Image: Matt Collins
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Charles Darwin did not think of himself as a genius. “I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so remarkable in some clever men ...” he remarked in one passage of his autobiography. Fortunately for the rest of us, he was profoundly wrong in his assessment. So on February 12 the world will mark the bicentennial birthday of a scientist who holds a rightful place alongside Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein.
Darwin’s genius—and, yes, genius is the right word—is manifest in the way his theory of evolution can tie together disparate biological facts into a single unifying framework. Evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s oft-cited quotation bears repeating here: “Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.”
Yet it is also worth noting during this anniversary year that Darwin deserves a lot better than he gets. When the popular press needs an iconic image of a brilliant scientist, it invariably recycles the famous photograph of Albert Einstein having a bad hair day. (Einstein accompanies John Lennon and Andy Warhol on Forbes’s list of top-earning deceased celebrities.) Darwin’s failure to achieve icon status is the legacy of creationists and neocreationists and of the distortion of his ideas by the eugenics movement a century ago.
But Darwin is so much more than just a quaint, Victorian historical figure whose bust in the pantheon deserves a place among those of other scientific greats. Theory needs to explain past, present and future—and Darwin’s does all three in a form that requires no simplifying translation. His theory is readily accessible to any literate person who allots a pleasurable interlude for On the Origin of Species, its prose sometimes bordering on the poetic: “... from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
Most important, Darwin’s legacy has a direct bearing on how society makes public policy and even, at times, on how we choose to run our lives. Overfishing of mature adults selects for smaller fish (and higher prices at the supermarket), and excessive use of antibiotics leads, by natural selection, to drug resistance, all considerations for regulators and legislators. Many modern diseases—obesity, diabetes and autoimmune disorders—come about, in part, because of the mismatch between our genes and an environment that changes more quickly than human genomes can evolve. Understanding this disparity may help convince a patient to make a change in diet to better conform to the demands of a genetic heritage that leaves us unable to accommodate excess, refined carbohydrates and saturated fats from a steady intake of linguine alfredo and the like.
Biologist David Sloan Wilson initiated a program in evolutionary studies called EvoS at Binghamton University that extends beyond just the life sciences to encompass the humanities and the social sciences: the program is now being adopted at other schools. Students learn the basics, that evolution is both theory and fact and, crucially, that it serves as a way of looking at the world that provides deep predictive and explanatory power. They then proceed to use this analytical framework to explore subjects as diverse as cancer, pregnancy, mate choice, literature and religion.
One way to celebrate Darwin’s birthday is to contemplate how evolutionary studies can achieve broader adoption in secondary and higher education. Natural selection and the complementary idea of how genes, individuals and species change over time should be as much a part of developing critical thinking skills as deductive reasoning and the study of ethics.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Theory for Everyman".
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
186 Comments
Add CommentRomans 1:22
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProfessing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
The creationist/evolutionist debate is maddening. When I was about 9 years old I was given a Bible, and the books "The World of Science" and "The Sea Around Us". It didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that God created, and science explains creation. I am a Christian who absolutely believes in evolution. The creationists who sat down and dreamed up their theory, though they probably thought they were defending God (another absurd idea), actually did a huge disservice to Christianity. Most disappointing are the science savvy 'intellectuals' who say creationists got it wrong, so God could not be responsible for creation, even though they haven't the slightest clue as to the origion of the universe. In fact, I have yet to see any theory as plausable as a 9 year old's assesment after nearly 50 years, just a lot of stne throwing and name calling on both sides. Mike Lyyski
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh the classic mistake of making natural selection and evolution one and the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought only school children make that mistake.
Natural selection is observed every day, and always results in either: genes being destroyed, copied or deleted completely. no new information is ever made.
Evolution is random mutations generating new useful information. This has never been observed. sometimes deleting existing information is useful, but copying old information does not make it new. oh by the way deleting is devolution because once lost the gene can never be regained (exception for microbes which can share each others dna allowing them to pick up lost genes, but they themselves don't get it through evolution, they have to get it from another microbe that still has it.)
so, yes every one should learn about evolution and natural selection and know the difference, know that natural selection is observable and reproducible and therefore is real science. And that evolution is at best a hypothesis with very little supporting evidence, and is unfalsifiable therefore untestable as a working theory, and therefore it is not science.
Mike i'm glad you believe God made the universe, but he didn't use evolution to do it. Please refer to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/21/65/
for some excellent, scientific, answers. on creation.
"they" are the creationists, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm curious to know...How can anybody be so sure this "God" created the universe? How do you know this? How do you know anything at all about this "God?" Have you seen it? Spoken with it? Just curious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisxylyx3d said it best. Natural selection has been tested, observed and therefore scientific The problem with Darwinism and Christianity is that both are for how life began. And that cannot be tested to the degree of coming to a scientific conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWTF brings up another good point. How does one actually know? This God of creation can be interacted with, and cares deeply about His creation. This may destroy my credibility to be objective, but please understand this -
I believe God created the universe, and all the laws that govern it. We humans are His highest creation, and His most dangerous. We are created like God and make choices that impact more than just our immediate surroundings. Science is the means to discovering all these rules that keep the universe going, but science cannot answer all questions. It is like a 2D object trying to comprehend 3D space. It will never happen until that object enters 3D space.
Science has become the religion of many people, but it was never meant to serve as a means to explain everything. Religion and philosophy are equally important here.
Mike, I am in the same boat as you are, word for word. Just wanted to let you know there were like minded folks out here (and my brother is as well).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you are right concerning the word 'know' or any epistemological certainty about God, what I, and I imagine a number of people, mean is that we have faith. Do I 'know' God created the universe? No. Do I believe that God created the universe? Most assuredly, and this faith will never be shaken. I haven't always been a Christian, but was once an atheist. I came to find that this is an indefensible position, though, and retreated to agnosticism. It was from this point that God rapped on my skull with a stick and said, here I am. Do I believe in evolution? Yes. The big bang? Yes. These are the processes that God put in place to carry out his work. It would have been simple to make a ball of mud floating around the sun (or vice versa), but instead God chose to show us true wonder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can this debate even be happening? creationontheweb.com and creationwiki.org are so sad and thin. The creation argument is so weak as to blow my mind. I am sorry evolutionary biology takes more then 5 minutes to explain, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Just because YOU don't understand how an eye evolved from a creature that didn't have one does not mean scientist who study evolutionary specifics do not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you spent the same energy studying the history of the Church that you spend "proving evolution" wrong, I think you would have some serious doubts about you belief. Example: the story about throwing stones at the prostitute. Added to the bible in the middle ages. It was a margin note for about 20 years involving a local person as the intervener, then added to the main text as Jesus a few copies late. Look at the evolution of the Bible!
Bravo Mike, a kindred sentiment here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn general;
RM+NS (random mutation + natural selection) are interwoven.
Evolutionary Theory does NOT explain, or even pretend to, the Origin of Life itself.
For the article;
"...of the distortion of his ideas by the eugenics movement a century ago." It would be wise, and honest, to put an 'et al' in that sentence. And, one point of conjecture on that specifically, lest we forget the [entire] working Title of Darmin's book;
The Origin of Species-By Means of Natural Selection-or the-Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
That his Theory would, and by necessity would have to be, applied to Human "races" and ethnic groups, was and is a given.
Well the universe we directly perceive is feasibly very limited. We have no knowledge of anything outside of our youthful speculations. The scientific method is spectacularly important to progress in that it is defining reliable facts about how this universe works. To progress intellectually into the space age, we must mold ourselves and our world to be ready to recognize not what we each care to believe, but what you can demonstrate reliably. Our industries of both matter and information thrive in this analytical and creative process and have come as far as they have so quick because they have ascertained the nature of their task. Through the scientific method, I might add.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen science is involved, things get done. Why a person does what they do is an entirely different matter. Spirituality is necessary for a rewarding life. There is health and respect in morality and purpose; human emotion is ripe with noble concerns and cares. We judge, we have community; we work as a civilization we work as a world. There is a great joy in living; something undeniably beautiful in this existence we've been granted by a force yet inconceivable.
ISn't it the greatest sin to deny the gifts you've been given?
Can we not agree on moral fiber and yet be divided on how old the universe is. That's what this seems to be about. Evolutionary theory requires that the evolutionary process started some two billion years ago, and even the scientists recognize that they cannot ascertain how the first bacteria came into existence. There is even conceivable speculation that the first life on earth was actually extraterrestrial, that it landed with a meteorite.
The size of this place is literally unimaginable. It has not been just 6,000 years. It will not end until we let it/make it end.
Please don't let triflings sour your soul.
Just keep thinking...
It's called a post hoc fallacy, and it runs rampant in evolutionary biology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell the universe we directly perceive is feasibly very limited. We have no knowledge of anything outside of our youthful speculations. The scientific method is spectacularly important to progress in that it is defining reliable facts about how this universe works. To progress intellectually into the space age, we must mold ourselves and our world to be ready to recognize not what we each care to believe, but what you can demonstrate reliably. Our industries of both matter and information thrive in this analytical and creative process and have come as far as they have so quick because they have ascertained the nature of their task. Through the scientific method, I might add.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen science is involved, things get done. Why a person does what they do is an entirely different matter. Spirituality is necessary for a rewarding life. There is health and respect in morality and purpose; human emotion is ripe with noble concerns and cares. We judge, we have community; we work as a civilization we work as a world. There is a great joy in living; something undeniably beautiful in this existence we've been granted by a force yet inconceivable.
ISn't it the greatest sin to deny the gifts you've been given?
Can we not agree on moral fiber and yet be divided on how old the universe is. That's what this seems to be about. Evolutionary theory requires that the evolutionary process started some two billion years ago, and even the scientists recognize that they cannot ascertain how the first bacteria came into existence. There is even conceivable speculation that the first life on earth was actually extraterrestrial, that it landed with a meteorite.
The size of this place is literally unimaginable. It has not been just 6,000 years. It will not end until we let it/make it end.
Please don't let triflings sour your soul.
Just keep thinking...
mlyyski: "The creationist/evolutionist debate is maddening."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen let's start with terminology. In my years of working with scientists, I have never heard the word 'evolutionist'. Oh, it's in the dictionary, alright. But in my experience, usually those opposed to evolutionary theory on religious grounds use the term. One can be a physicist, because physics covers an entire branch of science. But when it gets down to individual theories, a word like 'evolutionist' carries as much currency as calling someone who endorses gravitational theory a 'gravitationalist'.
And let's maintain an accurate perspective: there never was a meaningful 'debate'. That the findings of science appear at times to conflict with certain religious beliefs is just a by-product of science 'doing what it does'. But it is not, and never was, the business or the intention of science either to prove or disprove these or any other beliefs. That creationism as a literalist minority fringe belief of Christianity feels threatened by evolutionary theory enough to attack it is hardly a confrontation which science itself has sought. So there is no 'debate'. But there clearly is a conflict caused by creationism's perception that it's beliefs are undermined by specific areas of science, and that these fields of science must therefore in their turn be vilified in an attempt to remove the perceived threat; sometimes to a shockingly vitriolic degree, as I myself have at times discovered.
What I reasonably object to about creationists' attempts to attack science is that they are illogically selective. The argument seems to go something like this:
Science which appears to undermine my Biblical literalist faith = bad.
Science which gives me various benefits, from Internet access to contemporary communications to medicine, up to and including Grandad's pacemaker = good.
As a warning to others, I have checked xylyx3d's link. Not only is it definitely not scientific, it is entirely scurrilous, and links Darwin's name to eugenics, Nazism and even the Holocaust. I have reported this to the site moderators.
The biggest problem with creationism is that it insults both God and science. The former, by supposing that we can find some proof of God's workings, and the latter, by even supposing there is something 'scientific' about the creationists contentions. God wants us to believe because we have faith, otherwise, the sky would simply split open and God would say, 'Here I am.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh yes, the old creationist argument about how random mutation cannot generate new information. It is quite simple and I am sure you have ignored this point before. Gene duplication can provide a redundant copy of a gene which is then allowed to freely mutate without doing harm to the organism. Please explain to me how that is not an example of new information?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution has been observed countless times and it a very successful and correct scientific theory. Every time you creationists start trying to prove otherwise with your half baked, canned responses you really come out looking poorly.
What is needed is a simple practical simulation that shows evolution working, involving random mutation and re-combining of genes showing how this can allow populations to adapt to a changing environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIdeally this should be something a 10 year old could understand and play with, and would be most powerful as a game. As someone got better at the game, the principles would become intuitive, even if they didn't believe evolution to start with, as they got better, they would directly see and "feel" it working.
"Spore" doesn't do that as far as I am aware.
What is needed is a simple practical simulation that shows evolution working, involving random mutation and re-combining of genes showing how this can allow populations to adapt to a changing environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIdeally this should be something a 10 year old could understand and play with, and would be most powerful as a game. As someone got better at the game, the principles would become intuitive, even if they didn't believe evolution to start with, as they got better, they would directly see and "feel" it working.
"Spore" doesn't do that as far as I am aware.
