Question for people that believe in evolution

[Luminous]

So...


But yet it's a legitimate scientific issue:



...:areyoucra.

This is pretty embarrasing......really it is.

For a second there, I thought you actually understood.

everything should be looked into. but no one can disprove something for which there is no evidence for.
should i dumn down my explanation a bit more so you wont imply im contradicting myself?
i will anyway: abscense of evidence is not evidence of abscense.

 

[Jose Fly]

Seriously, don't get sensitive about a theist educating you...I mean no offense.

Read up on the difference between arguments and methods used in science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_epistemology

Quit dodging. Either you can provide a scientific paper from a scientific peer-reviewed journal that addresses the existence or non-existence of gods, or the issue is settled.

Now can you, or can't you?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

have any of you read this article? Problems in Protein Evolution

what do you think?

I lack the scientific background to get into the details of this. But if you want here is a counter
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009_05.html

However as a general principal I point out this very important fact. We do not know EXACTLY how ToE works. There are many things yet to be learned. The mechanics in particular are not well understood. However the same can be said of the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease. We don't know exactly how those work either. But they do work and we use them both daily - to good effect.

The totality of the evidence supporting ToE is overwhelming. The fossil record, DNA, lab work, predictions made and confirmed ALL lead the same general conclusion. Life has evolved on this planet from simple to more complex organisms over billions of years.There is just NO other explanation for the diversity we see.

We don't know it all. But that much is a certain as science gets.

 

[Autodidact]

ftv: I greatly appreciate your questions, willingness to learn, and humility. I will be interested in hearing how your thinking develops on this issue.

I want to back up and provide some background, because of the confusion floating around on the net. It's important to understand that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a specific scientific theory in a specific field, Biology. It addresses two main questions: why are there so many different kinds of organisms on earth, how come they're so nifty and well-adapted to their environments. Like all of science, it takes no position on the existence of God, and it is fine to keep your faith that God created all things, and still accept modern science, including ToE. Millions of Biologists do it.

The next thing, before you get to the evidence, which is huge, is to understand what the theory says. Msizer gave a good explanation. If I have time I will restate that for you in even simpler terms.

Once you understand it, we can review the huge tremendous piles of evidence. Meanwhile, I suggest a couple of resources for you.

There are a lot of good books on the subject. One I recommend is Carl Zimmer, Evolution, the Triumph of an Idea. It's good, lots of cool pictures, and puts the theory in historical context.

There are also a lot of good websites. One good resource is UC Berkeley.

More later.

 

[Quiddity]

everything should be looked into. but no one can disprove something for which there is no evidence for.
should i dumn down my explanation a bit more so you wont imply im contradicting myself?
i will anyway: abscense of evidence is not evidence of abscense.

Oh well...

Good luck on your journey to disprove the spaghetti monster.

Somehow, you just couldn't disconnect yourself with Science and the methods used.

 

[Autodidact]

Although I accept evolution as valid, I find the epistemology behind it as problematic. The scientific community is grossly infiltrated with an epistemology that is naturalized. That is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. That the evidence that exists can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist.

These are the same people who write in such a faculty that they argue against approaches that emphasize a priori or insist on a theory of knowledge that is independent of science. Yet they do the very same thing by putting on there philosophical hat and saying “at least we are using science”. As if them attaching meaning to evidence was any different then attaching meaning outside of evidence.

What a joke...

Here is one example:

"The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us."

<snip>

"The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue."

The Godless Universe

Watch the anti-theist throw tomatoes at me....:run:

This is off topic. It has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to discuss the scientific evidence for and against God, or whether such a question even makes sense, start a thread. It is utterly irrelevant to evolution.

Richard Dawkins rides a bicycle to work. That doesn't make bicycle riding Biology.

 

[Quiddity]

Quit dodging. Either you can provide a scientific paper from a scientific peer-reviewed journal that addresses the existence or non-existence of gods, or the issue is settled.

Now can you, or can't you?

It's not enough that scientist are actually doing this but someone needs to provide a publication to prove it to you?

I gave you two examples of respected scientist (Richard Dawkins and Victor J. Stenger) who have done exactly what I said and you choose to ignore it.

Have a nice day.

