee. You know why? Because it's really not going to make one hill of beans of difference in my life. But you now. If the theory is proven wrong, it's going to mean you and all the other scientists of the world will have to consider a God of some sort.

Am I the only one who is relying on proof that we can actually do and see to give me an answer instead of a hugely incomplete record of long dead dinosaurs that we can only ever guess and make "logical" assumptions about??

I don't have anything more to say here. But I hope I have given you all something to chew on for awhile.

I doubt it, but a girl can hope. Don't be sheep.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...