Is this a debate that rages around the world or just in America?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm from Canada, and so am pretty similar in many ways to Americans, but I can't think of a single person I know that still believes in Creationism. For Christ's sake the Catholic Church doesn't deny evolution anymore and it' attacked for being the most conservative institution in the world.
Until the last two years or so I had thought this an issue that was put to rest in the early 20th century and we had just been finding more and more corroborating evidence since then.
I am genuinely curious, is this a vocal, uneducated or deliberately misinformed minority? Or is it a larger more worrying movement indicating that the States is deliberately trying to mislead their population?
This is getting long but the more I think about it the less I can fathom. I can't even understand how Evolution, random mutation any of it conflicts with the idea of God, his plan, omnipotence or power. Learn about biology, chem, physics...anything and if you are secure in your belief; try not seeing God's hand there. Just try.
This question comes from that with the relative anonymity of the internet it is hard to tell if it solely Americans on one side(the legislative bits seem to come from there) and the rest of the world on the other. I am not trying to say all Americans are backwards, stupid or uneducated, there are clearly many Americans that are intelligent, cogent and can see logic, but there seem to be many that are not. And to you, truly American people, I fear for your country....and because of that mine.
No new material is ever produced? How do you explain the enzyme nylonase, an enzyme that breaks down a synthetic never before seen in nature compound?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor every deletion, something that happens during an unequal recombination or crossing over, a duplication occurs. When an individual has two copies of a gene, one is open to be tinkered with by random mutations while the original protein is still produced y the other copy. New material is then mutated or "created".
By the way nylonase has been observed to evolve in a protzoan in a lab. Evolution has been observed!
All humans have 5 genes for hemoglobin (I believe it beta hemoglobin), the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. One of these doesn't produce a working protein due to mutations. All humans have the same 5 genes and the messed up gene has the same mistakes. This is like two multiple choice tests being turned in with all the same wrong answers. The mutations or wrong answers have the same origin. A common ancestor if you will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists have no problem with this, all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, right?
The twist is that all great apes have 5 hemoglobin genes and the middle one has the same wrong answers. Hmm, I wonder what that might mean?
While natural selection has proved itself to be an observable process that occurs in our world, it CAN NOT explain how life came into existence in the first place. Natural selection, and evolution as we understand it today, are NOT the answer to where life came from. Both require the preexistence of life itself in order to function. So, yes, Darwin may indeed have stumbled upon something great. However, this theory is so often misapplied and misused in order to attempt to do away with the notion of Intelligent Design that it is a great shame such a scientific discovery has been distorted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit's nice that SA is kind enough to give us this well done web matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven a deleterious mutation can result in a benefit. Most mutations have a negative result but it is possible to result in an improvement. It is possible for a gene that is "broken" from a mutation to mutate (by the same mechanisms) back to its former state and not just in bacteria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists have created alternative forms of phosphorescent proteins of various colors and brightness, which are often the result of single point mutations. Simply put, they took the genes from jellyfish and allowed them to mutate in bacteria to create these new forms. I would say that brighter and different colors count as a gain of function, which you claim science has never managed to create.
Lucky for the religious that the bible tells them everything to think. You know how everything works "God does it" and if anyone challenges that belief "they are minions of the devil sent to lead me astray".
If what someone says is different from what you believe then you owe it to yourself to try to sort it out and learn all the facts. You will never know the strength of your faith until it is tested. Furthermore, you will never learn enough biology, genetics, or anything about natural selection or evolution by reading dogma riddled religious anti-science propaganda.
Evolution is common sense. Even if God created the universe, things have changed and will continue to change. If these creations where indeed made by a being of all-powerful intellect, they would be endowed with the ability to adapt to an ever-changing world... via natural selection and evolution.
The theory of evolution doesn't say who set things in motion, but merely explains how and why they move the way they do.
ProAdventurer: "The creation argument is so weak as to blow my mind"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've always thought of the mental discomfort brought on my such organized superstition as a decay of the mind :-(
What blows my mind is boundless knowledge that the pursuit of science offers :-)
One can learn a great deal about critical thought by studying creationism. Creationists seem to employ every fallacy in the book to try and prove their point. The fact that they are unaware of this, or of any of the real science behind evolution, one of the most studied and most accessible theories in all of science, only proves that they have no interest in knowing the truth. Their only goal is the propagation of their specific intellectual virus. They are simply vectors of the theist pathogen. The best way to inoculate against this particular virus is by teaching critical thought, logic and the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne could say the same for a person that "believes" in a government or a corporation, or in a fiat money-zero reserve banking economic model. All, without question figments of the mass imagination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, as I've said many times, todays "free-thinking liberal reformers" become tomorrows bloodthirsty iron fisted statists.
Where personal, ideological and cultural intolerance, visceral derision and Hate are concerned, the athiests of modern times have out-paced the "religious", and are widening their lead exponentially.
How will they fare once they claim the 'majority' and those with Spiritual inclinations get the protections of laws designed to protect minorities? Will some poor offended schoolgirl in one Alabama classroom then get all reference to there being no God removed from all public educational institutions?
You should look up the word 'Secular' sometime, and actually READ & COMPREHEND the CLEAR definition. Perhaps try to actually READ & COMPREHEND the Constitution too. Separation of Church and State, not separation of religion and society, and certainly not the power of the State abused AGAINST it.
I'm curious to know...How can anybody be so sure this "God"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscreated the universe? How do you know this? How do you know
anything at all about this "God?" Have you seen it? Spoken with it?
Just curious.
/ WTF?/
=====================..
Evolution, Physics, Probability & Consciousness.
======= =======.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was one
"single point " accidentally. (?)
Then it has accidentally blown up: Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands
kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally. (?)
Then complex atom was formed accidentally. (?)
Then stars were formed accidentally. (?)
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the fauna was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the man was created accidentally. (?)
And this man can accidentally think logically. (?)
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
===========.
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct : there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see at first, that electron does, it interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design,
which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
========.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
The one, who creates a general picture of Life, must consider
development of evolution of Life from atom up to the Man.
==============.
How the God created our terrestrial world?
======== ========
The God is unknown materialistic thing.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name " I am who I am ".
But in the Bible we can read that at first He took
a “clay” and made a figure of a man
and only after He gave him a “soul”.
How can we understand this scientific?
====== ========
1.
The “clay” is a proton.
2.
The “soul” is a quantum of light / electron.
3.
Interaction between proton and electron is created
simplest atom - atom of hydrogen.
4.
And atom is alive design.
The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes.
5.
After is created a complex atom.
6.
The evolution is continuing.
7.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he will turn into Man.
===========.
Evolution of consciousness.
It was a hot summer day.
In the zoo, near the cage of gorilla the gapers gathered.
They laughed and threw bits of fruits and bread into the cage.
And gorilla was twirling round in the narrow cage, not finding enough room for itself.
Our eyes met and I saw agonizing pain in the eyes of gorilla.
Its eyes were human ones.
I gazed at it in astonishment.
Then I transferred my glance on the people.
They laughed and their eyes were brutal, soulless.
Silently I observed this picture.
Ones, having learned to walk on two feet and speak using human voice,
preserved the ferocious hatred.
The others, in the skin of an animal, already possess the human origin.
Links of one chain, of one evolutional civilization.
======..=============
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
Conjecture hardly matters at this cusp. We, humans, are about to create life. We've already made synthetic DNA, and there is work now to make a novel organism. Right, Wrong, to our benefit or to our destruction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt that moment, when it is done, when we have created something new, that [arguably] mindless nature never intended, so much of this debate goes out the window.
The "could not have"s as to life on this planet, as it is, not being the product of another Intelligence, fall silent. There will only be "Could indeed have" against "we don't know for certain" unless and until time travel is made a reality, for us, and we manage somehow to witness the spontaneous generation of the First living thing upon this far-flung orb.
If and/or when the well educated and well funded scientists who search for other life on other worlds find the evidence they seek, or such life comes to us, (its existence by the principles of mathematical probability being reduced to near-certainty) there again and also, the "could not have"s are dealt another blow.
When we terraform another world, even when we endeavor to, it is proof-of-concept that our own world could have been similarly manipulated.
__________________________________________________________
socratus- Different variation on a theme. By recalculating the Day=1000 yrs hint and choosing from the available variables, one can as easily get back to the neighborhood of the Cambrian Explosion as they can finger-&-toe it back 6,000 +/- yrs. The "image of God" is energy, volition and essence, a walking Voice, a pillar of fire, in raw positive, negative and neutral aspect on this Dimensional Plane. Man was not made a golem of clay, but from The Dust... The animals and plants come also from and return to, Dust. They ARE Dust, to any comprehensible translation to nomadic tribesmen thousands of years ago. A recitation of genetic codes and mathematical equations would have been useless. Even now, it would likely remain as beyond our true grasp as Sacred Geometry, and without question it would be beyond our wisdom to hold such, Power, such Awe. The decryption of the Tetragrammaton itself.
One 'thing' that I find disappointing and almost scary is the fact that there exist so many neurotically naive adult non-brain-damaged "God-believers".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou find the 'God believers" scary in those respects?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you watched television, been outside in the real world, or on the internet in, say, the last 10-15 years?
More than plenty devout "non-believers" out there you wouldn't want near you, your wife or husband, children of either gender, your bank account, pension or identity, in your local, state or federal governments, in your or an enemy's military, your food, your medicine etc etc etc.
It seems to me, when comparing scientists with creationists, that the scientists have more faith. To a Christian it should be obvious that if God created people and equipped them with the ability to reason, it was in order for them to do so. Science in general and evolution theory in particular are some of the results of this. If this conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible, it is because that interpretation is false. If you trust God, then you have the courage to accept this as true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Creationists have chosen to believe in the Bible, rather than in God.
so you dismiss, the information out of hand without following sources simply because it does not fit in with your belief system? this is why we call you "evolutionists" that is some thing you people do quite often.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is not scientifically provable theory that disagrees with the bible. I challenge you to find one. Please note origins and evolution are not provable, only natural selection has ever been observed, a dog will always be a dog, no matter how many generations you count. All of creation is degrading not improving, the genome is no different.
You are correct "Darwinism" is linked to eugenics and Nazism, NOT Darwin himself. Both eugenics and Nazism use Darwinism as a justification for their actions. Darwin is not blamed on the website, quite the contrary they make it plane they are not linking Darwin to these 2 evils, only showing the evil ideas that may be propagated by "survival of the fittest" if applied to humans.
This also makes a point for creationism: if we are really just highly evolved microbes, why are we important? why should we value "less fit" individuals? According to Darwinism, eugenics, and Nazism we shouldn't. The reason we know those ideas are wrong is we are loving, caring beings created bye a loving caring God. Evolution is a theory of indifference, unimportance and irrelevance. Your act to condemn eugenics and Nazism is out of love, and respect for your fellow man. love and respect are not the teachings of evolution, theyr are the teachings of creationism.
remember Origins cannot be proven, believe what you will but i believe in a creator of love and mercy.
and don't bring up any nonsense of "why is there evil in the world if God is supposedly good." the answer is obvious, man brought sin into the world and subjugated the world to evil. this is all in genesis, the new testiment shows you to salvation from evil and also tells us how evil will finally be dealt with. Jesus is the answer, not Darwinism.
Why would any adult straight-thinking person trust "God"!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI 'agree' to the extent that I acknowledge that there may well be *some* religious people whose religious beliefs make them more than 'normally' reluctant to be rude and to rip other people off. ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisxylyx3d: "love and respect are not the teachings of evolution, theyr are the teachings of creationism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement is fallacious and facile. Love and respect are human qualities which are, or at least should be, common to all, and are certainly not the monopolised goods of one or the other belief system. It is ironic, then, that in my own debates with creationists, these two qualities have been singularly absent, and have instead been replaced with bigotry, narrow-mindedness, acerbic comments, and a belligerent disregard for reason. In the light of your closing comments to me I would go a step further than another comment posted here: you have replaced God with the Bible, and that is idolatry.
The hullballoo on this issue is uncalled for because both scientist and religionist looked upon the issue with bias. Look, science and religion are two side of the same coin. All are seeking for truth. But militant stance from both camps is making matters worse. There are things beyond the reach of science, for example the inherent indeterminacies of Quantum physics proved that not every thing science can explain (Just like the immateriality associated with religions). Besides long before the emergence of Darwinism God told a band of nomads in the Middle East that he created life from: Earthy elements, from water and the universe was born out of the Big Bang. We need deeper understanding of the scriptures and also do away with materialist thinking associated with science that is actually not scientific itself. I strongly believe that science and religion are friends rather than foes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists - the missing link that proves Darwin's theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is curious to note that the creationist movement is largely limited to The USA. Come to Europe or anywhere else and argue that God created the world in six days and you will find people's jaws sagging in disbelief. Most europeans, including religious ones, dropped creationist beliefs over a century ago and subscribe to scientific research results that religions evolved from simple ancestor worship in a world of spirits until it reached an impass in the nineteenth century. Science does not reject everything in religion, only the parts that cannot be demonstrated as true. Science has adopted the study of ethics to replace feodal religions such as creationism. Where did Jesus teach creationism anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow anyone can truly believe that evolution is 'blind' or left to chance, is beyond me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like for any darwinists to enlighten me as to how exactly a bug can 'mutate' a leaf on their back, to match other leaves in their area.
