So, what's the general consensus here on evolution?

[AllanH]

Evolution and adaptation to environment are plain facts.I still believe God created everything but that's matter of faith, not science.

[cj]

Evolution if its so true then why arent things still evolving in to other things so its one or the other?its both?or is it nither?

[MojoQuestor]

Evolution if its so true then why arent things still evolving in to other things

Who says they are not?

[sgreger1]

Evolution if its so true then why arent things still evolving in to other things so its one or the other?its both?or is it nither?

Lol, they are, if you stick around for a few million years you can track it's progress. Ahah.

[Premium Parrots]

Popeyism? Pray to the virgin olive oil?

+1

[bsd777]

Lol, they are, if you stick around for a few million years you can track it's progress. Ahah.

Are we? Where are the land creatures with partial gills or fossils from land creatures with partial gills?

[justintempler]

Fullsize: http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-co...ast-supper.jpg

[bsd777]

Who says they are not?

I guess you've just got to have faith that it is. Sounds like a religion to me.

[bsd777]

Fullsize: http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-co...ast-supper.jpg

I was amused by the last supper painting, in a church in Peru, which featured guinea pig.

[Liandri]

[Frosted]

While we're at this - are we the only animals that murder others of the same species on a regular basis?

Evolution. I hate religion - as I've grown older I want evidence. I can't be doing with the fairy tales any more.

[danielan]

While we're at this - are we the only animals that murder others of the same species on a regular basis?

Lots of animals eat their young.

I assume limited communication ability tends to limit the murderous rage a bit.

[shikitohno]

Evolution if its so true then why arent things still evolving in to other things so its one or the other?its both?or is it nither?

Cj, what about diseases? Bacteria are constantly changing. This is how you get drug resistant infections. Additionally, there are more and more bacteria that are becoming resistant to the now ubiquitous hand sanitizers so many people carry around. There are also plenty of studies showing that when a factory moves into an area and changes the appearance of the environment (for example, when soot from smoke stacks settle on trees) the insects in the area often have their patterns change within a fairly short period of time to better blend in with this change in their environment. It's easier to see these changes in bacteria and insects because while the changes take many generations to become common and get noticed, these two types of organisms have a comparatively short live cycle, allowing for many generations to live in a very short span of time. Compare the life cycle of the fruit flies used in lab work (Drosophila melanogaster) where an entire generation lives, reproduces and dies in 30 days or so to that of humans, where the same thing happens over the course of decades to centuries. Bacteria and insects also tend to reproduce in much greater quantities than human beings, so even assuming the chance for a mutation is approximately the same and that there is only one mutation possible per offspring (yes I know this isn't the case, but I'm just using a general concept to prove the point), a fruit fly has 400 chances that one of its offspring will have a mutation while humans typically have fewer than 20 offspring. With greater numbers of offspring in each generation and much shorter generations, insects can adapt to a situation much more rapidly than humans can. Things are still evolving, it's just happening at a rate the you'd have to live for thousands of years to see first hand in many cases.

My guess, is the general consensus favors evolution. Many see it at "proven" and "settled" science. But, it is not and unfortunately is often offered as such. Evolution is no more proven than man made global warming. Those who state their intention is to "restore science to it's rightful place" imply that science was somehow ignored or neglected, because others disagree with their conclusions, drawn from faulty logic, bad studies and flawed data. I'm no expert on the subject, but those who favor evolution and claim to be unaware of scientific or sound logical arguments refuting evolution should pick up some of the writings of Ann Coulter or Ben Stein. IMO, they are two of the brightest (and most underrated) minds in modern society and both have spoken, at length, on the topic. Both have also spoken of their faith in a creator. It is impossible to prove faith. You either have it, or you don't. IMO - Perhaps the best argument to be made in favor of creation, is intelligent design. Stein, Coulter and others cover this topic as well. I'd recommend anyone honestly in search of truth, do themselves a favor and read on this topic as well.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43722

This has the biggest reason I don't believe in intelligent design, setting aside faulty logic. Ann Coulter has a degree in history and another in law. Ben Stein has an economics degree as well as a law degree. In other words, they have no credentials to warrant taking their opinion on scientific matters seriously, at least no more so than crazy Ed who lives behind the gas station down the road from your house. As smart as these two may be (and I love Ben Stein), there is nothing about them that should inspire more faith in their scientific ideas than one places in the majority of biology and research done in the last century or so. While they have every right to hold their opinion, that doesn't mean it's a good opinion. Noam Chomsky could just as easily publish a book saying that the best way to fix the economy is to invade Antarctica and enslave the penguins. It's a perfectly legitimate opinion, but as much as I respect him and enjoy reading his works, I wouldn't act on that policy because he's not an economist. He's very smart, and I'm sure he understands economics to a certain extent, but he's trained as a linguist and philosopher, not as someone who needs to create solutions to real world economic crises. In this case, I would defer to Ben Stein's opinion over his.