The amount of genes needed to mutate in the correct sequence, I imagine is many...
What is the feedback mechanism for that???
How did the bug 'know' that the leaf it finally mutated on its back, matched other leaves, and would now keep it safe????
I definitely understand not wanting to believe in a creator God, and Im definitely not saying 'God' did it....all I'm saying is that evolution suspisciously seems to know where its going, and that its definitely not 'blind'.
Heres a good example of what I mean....
Some may have read Dawkins' book 'The Blind watchmaker'. In one of the chapters he tries to prove random mutation by running random letters through a computer which 'mutates' the letters, to form a readable sentence. Basically every time it finds a wrong letter it throws it away. Every time it finds a right letter it keeps it. So, according to him, its basically mimicking natural selection, choosing whats best, and getting rid of the rest. And he claims that after only 30 or 40 iterations of his program, he went from totally randomized letters to getting this coherent sentence.
"methinks it is like a weasel"
What blows my mind, considering he's a pretty smart guy, is that he says it's a perfect illustration of evolution via random mutation/natural selection.
But its nothing of the sort!!!!!!
Its actually a brilliant example of intelligent design or guided/conscious evolution.
Cuz for the computer to be able to throw away the bad letters, it had to know what the good letters were!! It had an END GOAL that was pre-programmed into it. The random letters had a 'template' that they were mutating towards.
Sure the mutations were 'random', but the end result was predetermined by a 'higher' intelligence. (a la Dawkins selecting a Shakespeare sentence as the goal)
So what Im getting at is that forms can only 'randomly' evolve TOWARDS a SET DESIGN / GOAL.....randomness can never just PRODUCE designs of infinite complexity, without knowing that complexity beforehand.
Hence, guided evolution, or ID (ugh, hate that term) is the most likely answer.
Heres a site that proves that strictly random mutation can only bring extinction.....
www.randommutation.com
by showing that a coherent sentence can never be formed by random selection.
So my conclusion then....
Is that the universe's evolution has an END GOAL, that everything is evolving towards.
Whether that End Goal, was put there by a 'higher intelligence'/ 'God', is beyond answering.
But nonetheless....its like a fractal.
A fractal cant exist without an equation, and before that equation is entered, the shape of the fractal is known. Even though chaos rules the fractal, the shape in the end is the same.
The end is in the beginning, the alpha in the omega.
And its no coincedence that everything around us is fractal, and that the universe is fractal...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14200
http://www.fractaluniverse.org/
Just proves even more so, that there is
a strange attractor guiding the evolution of the universe.
Is that God? Who knows....who cares. All I know is evolution is DEFINITELY NOT BLIND!! Random, sure....but not blind.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about evolution. Abiogenesis explains the origins of life through natural means. Evolution cannot occur until life is already there to be acted upon by and react to its environment. It explains the diversity of life. It explains how life has changed in the past, is changing today, and how it can change in the future. Whether or not some supernatural entity created the first life form is irrelevant to the fact that evolution has occurred for as long as life has existed on this planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know that life has changed in the past. The fossil record shows us this. That evolution occurs is not debatable any more than whether gravity is still working or not. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the mechanisms involved, just as the Theories related to gravity explain the mechanisms and mathematics for how and why gravity occurs.
You don't "prove as fact" a scientific theory. You only affirm that explains all past and present observations and that its predictions for future observations are accurate. Should its predictions not prove accurate, then the theory must be modified to explain the new observations along with the past ones. To date the Theory of Evolution has explained all observations made before its formulation, and its predictions since then have been very accurate. Anyone claiming that "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" is sorely lacking in basic understanding of the scientific method.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about evolution. Abiogenesis explains the origins of life through natural means. Evolution cannot occur until life is already there to be affected by and react to its environment. It explains the diversity of life. It explains how life has changed in the past, is changing today, and how it can change in the future. Whether or not some supernatural entity created the first life form is irrelevant to the fact that evolution has occurred for as long as life has existed on this planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know that life has changed in the past. We know that common ancestry is a fact. The fossil record, genetics, and many varied scientific fields reveal this. The fact that evolution occurs is not debatable any more than whether gravity is still working. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the mechanisms involved, just as the theories related to gravity explain the mechanisms and mathematics for how gravity behaves.
You don't "prove as fact" a scientific theory. You only affirm that the theory explains all past and present observations and that its predictions for future observations are testable and accurate. Should its predictions not prove accurate, then the theory must be modified to explain the new observations along with the past ones. To date the Theory of Evolution has explained all observations made before its formulation, and its predictions since then have been very accurate. Anyone claiming that "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" is sorely lacking in basic understanding of the scientific method.
why would you argue with a creationist?looking at most of their comments, they seem to be the type of people that believe professional wrestling is real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas for those who believe that evolution could have been the method by which a "god" could have created man, can you talk some sense into the others?they make religiosity look like ignorance embodied
I for one wouldnt go anywhere and argue that everything was made in 6 24 hr standard earth-rotation days. That would be sort of absurd, and thats not something the text/tradition definitively anchors itself to. Many of those sorts of things I wouldn't argue which are open to different interpretations, that others have taken as bedrock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome traditions consider [the] Adam as a race of men rather than one individual Some Hebrew traditions speak of God removing Adam's tail, 'to honor him' ("Adam" didnt necessarily resemble a modern Western European homo sapien) There is Lilith and all the interpretive possibilities there. There are hints of earlier common civilization(s) from which all modern one's sprang. (We've just recognized a monolithic sacred structure in Turkey, Gobekli Tepe, which predates Stonehenge by some 6000 + years, effectively up-ending many of the established notions of the evolution of civilization in the past 11,000 yrs) The closest artistic depiction of an Angel as described in Ezekiel is found in the religious traditions of SE Asia (Hindu/multi-faced/multi-armed/multi-faceted/multi-purposed) NOT in the Greco-Roman traditions the Renaissance artists drew from.There is (and the 'greenies will love this) the murder of Abel which doesnt simply depict a jealous and vengeful sibling rivalry but speaks rather plainly to God favouring a peaceful and sustainable (hunter-gatherer) lifestyle in harmony with the natural ecosystem, over the (agrarian) manipulation/abuse of nature by Man. (And Cain went to Nod with his people and they became masters of architecture, warfare etc etc,,,Technology,,, and drew all into wickedness)
There is research that points to it being entirely possible for a human body to heal and sustain itself in peak shape, indefinitely. (living 900yrs or more is scientifically plausible). Brain research shows that there are latent and unfathomable capacities of the human mind, of which we use only a fraction, most of our synapses die off in our first three years of life, affixing to world that is, not the world that was or could be, the possible combinations of which are something in the Order of Magnitude of the number of fundamental particles in the Universe.
There is so much more, to discover and understand, so many possibilities that elude us. In our Past, as well as in our Future.
A Fractal is an apt description to my mind. The Mandelbrot set being a mere glimpse, a baby step, into understanding the whole of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn equation is a sentence, in one sense. In another sense, it forms the syllables of an unbroken,
Word,,,
Exactly!! people need to stop arguing about whether God did this or that or if the earth is 6000 or billions. Its not about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts about the UNDERLYING structure.
The Mandelbrot, IMO, is the abstraction of this. Infinity, producing form.
Without the infinite, there can be no form.
Thats 'God'. The infinite. Alll religions state this.....man has perverted that concept way beyond its intended meaning.
evolution is a fairytale
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fairytale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI ran across this article...I don't know much about evolution but I would like to debate someone who does. So evolution happens via mutations -- can someone show me an observed mutation, or mutations, that constructs a new bodily structure in any animal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, they can't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats the problem with evolution.
If you read my post, from a little earlier, I state an example from Dawkins Blind watchmaker (though he was using the example to show randomness) I used it to show that randomness can only 'mutate' TOWARDS something. A goal, if you will.
Meaning the 'forms' HAVE to exist beforehand.
Random mutations can NEVER just mutate new forms. Random mutations can ONLY ever bring extinction, when theres no 'form' to mutate towards.
Templates people!! Kinda like Rupert Sheldrakes proposed morphogenetic fields, I guess.
Blind/Random evolution, as you state, is a fairytale, taking unsurmountable faith to 'believe' in.
Not denying evolution. Just unguided, meaningless mutated evolution.
woundeddog2, go back to the cave. Darwin didn't claim to be a genius, but the mountain of evidence and the lack of any alternative, scientific theory has convinced virtually all successful scientists - and I define success here as advancing science, ie. producing meaningful research - that evolution explains the plethora of life. And if someone does explain this diversity of life, how it came about (but not how it started), doesn't that achievement make the person a genius?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can quote the Bible all you want, but you're too proud of yourself to realize the quote could've been used on you, and for far better reasons. You'll never produce the sort of result that Darwin and so many other atheist scientists have. Most of us would've been dead without the scientific progress of the last century and a half, and instead of being grateful, you choose to follow the writings of tribal men a few thousand years ago.
Evolution encompasses natural selection. If you think one has nothing to do with another, just go to wikipedia or something. For crying out loud, the dumb people even on sciam.com is disheartening to even cynics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSiV is confused, like most creationists that talk about evolution. Darwinism *is* natural selection and describes how life changes, *not* how it began. If any of you creationists out there want to learn something, try actually reading a book about what you're trying so hard to disprove. Evolution is a fact, and creationism belongs in the dust bin with flat earth and earth centered universe beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is truly sad that so many people
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) think creationism (and its stupid clone, intelligent design) qualify as science
b) demonstrate scientific illiteracy by arguing that evolution is not science
If the group that swallow creationism is large, we in the US are truly screwed in terms of a scientific future.
No whats truly sad that so many people
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) think random evolution is a fact
b) demonstrate mathematical illiteracy by arguing that evolution is blind/random
If people truly understood what it really takes for random evolution to work, they would know its impossible.
Im not saying God did it....Im just saying....I just see the inconsistencies that blind/random evolution is fraught with.
Also the REALLY sad thing, is that no matter how I put my views forth, I will always be viewed as a 'creationist' or christian fundamentalist.
Im neither. I dont even necessarily believe in a God, I just know my math, and random evolution, is mathematically impossible.
kk, evolution isn't random, mutations are. Evolution is directed by natural selection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes I know...sorry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what I mean are mutations aren't random.
They're working towards something
Can nobody see what I'm trying to get at??
The templates exist beforehand, the mutations mutate towards the templates.
Its math people. Not hard.
Its like a strange attractor guiding the evolution of the universe...
Much like the strange attractor that guides a lorenz butterfly, or any fractals for that matter.
In New Zealand too!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKK....I know exactly what you're talking about. Living organisms are self-correcting, self-adaptive, self-organizational entities. They differ in this way from say, rocks or doorknobs. Materialists, however, cannot see this. They don't believe in minds...they don't believe in intelligence...they don't believe in any sort of inate ability to learn or have the capacity to solve problems, especially on the cellular or molecular level. So it's for this reason that they will never understand that genomes are able to alter themselves in adaptive directions. Of course, their ignorance -- or rather blindness -- does not make or prove their position. The reality is that the individual organism has been blessed with a myriad of mechanisms that allow them to overcome biological hurdles, including altering their own genomes. Of course, this little detail completely destroys neo-darwinism and materialism, which is why you never read of this reality in the mainstream media. To do so, you have to see out individual scientists who are not afraid of taking on the system. You can find one such person who runs "JunkDNA.com" But the point is, don't let these guys get you down. They play dumb as a debate tool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, mutations are random, and there are no templates. It's not hard...if a mutation gives even a very tiny advantage, it survives better. Over time these changes add up. That's it. I think you're confusing yourself with fancy math terminology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think youre just blindly swallowing what youve been taught, no questions asked. Think for yourself a bit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissymmetric...you say...'over time those changes add up'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats precisely the problem I have with the theory.
Its mathematically impossible for all of this to have occured in the relatively short timespan of the universe, let alone the timespan of just the earth.
I could get into it, but you can research it for yourself if you truly are a truth seeker. Or you can just continue to have 'faith' in impossible situations, or better put....miracles. Which is not much different than than having faith in some outdated religion.
Im not being 'confused' by math. As you say....More like enlightened by math.
eco-steve New Zealand too! This God thing seems to be an American phenomenon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho became fools dog2, the creationists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, this gene mutates once in a common ancestor to humans and apes and never mutates ever again in the next million years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you wonder why creationists laugh at you.
A much more likely explanation is that the "mutated" gene actually serves a function that has not yet been discovered and is not a "mistake" at all.
kk, it sounds like you don't have a problem w/mutations, just the quantity of them needed? That's an easy answer too...think of parallel processing in a computer. When you have an entire planet full of organisms all mutating in parallel, and then mating with each other, you "only" need billions of years. When you think about it, with all the mutations, it would be more amazing if evolution didn't happen. And for those claiming it doesn't, they need show evidence for a mechanism capable of repairing so many mutations, as well as how that mechanism would "know" what the correct DNA sequence was. But, creationists don't do real science, they just try to tear down what they don't understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for being a "truth seeker"...if that's what you think you are, you can't start by having a fixed, unchangeable, dogmatic believe (i.e. religion) dictating what the "truth" is. Darwin is a great example of a true truth seeker, he was willing to buck the dogma of his day and look at what the evidence actually shows.
So tired of the pigeon-holes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFar as I am concerned, evolution happened and happens, and its done & does so in ways that we simply do not fully understand yet.
It does NOT speak to the Origin of Life and can't. Creation deals with that aspect, and arguably with the Purposes of it. Someone can be very much a "Creationist" and still very much be an "Evolutionist" at the same time, with no real conflict between those generic terms as they are flung about.
The two terms are related in their way, but dont actually involve the same issue.
People can be, and remain, OPEN MINDED where the UNKNOWNS are concerned.
A "creationist" that rejects evolution is by no means more woefully ignorant, inexcusably uninformed and useless distraction to reasoned discussion than an "evolutionist" who believes the theory actually covers everything, to the moment where Life began or where it will eventually end up.
Arthurdental, hello
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour statement~~~~ Most of us would've been dead without the scientific progress of the last century and a half, and instead of being grateful, you choose to follow the writings of tribal men a few thousand years ago.
ultimately we will all be dead-science may gain us a few yeas, just a matter of time- no scientist has given me eternal life--- and yes you are right- in many ways I am a fool
symmetric, you said....."as well as how that mechanism would "know" what the correct DNA "sequence was. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell yeah..thats exactly the problem I have too......that works both ways.
In my earlier example of leaf bugs. How did it "know" which genes to 'mutate' in order to create a matching leaf from the surrounding area. Whats the mechanism for 'knowing' when to stop, and that the leaf is a replica of leaves in the environment? It works both ways.
You also said...
"As for being a "truth seeker"...if that's what you think you are, you can't start by having a fixed, unchangeable, dogmatic believe (i.e. religion) dictating what the "truth" is."
I never once said I have fixed unchangeable dogmatic beliefs. In fact, the fact that they are changeable and mutable is what brought me into this conundrum in the first place.
I was willing to take a look at flaws in evolutionary theory. I was willing to accept different ideas as to how evolution may occur. Unlike some.
Either youre creationist and you take scripture as truth.
Or youre an evolutionist and take natural selection/random mutation as truth.
My ground is right in the middle. I see gaping flaws in random selection/mutation, and even more gaping flaws in the bible
too.
But somewhere down the middle exists the truth.
I dont believe in a God, but I do believe in underlying structure and unity to reality. That may be dogmatic to you, but its whats most logical to me.
What Im trying to get at is that evolution is a part of this structure, and forms are built into the structure.
We can only take certain forms, in PHI ratio growth patterns, because the 'code' only permits a certain amount of freedom. The rest is predetermined.
Eactly like a fractal.
And Im sure you are aware that most everything in reality, including the structure of the cosmos, is a fractal.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14200
http://www.fractaluniverse.org/
"I don't know much about evolution but I would like to debate someone who does."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat would be a fruitless and pointless debate. You wouldn't be able to make any points whatsoever except for "I don't understand it so I can't understand it!" You'd only be able to admit your own ignorance on the subject, and as such you shouldn't be in a debate out it.
That actually sums up the opposition to evolution. They don't understand it, don't want to understand it, and since they can't understand it, they refuse to accept it.
One plus two equals three, but hey feel free to doubt it if you really don't want to take the time to understand basic arithmetic.
Good questions. I would also like to know something more. If God created the universe it follows that he/she/it must have existed before the creation. Where do creationists think God existed and where do they think he came from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskk: "all I'm saying is that evolution suspisciously seems to know where its going, and that its definitely not 'blind'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust like water 'suspiciously' seems to know where to go; gravity provides the whole explanation. In evolution theory the proposed mechanism is natural selection: lots of small mutation occur, but most are weeded out. There is no scientific need to see a purpose in this.
Pirwzy: "Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about evolution. Abiogenesis explains the origins of life through natural means. Evolution cannot occur until life is already there to be affected by and react to its environment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe process of natural selection is only this: In a system of interacting, complex elements, some will survive and others won't. The word "Survive" does not presume the existence of life, it only means that the structural integrity is preserved over and interval of time. Interaction can be anything - two rocks colliding are interacting.
So it makes good sense to talk about evolution even in systems that contain no life; or perhaps we should think about extending the concept of life somewhat to include non-cellular life?
Why Everyone Should Learn the Theory of Evolution: because it has become the new CREDO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisproadventurer ...I'm glad to see someone making a reasoned comment on this subject....my examinations support your position....how does the whole 'faith' thing stand the falsifiability dilemma....just curious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisproadventurer....thanks for your reasoned input.....my examinations support your position....how does the 'faith' position pass the falsifiability test?.....just curious....my experience is that faith can neither be debated nor logically discoursed since it can always resort to a belief system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIgnorance of evolution, and information, is really amazing among the scientific illiterate. Creationsists believe scientists are mistaken - and even thought most are perhaps Christian, believe they are out to destroy God and religion with an untested theory (which is a guess to them). It's like those in the 15th and 16th centuries thinking that the earth must be at the center of the universe, and of course the Sun revolves around the Earth. To believe otherwise was to them unscientific and anti-Christain. Present day anti-evolutionists deny facts and evidence, claim that there is none, and rest secure in their version of religion. Sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So it makes good sense to talk about evolution even in systems that contain no life; or perhaps we should think about extending the concept of life somewhat to include non-cellular life?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you start talking about evolution outside of the realm of living things, you aren't talking about biological evolution anymore, which is what Darwin wrote about and is what this article is referring to. Biological evolution is what applies to the diversity of life. Chemical evolution is not the same thing and does not involve the same mechanics. Abiogenesis is not the same thing and does not involve the same mechanics.
You cannot blur these lines. Biological evolution involves change in gene frequencies due to natural selection acting upon genetic variation. If you don't have genes, you can't have biological evolution.
Think about it long enough, and no other explaination makes reasonable sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Just like water 'suspiciously' seems to know where to go; gravity provides the whole explanation. There is no scientific need to see a purpose in this."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust cuz I said it seems to know where its going doesnt mean Im implying purpose. Or meaning.
Just that the end goal is predetermined beforehand.
Retrocausality probably.
To water, gravity is the guide. To evolution, a strange attractor is the guide.
(chaos theory anyone?)
Thats what Im getting at. Evolution towards a goal/shape.
Like a massive fractal. And like a fractal, its predetermined to an extent.
You enter an equation into a computer and you get the mandelbrot set.
The edges are infinite in shapes and complexity, yet the WHOLE structure takes the same shape everytime.
Thats what I mean by predetermined.
The system has some degree of freedom, but the overall structure in the end is always the same.
And the mandelbrot cannot come into existence without infinity.
Photons represent infinity, cause they are timeless. They experience no time/all time at the same time. They exist in the future and past.
They are omnipotent. Without photons, nothing would exist.
Just like the mandelbrot.
See what Im trying to get at?
IMO photons fit the best description of most religous definitions of 'God'
Please dont think of me as a creationist/believer, Im more of an agnostic, trying to make sense of stuff. Trying to see it from both sides.
//Natural selection is observed every day, and always results in either: genes being destroyed, copied or deleted completely. no new information is ever made.//
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey xylyx3d -- Google "gene duplication" and check back later.
//Ah the classic mistake of making natural selection and evolution one and the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought only school children make that mistake.
Natural selection is observed every day, and always results in either: genes being destroyed, copied or deleted completely. no new information is ever made.//
Hey xylyx3d -- Google "gene duplication" and check back later!
Here is something so many overlook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no cosmos+us, there is the cosmos and we are very much an aspect of it.
In even the greatest of balances, a grain of sand tips the scale:
The fact that We exist, that Life exists, in itself proves that the cosmos is capable of Sentience and Self-Awareness, of abstract thought and altruism. It exhibits a self-determining Will, the power of Choice.
We are not merely 'observers' or 'passengers' or an 'accident'. We are the Free Radicals of the Universe.
It thinks, therefore it is.
Any theory or equation that denies or fails to account for and incorporate that variable, will fall short of the mark.
kk said: "In my earlier example of leaf bugs. How did it "know" which genes to 'mutate' in order to create a matching leaf from the surrounding area."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's the whole point, evolution doesn't need to know. A tiny mutation might cause a small change in a bug's color or texture. If this change makes it easier for birds to see, it gets eaten. If it makes it harder, it lives longer and has offspring, which propagates that mutation. Repeat a few thousand times and you get a bug that looks like a leaf. But there was never a goal of looking like the leaf, and in any case, the leaf is evolving too.
On the other hand, if evolution weren't true, the DNA of a species would need to remain substantially unchanged. Something would need to "know" what the DNA was supposed to be. There is no evidence of such a mechanism, so DNA must change over time, and evolution *must* occur.
kk, "...Retrocausality...strange attractor...chaos theory...massive fractal...mandelbrot set..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are way over thinking this...regardless of whether any of these concepts are involved in evolution or not, they are not required to understand it.
For mutations, consider the humble apple tree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo plant one of the seeds from that Golden Delicious in your back yard. You have something like a 1/10,000 +/- chance of getting anything but cider apples.
Every variety of edible apple you get today, every tree that produces them, came from grafts & cuttings from the original tree that was discovered producing that particular genetically mutated fruit. It doesn't faithfully reproduce.
And I would add for the example;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn that 1/10,000 +/-chance, that is only to get one offspring that bears some type of edible fruit (by that I mean palatable/pleasing, not merely 'digestable'). The chances of getting the 'same' mutation, as in another Golden Delicious tree, are way beyond even that. I don't think its ever been documented happening.
"To evolution, a strange attractor is the guide."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution has no guide. The present environment acts through natural selection on the present gene pool, resulting in changes in the frequency of genes in the descendant generations. The process is continuous.
There is no guide leading anywhere. There are no goals. Evolution isn't a means of achieving something a species wants in a multi-generational sense, it's the result of genetic variation within species living in dynamic changing environments generation after generation.
"Retrocausality...strange attractor...chaos theory...massive fractal...mandelbrot set..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are way over thinking this..."
Agreed.....I dont really need to be thinking of all this to comprehend the view of evolution as being random mutations. But Im only thinking of all this because of the gaping mathematical flaws in believing that said randomness can create life.
"regardless of whether any of these concepts are involved in evolution or not, they are not required to understand it."
Well sure...if you dont want the FULL picture, then youre correct in saying that. Cause what we have, suffices.
Its kinda like Newton explaining gravity. He explained it, but gave no why/how.
His explanations sufficed until we needed to know more, and came up with Quantum gravity, and string theory, etc etc.
Same thing here.
Thats what my books gonna be all about.
Hopefully others will see merit in my work.
"There is no guide leading anywhere. There are no goals. Evolution isn't a means of achieving something a species wants"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats precisely what I can prove is not the case. Get my book when it comes out. Or not....Either way. :)
Like most radical ideas of their time though, it will probably be ridiculed, and disregarded. But whatever. If it is as robust as I think it is....it should stand the test of time. And become a remembered theory after Im gone and dead.
"But Im only thinking of all this because of the gaping mathematical flaws in believing that said randomness can create life."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThus you show that you honestly do not understand what evolution is. Evolution has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the origins of life. Zilch. If you want to argue against naturals origins of life, stop talking about evolution and start learning about Abiogenesis.
And instead of trying to pretend you have a book coming out that we should all run out a purchase that will supposedly answer all of our questions and enlighten our lives, just make those points here that you are so convinced will debunk the theory. Otherwise you're just littering the internet.
Sorry for littering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYoure right, Ive been wasting my life for 4 years writing this pretend book.
What was I thinking.
And in order to show you my theory, it would require a post of at least 10-20 pages. That would be littering.
and sorry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe gaping mathematical flaws in evolution. Both the abiogenesis part and the constant evolution part. There are major flaws with both.
Ha !!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm reading along here and something flashy animation catches my eye to the right,,,
It just so happens to be an advertisement for dianetics, bloody scientology gibberish, rubbish and lunacy.
Its all about the money, boys......
That evolution happens is beyond question. If some folks out there WANT TO BELIEVE, as the poster of an UFO behind Mulder's desk in "X Files" used to read is their problem. I have no problem with that. The thing is that quite often they want others to believe. Why? I don't really understand but I think that's quite a scientific curiosity to study and, no doubt, time will come when the answer is reached.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, sure there's no evolution/creationist debate. For that a minimum level of reasoning would be required and you cannot have that with the people that want to believe. “Believe” and “preference” are no part of science, maybe a subject of study but they are no part of the methods. We cannot change people predilection for strawberries or bananas, we cannot change (and have no interest in it) people preferences for the way they want to live, as long as they don’t interfere with other’s people decisions, including their own children’s.