My biggest contention with intelligent design is that it's arguments are inherently illogical. First, there's the whole concept of irreducible complexity that this theory's proponents like to talk of. Typically, they bring it up by mentioning a very complex organ, such as the eye. Then they say, "the eye is so complex and perfectly put together that if one component of it were lacking, it wouldn't function. Obviously, this means that the eye had to emerge fully and completely as is, or else it wouldn't work at all. However, such a complex event is so unlucky that one may call it irreducibly complex. Because of this complexity and perfection of form and function, one can deduce the existence of an intelligent designer. And if there were no such designer, there should be evidence of the eye in various stages of development, but there isn't, further proving our argument." First, irreducible complexity is a word that sounds scientific, but basically means "We don't know how it works, so it's probably magic." It's an excuse to ignore the idea that there may be an unknown mechanism at work which explains this seeming mystery perfectly well. For example, lightning was at one time something that might have been considered irreducibly complex, but eventually people came to understand lightning is just the result of electric charges in the atmosphere. The same is true of earthquakes up until people came up with the concept of plate tectonics. Ignoring this, there are creatures that don't have eyes as we commonly think of them, but other organs that serve similar purposes and still give advantages over creatures lacking them that allow the creature to have a better chance at reproducing. For instance, creatures with simple photosensitive cells that allow them to tell differing levels of light from one another and move between them as needed. Crayfish have abysmal eyesight, yet they have photosensitive cells. These cells let them remain in the dark underneath rocks, and if a predator (like a bear or raccoon) moves the rock, allows them to notice, and move to a location where it is still dark. It can be seen in nature that visual sensory organs of varying levels of complexity exist and have exist at different points in time. It's entirely unnecessary, and very unlikely, for such organs to develop spontaneously and completely formed due to random chance. It's only necessary that for each tiny adaptation to the form or function of the eye some benefit to the creature is derived that increases it's chance of reproducing. As each additional improvement becomes the "standard" for a species, new adaptations are constantly being tested out, which can give rise to such exceedingly complex organs as the eyes of modern man.

I also hear about gaps in the fossil record being proof of an intelligent designer. This one is almost solid, except it banks entirely on a Devil's proof. Just because something has yet to be found does not mean it doesn't exist. Every available location has not been searched for fossils. It's much like the concept of disproving God or the Devil. I haven't found them anywhere I've looked, yet I haven't looked everywhere, so I can't say for a fact that the Devil or God do not exist.

The last of the common arguments I've heard in favour of intelligent design is "If humans evolved from primates, then why do monkeys and apes still exist? Shouldn't they have died out? Clearly they should have, so your argument is so much the weaker for this claim, yet it doesn't hurt mine at all." This one is just based on a misunderstanding of how evolution works. One adaptation that gives an advantage for survival is not necessarily the only one. Humans evolved from primates and gained certain adaptations that benefited them and gave them a greater chance of reproduction, while other currently living primates evolved in different ways that still gave them an advantage and allowed them to have greater success at reproducing then those which did not change.

Ignoring even these faults, there remains the issue of the assumed intelligent designer. How did this designer become so perfect? Was the result of natural changes over time? It cannot be so, as this is the very concept the designer was thought of to refute, and if he himself evolved over time, then why could the same not have happened on Earth? If not, was he created? If so, then how did his creator become so perfect and knowing? This goes on ad infinitum unless you state the assumption intelligent design is based around but does not admit: the designer is a God, outside of the rules of his own creation, omnipotent, omniscient, and ever lasting. But, such a God is a non-testable entity, unable to be empirically proven or disproved, and so falls outside the realm of scientific thought by his very definition.

[shikitohno]

If you've got any other arguments in favour of intelligent design, or a logical counter to these (The Devil's proof bit is admittedly something of a low blow, since it is something that you can't disprove without running an excavation on every piece of the earth, so sorry about that one. Still, logic can be a fun if you're using it and suck if it's being used against you.), I'm perfectly happy to listen to them. I still think the idea of intelligent design is just the religious trying to sneak God back into the classroom under the guise of science. And if you're going to cite anyone who supports it, you'd best cite a study published in a peer review journal or at the very least a book written that has citations from such journals to back up their claims. Anyone can publish a book, there's no standards for the basis of factual claims in it. Peer reviewed, academic journals have standards to uphold, and while flawed studies can get through and wind up published, it's a lot more rare for them to be published than for unsubstantiated claims, flawed methods, and bad science to be published as undisputed fact in a book. Ann Coulter is not a valid source fr a scientific debate, nor is Ben Stein. This is what I feel is one of the greatest stupidities the US subjected itself to. Allowing politicians and pop current event authors to be the leading voice in scientific debate, despite having little to no training in it and often demonstrating a damnably feeble grasp of the concepts they're speaking of, rather than allowing scientists themselves to speak on scientific matters.


Sorry for the double post, but it was too big for just one.

[lxskllr]

Damn man... Wordy, but very well written. I wouldn't have gone through all of that personally. It should be enough to say we don't make shit up to explain the things we don't understand. That's the provenance of primitives. It's been a long time since we believed a great chariot flew the skies every day. I see no reason to go back to those times.