If the discussion about evolution and creationism is relevant is because some of the “believers” cannot withstand that others don’t believe. The reason for this is unclear to me but they do. They want that at least their children believe, maybe because they fear that their caring and loving god would not save them from hell if they die too young to realize that that almighty god wants us, simply humans, to worship him. So, they don’t teach them to be good, but to worship the lord and they are scared when at school children are taught about evolution. Although teaching evolution and science in general have not the purpose to turn people into atheist, it is certainly truth that it contributes to, as a side effect of making people reasoning. So, if people do understand sciences and evolution, it is quite probable they would become atheist or at least agnostics; if they don’t understand or their loving for the supernatural is strong enough they would stay as believers. Parents should let their children choose if they want to believe or not, when they are old enough to decide, and should let school present them what the school has to: reproducible, tested knowledge, history and societal rules. After all, “salvation” should be a matter of choice not of ignorance.
There is no point in arguing about evolution if the other part simply wants to believe, if they find some comfort in the supernatural explanation and the hope that there’s something more that can´t be proved. I only ask them to let people make their own, informed choice, even their children.
It seems, KK, that one of your attacks on the concept of evolution is that, in your mind, it has 'direction' or is somehow goal-oriented and therefore was the tool of a creator. You constantly refer to the "why?" question, as if there needs to be purpose underlying a particular outcome, the absence of an apparent motive interpreted as proof that evolution is not demonstrated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has frequently been pointed out that evolution is a process that unfolds. Most of the random mutations don't survive -- only those most-and best-fitted to their environment will survive and prosper. That is the evolutionary process. It doesn't create life and it has never been claimed to create life, as well you know. It simply explains how it has developed and speciated. Again, I think you know that but the creationist creed can not allow evolution because it has taken millions of years and it is a fundamental religious proposition of creationists that the world is only a few thousand years old. Any evidence to the contrary is unacceptable. That's why this debate is taking place.
spidey, youre right, it would be interesting to study why.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut it does work both ways.
For all the believers who push their view that 'God did it'
You've got the non-believers who push their view that 'chance' did it.
Just as I think Im right in this whole fractal/chaos idea.
Buddy over here thinks he's right with his bible story.
And buddy over there thinks he is right with his random/chance theory.
Humans just love to want to be right.
And youre right....the reason for that should be studied.
"... and it is a fundamental religious proposition of creationists that the world is only a few thousand years old..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisprima facie, rubbish.
It just keeps spiraling back down to the same talking points and spin. It IS more like a political campaign than a reasoned discussion, and that some players on any given side are guilty of it, is beyond refute.
When you lump things in little boxes, you end up in a little box yourself.
"it has 'direction' or is somehow goal-oriented and therefore was the tool of a creator."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never once implied a creator. That's your assumption based on my premise, Im guessing. If you read all my posts I constantly say, 'im not saying God did it' " I dont even believe in a God' etc etc..
What Im really getting at is that its all one system which we are embedded, and which consciousness is the base, also being the drive of evolution (not humans, but sentient beings, even bacteria)
sigh....I dont even know what Im getting at anymore...lol
Who really cares anyway.
"... when they are old enough to decide, and should let school present them what the school has to: reproducible, tested knowledge, history and societal rules..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood point.
'That which is not repeatable is not Science', as the saying goes
Reproduce the Origin of life and civilization on this planet. Repeat this Universe...
This is a problem, especially in public schools on impressionable minds. Pretending as if the unknown is known, pretending that what is uncertain is certain. It is an abuse of trust, an abuse of authority, and an abuse of Science.
"... a truth thats told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent..." --William Blake, from Augeries of Innocence
kk said: "Its kinda like Newton explaining gravity. He explained it, but gave no why/how. His explanations sufficed until we needed to know more, and came up with Quantum gravity, and string theory, etc etc. Same thing here. Thats what my books gonna be all about. Hopefully others will see merit in my work."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep in mind that the modern theories you mention are refinements and incorporate the older theories. They usually try to explain details that the original theories didn't cover, not overturn them completely. If you think you can overturn all of the science behind evolution, I would suggest you understand it first, especially if you're writing a book about it! You could start by reading Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". It's long, but not difficult to understand. It's quite amazing he figured this out 150 odd years ago, before genetics and other modern evidence of evolution existed!
"Keep in mind that the modern theories you mention are refinements and incorporate the older theories. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats exactly what my theory will do too.
I'm not denying that evolution occurs at all. I know it does.
Its proven, in my books anyways..
But my theory will refine it further....and try to better understand/explain the mechanism.
And Ive read Origin of Species, thanks. Who hasn't?
"The gaping mathematical flaws in evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you claim there are more than one, and that they are gaping, give one example.
nah, I think Im done here... Its an exercise in futility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as its hard to explain string theory without math.
So it is for me. To get my point across PROPERLY would require too many pages, and time.
The gaping flaws are the ones you can find anywhere on the web.
I dont need to state them, as theyre that obvious.
If you guys were true seekers you would also be well aware of these flaws.
Because you would be questioning Darwinism. But sadly, you dont.
Many an ID (I hear you laughing now, lol) book exposes these flaws.
Look up information theory. And for petes sake, do it with an open mind.
A mind willing to question.
A mind willing to accept other options.
"Darwinism" is an invented term. It's used when creationist debaters want to cast a dogmatic pall on those who accept evolution. The term makes it sound like anyone who accepts evolution must be doing so because they have some dogmatic view that whatever Darwin said must be true because Darwin said it. That is not the case. I'm not a "Darwinist" because I'm not going to blindly accept everything Darwin ever said as true simply because he's the one saying it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI accept evolution because all of the evidence (yes, all of it) supports it. It doesn't matter to me who says something in science. What matters to me is whether or not the evidence supports it. I've seen creationists misunderstand and distort the theory in trying to make arguments against evolution, and all of these arguments have long been debunked. If you really think you have genuine scientific evidence that refutes biological evolution by natural selection, then every scientist in the world would love to hear it. You'd easily win the Nobel Prize.
You've made the claim that you know of evidence that refutes it, yet refuse to go into detail. You've made the claim that you've devoted years to some book, yet I haven't seen one word from you mentioning the title, publisher, or supposed release date of this book. I doubt it even exists.
And now when asked to provide one small example, you decide it's time to leave. Really, not a surprise.
And by the way, Information Theory has nothing to do with biological evolution. If you think it does, please enlighten us as to how.
EB, you are right. We cannot reproduce universe but rest assured, in no more than fifty years (that's my guess) we will do reproduce life. We're quite close, with a bit of luck (what does not make me a believer but someone who thinks in probabilistic terms), in no more than 20 years. What would do believers will do then? FYI, a “viable” virus has been synthesized. Certainly not a new one and certainly a virus is not alive but that put us very close, and of course we’re quite beyond that now. The universe? Well, a reasonable person as yourself should clearly see that with our current knowledge that’s not possible. But in 500 hundred years? I really can’t imagine what humanity will know (We surely do know what 1500 used to believe and you should agree that a reasonable person would not believe those things anymore…). By the way, evolution can be seen, there are several documented cases… And sure, we should not try to impress young people; we should not try to make them believe anything before they are old enough to make their choice. Choice is the key.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’m not French, but a song that illustrates the point of believing is that of téléphone: “Je rêvais d'une autre terre - qui resterait un mystère - une terre moins terre à terre…"
kk. If the things you say can be proven, science will acknowledge, no doubt in that. Chaos has taught us things about predictability and similarity, but I don’t see any cause in it. If you’re a scientist, you will appreciate the critics, when your book is out, that would improve your theory or prove you wrong, hopefully before we all leave…
kk-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't be disheartened by the nonsense in forums like this. Many of these are more like some pseudo-fraternity than a group of open minded critical thinkers. Reciprocally congradulatory nincompoops, just enough gray matter to consider themselves and their relativist, meaninglessness-in-motion worldview(s) infallible.
Work on your book for as long as you need. Keep the mind open and keep not overlooking the obvious.
Spidey-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I spoke to the near-certainty that we are, inter alia, on the verge of creating new life forms several posts back, and what that does to some of the repititious & rhetorical arguments that keep popping up on this very subject.
Personally, I've also made it quite clear that I accept evolution, for what it is and what it explains. I just also happen to hold that there is a lot more going on than just that, and that there is a reason for it, that it all matters in the grand scheme of things.
This is the most pathetic series of declarations I have ever read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you don't understand how something works does not automatically imply magic.
Natural selection is what makes evolution happen. They are not two different concepts.
Both natural selection and evolution are well proven theories, unlike your "god".
These are some of the most pathetic series of declarations I have ever read. Just because you don't understand how something works does not automatically imply magic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural selection is what makes evolution happen. They are not two different concepts.
Both natural selection and evolution are well proven theories, unlike your "god".
I think that one of the most obvious points here about science and religion relates to what mcrumph said: "...and this faith will never be shaken." A true scientist would be forced to admit the existence of God should any evidence ever appear. The religious would never admit the nonexistence of God. Evidence and proof are irrelevant to faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany religious folk have attempted to use science to create half baked proofs (irreducible complexity) which have quickly been debunked because they are not attempts to prove the existence of God using scientific means, they are an attempt to give believers more ammo to use in argument.
My question is: if religious folk base their belief on faith not evidence, how can any one religion deny the truth of another religion? Based on precedent mcrumph could write another bible. God knocked on his skull and announced his presence after all.
I think that one of the most obvious points here about science and religion relates to what mcrumph said: "...and this faith will never be shaken." A true scientist would be forced to admit the existence of God should any evidence ever appear. The religious would never admit the nonexistence of God. Evidence and proof are irrelevant to faith, and in most cases, so is science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany religious folk have attempted to use science to create half baked proofs (irreducible complexity) which have quickly been debunked because they are not attempts to prove the existence of God using scientific means, they are an attempt to give believers more ammo to use in argument.
My question is: if religious folk base their belief on faith not evidence, how can any one religion deny the truth of another religion? Based on precedent mcrumph could write another bible. God knocked on his skull and announced His presence after all.
"Both natural selection and evolution are well proven theories, unlike your "god"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf youre addressing me....I never once mentioned that God was responsible.
Just that Ive got a better theory than what is currently proposed.
xxxx
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo explaination other than that God created the universe makes any sense. Did the universe just 'happen'? When did it happen? What was there before the universe? And on and on that our current level of scientific knowledge only has tenuous possible ideas about, if any. Science shouldn't claim or reject anything without proof. You may say, "How can one prove God exists?" (from a science perspective) We may not be smart enough to ever figure that out, but just because we can't doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural selection means weeding out those organisms that are no longer able to compete. If there is only natural selection, things must have been pretty crowded in the past. The vast majority of all creatures who lived on earth have died out. I've seen numbers around 99.9% for those who have died out. If only natural selection was at work, at some point in the past there would have been hundreds of times as many creatures jambed together on this little planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat evolution has shown is that when species die out, other species adapt to fill the gap left in the ecosystem. Changes in the enviornment, climate, natural selection, and evolution have worked together to shape life on earth as it now exists.
Many creationists see God's creation as a static, one time thing. In fact creation is dynamic, constantly changing and recycling. The Hubble telescope has shown us infant solar systems, where ours was billions of years ago, and supernovas, the death throws of a solar system, but the creation of the elements for new solar systems like ours.
"Just that Ive got a better theory than what is currently proposed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen please share it.
But this is the whole point isn't it? Science looks for hard answers. Scientists come up with a theory work with it and change/update it as more info becomes available. The idea is not that science has answered all questions about the origins of the universe. This is the ongoing quest for knowledge and discovery that religion discounts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou aren't interested in another potential answer you already have one that suits your needs. In fact some of your compatriots are opening museums showing people riding dinosaurs!? Ridiculous! Science is on a quest for understanding that evolves with time. No one ever said all questions are answered. Natural selection however is a fact.
"Then please share it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI already said it would take multiple pages to properly explain, but basically it shows that everything is a system within a system, which all rely on each other to exist. (we kinda already know that with ecosystems, but I go further)
Every part of that system has some effect on other parts. Evolution via natural selection is a part of that system. But when you look at it from the whole......natural selection isnt needed because the system provides the framework.
Thats the gist....the rest is math, and pretty complicated, yet elegant.
I already said.....fractals people. If you dont wanna go out there and research fractals and chaos, then stop asking me to post my theory.
Because without an understanding of both these concepts you'll probably fail to see what Im getting at.
And I mean a thorough understanding, not a highschool level of understanding.
Again....God is not needed....but neither is random selection.
Its guided selection. (kinda contradictory, cuz guided means intelligence/foresight, but after reading the book, youll totally get what Im saying.)
The only part of my theory that is left to question is,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the fractal running on a computer??
Who entered the orginal equation?? (I can hear em all saying now....obviously GOD!)
But whatever.....just as the theory of evolution cant answer the origin of life.
Mine cant answer the origin of the universe.
kk said: "Again....God is not needed....but neither is random selection. Its guided selection.".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I, and probably others, don't believe you is you keep making the same basic mistake regarding evolution. Evolution isn't random, it's guided by natural selection. Given that, I doubt you understand fractals and chaos theory either.
Ok, symmetric, whatever you say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no understanding whatsoever in the subject that I majored in for 3 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, when I say guided evolution, Im not referring to guided by natural selection. Which is a trial and error system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIm saying guided in the sense that the mutation occurs, and is correct from the start.
But you could be right, in that I dont understand evolution at all?
Its a possibility.....highly improbable one, but still a possibility.
actually symmetric, youre right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dont understand evolution!
Back to the drawing board....Fwaaaack!! lol
I apologize for wasting everyones time here....sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA higher life-form isn't a bloody Turing Machine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRandomness and chance are part of the system. Life itself, the animating force, is a type of controlled/constrained chaos.
EB - I wonder if we share a similar idea?? Sounds like you kinda get what I was trying to get at this whole time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskk- Perhaps so, in ways. Different approaches but with the same nagging feelings driving it. Converging towards some similar conclusions from the look of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm no walking abacus by any stretch of the imagination (lol). I was the kid in Math class who drifted off in other thoughts. Eventually contemplating it all long enough to realize there is no such thing as a true '1'. It can't actually exist in this paradigm. Fundamentally flawed, a relative approximation at-best, that measures reality imperfectly, because reality isn't 'whole', at any given moment. When you divide a Singularity into infinities, the math doesn't reverse. "1" is irretrievable.
That aside, I have always spent a great deal of time researching and thinking along these subjects, though more from mostly a philosophical perspective. Many angles, exoteric and esoteric, many connections. One epiphany to the next.
I would enjoy reading your book, I believe.
Well the debate between evolution and creationism is a sign of the society and thinking of the people discussing it. In reality what the problem beneath it is, is the difference between scientific methodology and religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDogmas (coming from God) can not be questioned or changed. Their interpretation from humans can not be wrong either ,since that would question all the teachings of a religion, so no discussion can be accepted in the strict sense. Only a "prophet" can make a change having a "direct" link to the divine. (See the reform brought between old and new testament, in essence achieved through God himself on earth. Religion must be taken as whole or it bears the danger of being discredited in every reform. (Even the Vatican accepted finally after several centuries! that the earth is ROUND).
If people were taught critical thinking and scientific methodology in a non fanatical way most would be able to make a correct decision disregarding false logic arguments or unacceptable data. Schools should teach thought and make scientific problem solving a priority. When that is achieved evolution (with its mistakes and truths) will probably have to be accepted by creationists as they accept (hopefully) that the shape of the earth is not flat, even if it might take a few centuries to achieve this. (No pun intended)
Addendum: I do believe in the existence of God and view science as another way to get closer to him/her/it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI tend to believe that an open rather than a close mind helps me in that process and that science is a rather "safe" way of testing assumptions about nature if they are true.
For creationists evolution should not be a threat.It should rather be a welcome addition and a proof that such a beautiful way of "progress" in nature, which took humans over a 1000 years to understand through its observation, could only have been conceived by a God.
"Again....God is not needed....but neither is random selection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts guided selection. (kinda contradictory, because guided means intelligence/foresight, but after reading the book, you'll totally get what I'm saying.)"
Natural selection is not guided (meaning it's not goal-oriented in a multi-generational sense), but it's not random either. Given which beneficial and/or detrimental mutations (and just about regardless of which neutral ones) a member of a population has, it is either more or less likely to survive to reproduce. That's statistical, not random. The way in which the variety comes about may be random, via mutations, but the mechanism for whether that mutation benefits an organism is decidedly not.
Now given that the large majority of mutations are neutral, there may come a time later on when the environment changes in such a way that that mutation actually amounts to a benefit. Such is the case with mutations that exists in the gene pools of viruses and such. When vaccines and other treatments came along those members of the population with a mutation that made them resistant to the vaccine survive, making that mutation a decidedly beneficial one.
The genetic ability to resist medical treatment doesn't just poof into existence after the treatment is formulated as a reactive action, it's in the gene pool already as a neutral mutation. Being neutral before, it was just floating around the population (similar to how the genes for eye color or hairy backs just float around the human gene pool, not giving anyone any different odds of survival but still making us a more varied population). Once the treatment is present in the environment, then those with the mutation for resistance will survive and those without will not, thus ensuring that future generations of the disease will just about all be resistant to that particular treatment, making the treatment less effective. This is a basic and well-understood concept in the field of medicine.
Now, that mutation wasn't pre-planned for that treatment. It wasn't a preparatory mutation that the population thought would be useful to keep around the gene pool just in case it might be useful later. It came about randomly, was neutral to survival, and thus wasn't selected for or against by natural selection until the environment changed.
You seem to be misunderstanding natural selection, thinking that if it's not random then it must be guided. That's not the case. It's neither. Really the closest I can think of in a mathematical sense is that it's statistical.
"The only part of my theory that is left to question is,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the fractal running on a computer??
Who entered the orginal equation?? (I can hear em all saying now....obviously GOD!)
But whatever.....just as the theory of evolution cant answer the origin of life.
Mine cant answer the origin of the universe."
Evolution isn't intended to ever answer that question, though.
kk:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are talking about the mathematical structure of the universe and it is obvious that its there. If we could sample all the information in the universe in one time frame and give it to a computer capable of processing that information we would mathematically be able to simulate the future of the universe with the exception of the computer itself (or it will go into a recursive loop forever). It doesn't matter if we sample at the "beginning" of the universe or not, the comprehensible deterministic mathematical universe, which is everything we could ever possibly observe and exist as parts in as proven by structure itself, would give us this mathematical formula by comparing two of those samples. (universe in this case means absolutely everything, multi universes or not)
On these levels case and effect are as clear as ever and the reason for why atoms "happens" to arrange in a specific order is the same as why the leafbug mutate towards matching leafs from the surroundings. Or should we say HOW instead of the meaningless "why"? The situation on all levels down to the smallest possible result in the following expressions and continual of the universe foreach sample. Of course it is determinable, but only with all key variables which for us today are A BIT out of reach. The best theories explaining the situation with the atom as with the still not as evolved theory of evolution are not finished nor even close to exact, however they are as of yet the best and do their job fine in (as for now) explaining somewhat how things happen.
As for the bug, it could just have gone extinct as probably a lot other such species did but their existence are their own prof of that they according to the universes continual "happened to" had specimens with mutation that gave them a higher rate of survival and as a consequence became more fertile. As every such mutation that gave the bug a slightly higher fertility the bugs population gradually over time increased the density of those mutations in its gene pool and as time passed by it evolved into something more fitting considering it's environment.
As you can see, it is already predetermined in the local environment which also is predetermined based on global environments up till the scale of the entire universe. However that still doesn't change a thing and as of still the logics and the math add up.
But if you have found some ways of incorporate better mathematics into the theory of evolution and by so making it better by all means please do! Maturer theory = more and better math connectity
kk:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are talking about the mathematical structure of the universe and it is obvious that its there. If we could sample all the information in the universe in one time frame and give it to a computer capable of processing that information we would mathematically be able to simulate the future of the universe with the exception of the computer itself (or it will go into a recursive loop forever). It doesn't matter if we sample at the "beginning" of the universe or not, the comprehensible deterministic mathematical universe, which is everything we could ever possibly observe and exist as parts in as proven by structure itself, would give us this mathematical formula by comparing two of those samples. (universe in this case means absolutely everything, multi universes or not)
On these levels case and effect are as clear as ever and the reason for why atoms "happens" to arrange in a specific order is the same as why the leafbug mutate towards matching leafs from the surroundings. Or should we say HOW instead of the meaningless "why"? The situation on all levels down to the smallest possible result in the following expressions and continual of the universe foreach sample. Of course it is determinable, but only with all key variables which for us today are A BIT out of reach. The best theories explaining the situation with the atom as with the still not as evolved theory of evolution are not finished nor even close to exact, however they are as of yet the best and do their job fine in (as for now) explaining somewhat how things happen.
As for the bug, it could just have gone extinct as probably a lot other such species did but their existence are their own prof of that they according to the universes continual "happened to" had specimens with mutation that gave them a higher rate of survival and as a consequence became more fertile. As every such mutation that gave the bug a slightly higher fertility the bugs population gradually over time increased the density of those mutations in its gene pool and as time passed by it evolved into something more fitting considering it's environment.
As you can see, it is already predetermined in the local environment which also is predetermined based on global environments up till the scale of the entire universe. However that still doesn't change a thing and as of still the logics and the math add up.
But if you have found some ways of incorporate better mathematics into the theory of evolution and by so making it better by all means please do! Maturer theory = more and better math connectivity
TiXiR-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have a fundamental flaw in that series of statements. As long as anything, anywhere has the power of Choice, a Will of its own (even to make a 'mistake') there is more than one possible outcome.
Your hypethesis only works in an utterly lifeless Universe, that absolutely does not exist, and could never produce an observer, much less a computer.
You are assuming it to be a flaw because you also assume that a free will indescribable by any mathematical based science exist. I am talking about the mathematical universe in which we have the potential to describe everything by mathematics in "the end". And such a universe would fallow the same rules as mathematics and thus be calculable and thereby be deterministic. However it is also arguable if free will could be defined in the concept of multi verses as the path a conscious entity travels among one possible scenario of all possible scenarios existing simultaneous and thereby have a useful definition for the concept of free will within a mathematical foundation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA deterministic universe don't have to be less alive than some other imaginable universe. As a "observer" from the inside you can never observe the evolving pattern of yourself as with the example with the recursive loop in the computer below. Also any information that the computer would have processed about your future and given to you would have changed your future and thereby made the before exact prediction wrong as the variables outside of the calculation changed.
Free will may or may not exist depending on definition. I would say we have a illusion of free will as we will always be a part of the universe and cannot be completely impartial, but it helps to think of the universe without such a notion as free will when working with materialistic science.
TiXiX-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo build a computer, to program it, to define all the parameters and determine all the variables, is in itself an act of free will. To want to know and understand, is an act and function of free will.
Material, doesn't exhibit curiosity or concern.
:)
Free will is a very magical illusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course we have free will in our daily lives....but really when you statistically look at closer......like in what we do and how we do it...
we notice patterns
again......fractal patterns.
Like Zipfs law.
Which shows that any book or article will show a distribution of smaller words to larger words to produce a pattern.
Every article compared with any book will produce this pattern.
Why?? Surely we have free will in writing an articale and it should truly be a random thing....cuz who knows what were gonna say when we say it.
But again.....patterns. That emerge by themselves....and when looked at, kinda 'disprove' free will, and tip the scales in favor of predeterminism.
Another example is the populations of cities. These follow Zipf's law, with a few very populous cities, falling off to very numerous cities with a small population. Like the words....a pattern emerges.
A final example is the income of companies. Once again the ranked incomes follow Zipf's law, with competition pressures limiting the range of incomes available to most companies and determining the few most successful ones. Producing the SAME pattern as the words in a book, or populations, or many other things.
Its ALL fractal.
INCLUDING EVOLUTION
But like I stated earlier...the system allows for a certain amount of freedom. Freedom in evolution, emerging as free will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike the mandelbrot, the outer shape is the same everytime...but the edges are infinite, complex and beautiful.
Sound familiar?
Yeah...life is infinite and complex and beautiful.
Hmmmm....are we the infinite edges to a predetermined fractal set?
Actually, the Mandelbrot repeats a similar form, a pattern of sorts. But, it never repeats itself faithfully. You never reach the "same" point again. Each manifestation is an approximation, though strikingly similar, it is a distortion, unique unto itself, and is reached by way of a unique pathway. Every step is a result of a butterfly effect, that introduces another butterfly effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks are deceiving, as is perception.
Everything on the Mandelbrot, or in any similar fractal, "happens" along the infinite bordeline between Law and Chaos. Neither, alone, are enough to make, or explain, a Reality.
I totally agree with proadventurer when they say that "evolutionary biology takes more than 5 minutes to explain". Myself, with a BS in biology, minor in chemistry, and copious hours spent studying in-depth books on current evolutionary evidence, I am overwhelmed by the amount of information and evidence available supporting evolution. This is not a light debate, nor one for those who wish to remain at a surface level scientifically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are a Christian who is happy believing God created all, without the benefit of this self-correcting system called evolution, that's okay. Just don't try to use scientific arguments when you don't have a scientific understanding! If your faith runs contrary to what you see around you, as in the case of evolution, then choose one or the other. Or blend them, as did mlyyski. But let's keep this in the intellectual arena, where it belongs.
"Actually, the Mandelbrot repeats a similar form, a pattern of sorts. But, it never repeats itself faithfully. You never reach the "same" point again"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou missed what i was getting at.
I know the edges are similar but never the same, and infinite.
When I talk about evolution or reality, Im saying everything coulda happened a million different ways and Yet...
Just like the mandelbrots outer shape takes that of a `buddha`everytime.
The basic laws of the universe would remain.
Thats where the `predeterminism`comes in.
The edges are allowed freedom. Just like evolution, and reality.
But stuff like Phi ratio of growth, and constants can NEVER change because they are part of the `black`area of the mandelbrot. The infinitie`s.
Phi is infinite, so is Pi.
Thats what Im talking about.
I know, that really has nothing to do with this topic, but in a way it does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my book I tie it together nicely, I think.
Because without the infinites, things in reality couldnt take shape.
The platonic solids are all based on Phi ratios, and atoms + molecules seem to love platonic shapes.
We wonder how molecules could have come together randomly to create life, but when youve got base `shapes`built into the mathematical code of reality, miracles arent necessary because the infinities are guiding the shaping. In a simple sense.
kk- No, I didnt miss, exactly. I get what you are saying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anything, I failed to express my point properly. I did not mean to be cryptic.
The 'fractal' as a concept may indeed be the cosmological model. Any given fractal that we have as-yet stumbled upon, such as the Mandelbrot or the Julia, may not bear much resemblance at all to a proper analogical [fractal] model of Reality. They are hints.
The 'right' one would, indeed must, exhibit all the behaviors we can observe as well as those we have not yet comprehended. It would have to give more than 'infinity' more than simple possibility. The heavens and the earth and you and I and everything that was and might be would have to appear on the plane, it would have to exhibit 'this' symmetry. Complex by orders of magnitude or another infinite variable.
What I am getting at, is that the fractals we have are woefully inadequate and our understanding of them is limited. While they are useful hints to our curiosity and developing understanding, they might be quite misleading at the same time. In the right model, there may be dead ends, paths open to obliteration or stasis. There may be symmetries that manifest in time/scale across all possibilities at once, of similar duration, and their like never occur again. There may be exact manifestations, not infinitely numerous, but a singular entity occuring in infinite possibilities at once.. The "right" one may be beyond merely elegant and reaveal pure, Awe. The Divine.
``Everything on the Mandelbrot, or in any similar fractal, "happens" along the infinite bordeline between Law and Chaos. Neither, alone, are enough to make, or explain, a Reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut it is.....
Law exist in the universe and the chaos takes shape according to those laws. Without the laws the chaos wouldnt take order.
Molecules wouldnt form to specific ratios, and life couldnt begin.
What Im saying is that if we travelled to another part of the universe and found life, it would most likely grow in Phi ratio growth patterns, and take similar fractal features as life here on earth.
Because thats part of the fractal that never changes. Just like the black part of the mandelbrot. The infinity shapes the chaos.
Infinity shapes us.
This is what I think `spiritual experiences`are all about. When we shut down our senses our pure awareness kinda self-refers in on iteself, and causes a neurological fractal feedback loop which subjectively feels like infinity, or infinite awareness, or pure heaven.
A probably unanswerable question is....
Whether this feature of human experience is just an evolutionary quirck to get people to stop commiting suicide in hopes of heavenly realms.
Or if it is in fact a way to `touch`God, per se....and feel what the infinite. feels like. Either way, the scientific answer is a neruological feedback loop, causing an electrical storm in your brain. Like if you point a video camera at a TV, you`ll see all sorts of beautiful fractals...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj9pbs-jjis&feature=related
But just because its a storm in your brain....doesnt make it meaningless....au contraire, you give it the meaning.....people that have an experience usually remark it as being the most life changing, profound experience one can ever have.
``The 'right' one would, indeed must, exhibit all the behaviors we can observe as well as those we have not yet comprehended`
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you plot the madelbrot set in 3d and travel inside it, you find tons of scenes of , mountian ranges, canyons, faces, spacey realms, alien animal shapes etc....
But youre right....its only glimpses of the shapes of reality....not reality itself.
We need to find exactly what equation produced the universe
I imagine thats an incomprehendable job for us mere mortals. hehe :)
kk-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...We need to find exactly what equation produced the universe
I imagine thats an incomprehendable job for us mere mortals. hehe :)"
What I have found amazing, personally, are the long traditions that focus on exactly such things. From Buddhist mandalas, to the Golden Mean (Phi), sacred geometry and divine ratios, the geography of alphabets as with the Tetragrammaton (the 'Name' of God) which some believe is the Torah, letter-for-letter, each Hebrew letter also represents a number, (lot of interessting work on that out there, mainly in the Qabalah end of the spectrum which is apparently far more math-centric) etc etc.
I think we are mentally and physically 'attuned' to it on some level. It would stand to reason. Borrowing from US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stevens 'I'll know it when I see it', lol. And, as a wise man once said, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within you". I think we are capable of influencing it, or at least moving along it of our own volition.
To say we are bound to the parameters of an infinite pattern is an act of self-limitation I think.
TiXiH-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt escaped me the other day as I went in another direction, so I neglected to mention it. You should look into the Heisenburg Uncertanty Principle.
We CAN'T get an accurate measurement of, everything. It seems Quantum Physics won't allow it.
Ah, Fractals... They are never the same.... Anyone realize that this argument is just another fractal being realized? And remember - different fractals work in different time frames -- some being nanoseconds long, while others work in billions of years. I'm convinced this universe is just another fractal (or piece of one). After all, aren't fractals representatives of a next one above them? It never ends, friends - nor should it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, Fractals... They are never the same.... Anyone realize that this argument is just another fractal being realized? And remember - different fractals work in different time frames -- some being nanoseconds long, while others work in billions of years. I'm convinced this universe is just another fractal (or piece of one). After all, aren't fractals representatives of a next one above them? It never ends, friends - nor should it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat issue! Few things are more important at this time in history, it seems to me, than for religious people from many different traditions to embrace an evidential, science-based worldview. My wife, Connie Barlow, an acclaimed science writer, and I (a former pastor) have been traveling North America for 7 years, sharing with liberal and conservative audiences of all ages how a mainstream scientific understanding of evolution can be experienced as deeply meaningful and inspiring - for religious people as well as non-religious (and even anti-religious) people. My book, "Thank God for Evolution" (Viking: 2008), has been endorsed by 5 Nobel Prize-winning scientists as well as by religious leaders across the theological spectrum. The first 50 pages can be downloaded for free as a pdf from my website: http://ThankGodforEvolution.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFYI...What follows are a few key pages from my TGFE website:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRESPONSE FROM NOBEL LAUREATES AND OTHER ESTEEMED SCIENTISTS
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1460
RESPONSE FROM RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND CONGREGANTS
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1532
CREATIONIST CONFUSION: EVOLUTION AS MEANINGFUL, INSPIRING FACT
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1520
FOR THE NON-RELIGIOUS AND ANTI-RELIGIOUS
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1531
FOR THE RELIGIOUS (ACROSS THE THEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM)
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1529
Evolution is just a big lie! God created the earth in 6 24hour days. not through evolution or any different way like the gap theory. read the Bible! its full of the TRUTH, which evolution obviously is not. God is like a painter. the earth is His painting. If i would say that a certain painting was made by the wind which blew the colors on the canvas, you wouldn't believe me. But if i said someone painted it you would. So why wouldn't you believe that God created the earth! instead of some stupid fake theory which says that no0body (or the wind) created it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWilly, what do you think the theory of evolution says?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Darwin’s genius—and, yes, genius is the right word—is manifest in the way his theory of evolution can tie together disparate biological facts into a single unifying framework."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStudent: "Why are snails so slow?"
Teacher: "Mutations and natural selection."
Student: "Then why are cheetahs so fast?"
Teacher: "Mutations and natural selection."
Student: "Why do crows have so little color?"
Teacher: "Mutations and natural selection."
Student: "Then why are peacocks so colorful?"
Teacher: "Mutations and natural selection."
Student: "Why are ants so small and so giraffes tall? Stop. Let me guess- Mutations and natural selection."
Teacher: "Now you're beginning to understand why Darwin’s genius—and, yes, genius is the right word—is manifest in the way his theory of evolution can tie together disparate biological facts into a single unifying framework."
Student: "Wow, I can't wait to hear why some people are altruistic and some aren't. I'll bet natural selection can even explain evolution and stasis in the same sentence."
www.charlesdarwin.org
Willy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I admire your sincerity, many sincere theists believe that since God created the sun on the 4th day, the days of Genesis are anything but solar days. Why not simply say, "Even assuming evolution to be true, Creation Preceded Evolution." If evolution (in the sense of an unfolding of all life forms through time) is really true, all it does is point back to the Origin of Everything (as in "In the Beginning God created ..." or "Let there be light.").
Arguing for a young earth when Genesis 1 is open to other interpretations may place unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of people who are justifiably convinced that God's Book of Creation (i.e. the universe) is older than many think. Look at it this way, if young earth creationists are wrong are only 6 orders of magnitude off the mark. Those who either believe or want to believe that the universe has always existed are infinitely off the mark.
In the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 10, verse 6: Jesus said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this6 but from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
DARBY
6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.
ASV
6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman.
CEV
6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
ESV
6 ��� �� ��Ƿ� �Ĺõ�� ��õ� ��� ���� �����õ� ��Ŀ�� � ����
Newberry Interlinear
6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.'
ISV
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
KJV
6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
NAB
6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
NASB95
6 But when God made the world, he made them male and female.
NCV
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
NKJV
6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
NRSV
6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
RSV
6 but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;
YLT
willy, it seems to have slipped your attention that you are on a science site. Coming with a proclamation such as "Evolution is just a big lie!" might pass muster on a creationist website, but here you must expect to put out more. You need to come with alternative theories and hypotheses rather than bald statements of unsupportable religious conviction and florid metaphors about the wind and painting. And typing the word 'truth' in capital letters does not necessarily make it more true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it hard to believe that creationists actually read Scientific American so I'm just wondering; how do they turn up on this comments section? Are they being sent in droves from creationist websites? Was there an angry sermon about SciAm on Sunday delivered somewhere? Do they actually lurk this website purely to swoop down with bible quotes every time evolution is mentioned? Any of these answers is a little sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's look scientifically one moment at God. 'God created man in his own image'. Yet Idolatry forbids us to 'form any image of God'! Such fundamental contradictions make it impossible for scientists to accept the truth of scripture. Science too has its contradictions, but does not pretend to be based on an absolute prophetic truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve, you just made no sense. Science is about the natural world. Gods are by definition supernatural. Science had nothing whatsoever to do with gods. Gods are not natural phenomena. They cannot be tested empirically. They cannot be falsified. They cannot be studied scientifically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"'God created man in his own image'. Yet Idolatry forbids us to 'form any image of God'! Such fundamental contradictions make it impossible for scientists to accept the truth of scripture."
^ That was not a scientific look at a god. That was garble.
evilutionists are still forgeting it is only a theory
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT A FACT IT NEVER WAS A FACT IT WAS ONLY EVER A THEORY AND WTF ARE THE CHANCES OF THIS RANDOMLY HAPINING i leave you to think about that
sean this is a debate website we argue i ask you were else would they argye there case to all of you on there website no so they come to you....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscestus41, before you frenziedly hit caps lock to scream out your unsupported proclamations, I suggest you take a little time to learn what the definition of a scientific theory actually involves. Or did you just assume that it has the same meaning as the word 'theory' in everyday use?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCestus, in science a theory is above facts. Facts are just observations. Observations by themselves don't explain how the natural world works. Theories explain all observations (meaning all facts) related to a particular area of the natural world. For example Atomic Theory is called a scientific theory because it explains the observations at the atomic level. Atomic Theory will always be called a scientific theory. The theory doesn't change into a fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember that in science facts are just observations and theories explains all of the observations of a particular area of the natural world. In actuality, theories are much more powerful in science than a fact is.
Theories provide science with understanding of how the natural world works. Theories allow scientists to make (testable) predictions about future observations and move science towards answering as-yet unanswered questions about the natural world.
When science calls something a scientific theory, it has to explain and be supported by all past observations, and it has to make testable predictions about future observations. Atomic Theory does this and so does the Theory of Evolution.
Pirwzy-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually,,, "Theories" are fundamentally different from facts in another way, which you gloss over.
Facts are immutable whereas Theories, even the 'best' & most beloved one's, are ALWAYS subject to change, as new Facts & understandings become available. Facts can run counter to or even disprove a Theory, NO [legitimate] theory can run counter to or disprove facts.
Beyond that, I believe there are many who who would disagree with you as to theories being "above" facts in Science. You venture a little too far afield with a statment like that.
EB, you aren't understanding what I'm saying. A fact is just an observation, nothing more. Theories are what tie them together. I already said that a theory must explain and be supported by all past observations, so I wasn't glossing over anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFacts are also NOT immutable. Facts, being observations, can be proven incorrect. Observations can be misinterpreted, misconstrued, and even faked. However, due to the way the scientific community works such facts are weeded out and exposed when other scientists attempt to recreate the experiments to see if they get the same results.
Observations by themselves cannot explain the natural world. Facts must be tied together with theory in order to make testable predictions about future observations and to really explain the natural world and how it works. Without scientific theory in which to apply them, facts are useless.
If we descended from monkeys and apes, how come we still have monkeys and apes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of evolution assumes that nothing created everything! A scientific impossibility. There is not a single evolutionary fossil. To believe in evolution sure requires a lot of faith.
Check out the web site PullThePlugOnAtheism.com.
mlyyski, how can a Christian believe in Evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsk yourself, did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?
Were Adam and Eve the first people on earth? The scripture that sin entered the world through one man means what if Adam and Eve were in a long line of people evolved from a glob? Also, when did sin enter into the world? There's no question that it's in the world.
Is God powerful enough to create the Universe but not strong enough to do it all at once?
There are many scientists who see evolution as a hoax, but the scientific community is banded together to stand against a belief in a Creator. Those who have publicly announced their belief in a Creator have been terminated from their employment or cut off from the community.
Science for the most part is closed minded and will not explore their hypotheses as they were trained to do. Evolution is still a theory begging for proof...and none have been found. Darwin said that if his theory could not be proven by finding progressive fossils then it should be abandoned.
The only reason the theory is still thriving today is man's attempt to explain away God as our Creator. The Bible says that "a fool says in his heart there is no God".
Lincoln,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution doesn't rely on belief to achieve validity. The evidence supports it, and that is what gives it its validity as a scientific theory.
"Also, when did sin enter into the world? There's no question that it's in the world."
"Sin" is a subjective human concept. It also varies culturally. It is not a force of nature nor is it empirically measurable or testable. Sin is not a matter of science.
"Evolution is still a theory begging for proof...and none have been found."
None has been found only if you ignore all research done by molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, and many other fields of biological research. If you think there is no evidence for it then you must be willfully ignoring it, as easy as it is to find and learn about these days.
You also seem to have the very common misunderstanding of the difference between the definition of "theory" in common speech compared to its definition to science. They are very different. In science a theory is a well-supported explanation for a set of observations of the natural world. Theories in science have to be supported by all of the evidence, which the theory of evolution is. Theories in science need to be able to make testable hypotheses about future observations, which the theory of evolution does.
In science, "theory" does not mean a guess or hunch.
"Darwin said that if his theory could not be proven by finding progressive fossils then it should be abandoned."
Fortunately for the theory, all scientific evidence found since has supported it, including thousands of fossils showing the major events such as the evolution from lobe-finned fish to tetrapods, or the evolution of whales from ancient small land mammals. These changes have been well-documented in the fossil record.
"The only reason the theory is still thriving today is man's attempt to explain away God as our Creator."
Wrong. The theory of evolution simply explains scientifically how life on this planet has become as diverse as it is. It explains the relationship between heredity, genetic variation, and natural selection.
If you find that the theory of evolution gives you pause about your personal beliefs in something supernatural, then that is an entirely separate and personal problem with you and your beliefs, not a problem with the theory of evolution.
"If we descended from monkeys and apes, how come we still have monkeys and apes?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, we didn't evolve from monkeys and apes. Modern apes, humans, and monkeys share a common ancestor that was neither ape, human, nor monkey.
"The theory of evolution assumes that nothing created everything! A scientific impossibility."
You have a serious misunderstand of what the theory of biological evolution states. Only the creation myth says that things are created out of nothing.
"There is not a single evolutionary fossil. To believe in evolution sure requires a lot of faith."
You need to educate yourself on the fossil record. Here are some names you can start with:
Whale evolution fossils we have: Pakicetid, Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, Protocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Squalodon, Cetotherium
A good start on learning about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cetaceans
Tetrapod Evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod#Evolution
There are a plethora of books on the subject, find a scientific one and you might be shocked at what you've kept yourself ignorant of.
Should everyone learn the theory of evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. Everyone should have the opportunity to learn it, but required – no.
The theory is important for anyone who is a biologist or anthropologist and for anyone who is intellectually curious about the world we live in. You don't need a formal course in it to understand or appreciate it. Understanding natural selection is not like trying to understand the theory of relativity or quantum physics. You can watch Nova on TV or read SA or Wikipedia and understand it.
Not everyone is intellectually curious the way people who are interested in science are. You can be totally lacking in intellectual curiosity and become President of the United States: George Bush showed us that. I know a man I used to work with who believed the world was 6000 years old. I told him how ridiculous his idea was, but it really didn't seem to effect the way he worked or lived. One can work and live and be perfectly happy and not believe in the theory of evolution.
Interesting proposition
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat if you are not intellectually curious you should not be required to learn a subject because (if you are interested) it can be learnt from tv or a book or from the internet. (for reasonably simple subjects)
Where do you stop?
You could use the same argument for any subject.
Why should you be taught any, because you can learn any from the same sources if you are interested.?
Just history repeating itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe middle east had developed mathematics, astronomy and other science branches way ahead the of the rest of the world. Then Islamism happened, quickly expanded, then the middle east went on decline.
The states, once cultural, scientific and economic leader of the world. Now overrun by Evangelists, and on cultural, economic and scientific decline.
Your society reached it's peak, do something quick, or Lousiana Maids will soon be serving the coffee for Asians and Latin Americans.
Seriously, I once considered the option of going to the States and get a masters degree, but now, a degree from the states holds no value, it's a pity, anyway. I'll end my rant now.
Bye, and condolences
Sure, you can be uneducated and lack intellectual curiosity and still become president of the United States. But I think that George Bush proved that doing so is not really a good idea. He did a bad job because of a lot of jumping to conclusions, ignoring little details he called "nuances," and going with gut insticnt whenever he had gaps in his intelligence networks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo maybe we should be teaching things like Evolution and other theories. If not for the sake of learning them alone, then for the greater good of generating intellectual curiosity where it might fall flat.
Faultline
Well spoken, remind me again who had better grades in college:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAl "Global Warming" Gore or W
John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry or W
I admit he was not the greatest of public speakers, that has little to do with his intelligence. They said the same thing about Reagan.
Faultline, you my friend are drinking the kool aid, just want to know what flavor.
Everyone should learn the theory of evolution. They should also learn that it can be improved. The theory of evolution does a poor job of explaining human evolution, consciousness, language, migration and many other important requirements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisD J Wray
http://www.atotalawareness.com
"God isn't required to create the home-grown universe or its inhabitants"
Very nice article, Editors. I'm starting to believe, I think in evolution. I just watched your attempts to honor this man evolve into a bunch of horse shit. (Honor to horseshit = mAcroevolution. You should be thrilled.) He did not prove evolution. (just having an idea proves nothing) and it has not been proven even 140 some odd years later. Give it up, people. You really make yourselves look stupid, and I know you're not. Concentrate on curing cancer in children, or better treating patients with Alzheimer's. Let God worry about His "natural selection".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight, because you guys are sooo smart, right? And you certainly have all the answers. The only problem is that you CAN'T PROVE ANY OF IT. You can only theorize.......... Wow, I am blessed by God to have found this website that is just full of people who know it all. Shall we pray?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPutting aside all of the rhetoric and arguments for evolution or against evolution, all we really have to consider, is the evidence. It is critically important to look objectively and rationally ONLY at the evidence, and not interpret the evidence based on cultural moral values, but rather based on further evidence, in order to come to a logical, rational conclusion. So what about the evidence? The mechanism for change, meaning - morphological change and speciation via natural selection has been supported through countless studies and experiments conducted by countless biologists, ecologists, microbiologists, palaeontologists, anthropologists, geneticist’s, etc. Unfortunately, in our polarized society, it is no longer a question about the evidence, but rather a question about coming to terms with our true origins, regardless of how unflattering and humbling our origins may be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the biggest problems is that Evolutionists are believers to. Nowadays we have the Natural Selection exclusivity, and that is why the evidence of a form of design can't bee explained just by chance. The answer request not GOD but SEX. Sexual Selection is the actor that gives the sensation of design that no one wants to see. For more details please visit my blog here: http://nature-sucks.blogspot.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe phrase "not even wrong" springs to mind. Random mutations occur quite regularly - well documented in research literature. Occasionally, some random mutation conveys an evolutionary (or sexually selective) advantage - if sufficiently advantageous it will eventually dominate, i.e. drive to extinction the unadapted trait.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStephen Gould argued these episodes tended to occur nearly instantly (on geologic time scales) and called this "punctuated equilibrium." A handy, recent and easily observed example is that the vast majority of African elephants no longer grow significant tusks. Until humans with rifles showed up, tusks conveyed a significant survival advantage & dominated (perhaps non-tusked variants would have become extinct at some point). Since that time, lack of tusks conveyed a significant survival advantage, so that trait, in only a century & change has become dominant.
Достижения наук о жизни с позиции иерархической термодинамики
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisИсследования возникновения жизни, ее эволюции и развития организмов опираются на следующие положения и экспериментально обоснованные утверждения.
1. Изучение жизни, как явления, существенно упрощается, если рассматривать процессы в живых системах с позиции структурообразования, приводящего к появлению хорошо известных иерархических систем, которые возникают вследствие цепной конденсации структур каждой низшей иерархии с образованием структур высших иерархий.
2. Выявлен закон временных´ (temporal) иерархий, утверждающий существование несоизмеримости времен жизни (времен разделенных сильными знаками неравенства) иерархических структур, существующих в живом мире.
Закон временных иерархий дает возможность использовать методы квазиравновесной термодинамики (термодинамики систем близких к равновесию) и в линейном приближении проводить термодинамические исследования в каждой индивидуальной иерархии, а также во взаимодействующих (смежных) иерархиях.
3. Сформулирован принцип стабильности вещества. Суть принципа состоит в том, что каждая «элементарная» частица или структура любой иерархии (атом, молекула, органелла, клетка, организм, популяция и т.д.) имеет потенциально термодинамически ограниченную возможность одновременно участвовать в контактах с подобными структурами своей иерархии и структурами смежных иерархий. Если рассмотреть молекулярную (химическую) и супрамолекулярную иерархии, то можно утверждать, что чем более стабильны внутримолекулярные химические связи в молекулах, тем менее стабильны супрамолекулярные связи между этими молекулами. И наоборот: чем менее стабильны внутримолекулярные химические связи в молекулах, тем более стабильны супрамолекулярные связи между этими молекулами. Принцип справедлив для структур всех смежных иерархических уровней. Он устанавливает динамические связи (контакты) между иерархиями и определяет обмен веществ в живых системах.
4. Иерархическая термодинамика позволяет изучать возникновение жизни, определение которой можно давать с различных позиций. Однако общим в определениях жизни является появление супрамолекулярных и других высших иерархических структур. Одно из таких определений гласит: “Жизнь - явление существования пространственно выделенных обновляющихся полииерархических структур, образующихся при участии физических сил и полей в круговороте лабильного химического вещества в присутствии жидкой воды на планете”.
Георгий Гладышев
профессор физической химии, Российская академия наук
academy@creatacad.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisИерархическая термодинамика изучает явление жизни
Исследования возникновения жизни, ее эволюции и развития организмов опираются на следующие положения и экспериментально обоснованные утверждения.
1. Изучение жизни, как явления, существенно упрощается, если рассматривать процессы в живых системах с позиции структурообразования, приводящего к появлению хорошо известных иерархических систем, которые возникают вследствие цепной конденсации структур каждой низшей иерархии с образованием структур высших иерархий. Такая последовательная конденсация представляет собой «структурный коллапс живой материи», последовательно объединяющий молекулы, супрамолекулярные структуры, клетки, организмы, популяции и другие структуры, возникающие в результате самосборки. Структурный коллапс живой материи, развивается под действием иерархической термодинамики и представляет собой процесс, обратный цепной разветвленной реакции.
2. Выявлен закон временных´ (temporal) иерархий, утверждающий существование несоизмеримости времен жизни (времен разделенных сильными знаками неравенства) иерархических структур, существующих в живом мире.
Закон временных иерархий дает возможность использовать методы квазиравновесной термодинамики (термодинамики систем близких к равновесию) и в линейном приближении проводить термодинамические исследования в каждой индивидуальной иерархии, а также во взаимодействующих (смежных) иерархиях.
3. Сформулирован принцип стабильности вещества. Суть принципа состоит в том, что каждая «элементарная» частица или структура любой иерархии (атом, молекула, органелла, клетка, организм, популяция и т.д.) имеет потенциально термодинамически ограниченную возможность одновременно участвовать в контактах с подобными структурами своей иерархии и структурами смежных иерархий. Если рассмотреть молекулярную (химическую) и супрамолекулярную иерархии, то можно утверждать, что чем более стабильны внутримолекулярные химические связи в молекулах, тем менее стабильны супрамолекулярные связи между этими молекулами. И наоборот: чем менее стабильны внутримолекулярные химические связи в молекулах, тем более стабильны супрамолекулярные связи между этими молекулами. Принцип справедлив для структур всех смежных иерархических уровней. Он устанавливает динамические связи (контакты) между иерархиями и определяет обмен веществ в живых системах.
Далее смотрите http://knol.google.com/k/georgi-gladyshev/достижения-наук-о-жизни-с-позиции/169m15f5ytneq/39
Георгий Гладышев
профессор физической химии
academy@creatacad.org