 

[Quiddity]

This is off topic. It has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to discuss the scientific evidence for and against God, or whether such a question even makes sense, start a thread. It is utterly irrelevant to evolution.

Richard Dawkins rides a bicycle to work. That doesn't make bicycle riding Biology.

Irrelevant? Really?

Ok...

 

[Luminous]

natural selection is another subject i would like to learn more about.

do you think that mutations exist out of necessity? example a mutation of a four leaf clover from a three leaf clover. what scenario could exist to cause a four leaf clover to become dominate over a three leaf clover? what cause a need of a forth leaf?

so the fact that when a new human life combines DNA of mother and father this is proof of mutation. the same mutation disproves creation, because mutation occurs.

these are just thoughts not ment to be arguements.

cool... umm. i was told, and think it makes since, that mutations accur randomly and may be 'neutral'. now if perhaps there is pleanty of sunlight and nutrients it would be best to have more leaves for photosynthesis, therefor a population of fourleaves might replicate faster. however, when such reasources are scarce the plaint would be better off having the least surface area and mass. (kinda like hobbitism accurs when big species get stranded in small islands).
fetal development is evidence for evolution. i've definately heard that before, and it makes sense to me. proof of mutation? im not sure. mutations disprove creation? that's not necessarily true.

 

[Autodidact]

Irrelevant? Really?

Ok...

Yes, it has zero bearing on the theory of evolution.

Did you want to argue that it is relevant in some way? What?

 

[Autodidact]

It's not enough that scientist are actually doing this but someone needs to provide a publication to prove it to you?

I gave you two examples of respected scientist (Richard Dawkins and Victor J. Stenger) who have done exactly what I said and you choose to ignore it.

Have a nice day.

Not everything that scientists do is science. Einstein was a Zionist. Zionism is not physics.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes, it has zero bearing on the theory of evolution.

Did you want to argue that it is relevant in some way? What?

We aren't talking about a stagnant theory here; nothing in science is. So yeah, it is relevant that the glasses being used by scientist are sugar coated with a specific epistemology.

We aren't talking about Zionism or bicycle riding here either.

 

[Autodidact]

We aren't talking about a stagnant theory here; nothing in science is. So yeah, it is relevant that the glasses being used by scientist are sugar coated with a specific epistemology.

We aren't talking about Zionism or bicycle riding here either.

No, we're not. We're talking about religion. Whatever you're talking about, it clearly isn't Biology, and has nothing to do with Biology.

So your criticism is of science in general? For example, Victor Stenger is a particle physicist. Do does this cause you to question particle physics?

 

[Luminous]

Oh well...

Good luck on your journey to disprove the spaghetti monster.

Somehow, you just couldn't disconnect yourself with Science and the methods used.

:sarcastic i FIRMLY believe in FSM, THANK YOU!!! R'Amen.
but on a serious note, i dont have to disprove the spaghetti monster, since there is no evidence for its existance. however... i cant prove it doesnt exist. but i can say how the story of creation in FSM and other such believes go against scientific findings and therefore, fail as hypothesis; this all leads to the fact that there is no such thing as scienceism. and that science is the best method for learning about and understanding our environment.

i guess if i were to 'disconnect' myself from science there'd be no reason not to worship such a being. since without science there is no real need for logic therefore if something is possible i need no evidence for me to believe it to be true. therefore everything is true. even lies.

ummmm sorry about wat i just wrote in that self code it makes no sense to me either. my point is that science makes my environment make sense. it explains things in great detail and with the least assumptions possible.

 

[Humanistheart]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

Well, someone's surely said this already but people don't believe in evolution, they except the evidence or they don't. Belief is for things that have no evidence, namely in religions. However, as to why I accept the soundness of evolution is that scientists have provided concrete evidence. We have fossil records, dna tests, and numerous examples of species that have evolved just in the last few houndred years. For example, look up london subway misquitoe's. An entirely new species of mesquitoe have evolved in an artificial enviornment there, the london subway system. They can no longer breed with the parent masquito population on the serface and have different apearance and feeding habits. Then there's all the bacteria and other single cell lifeforms we've seen evolve before our very eyes, and the proto bio matter that scientists have synthesized from non organic matter. Bottom line, evolution is fact, there's no belief involved.

 

[Venatoris]

We aren't talking about a stagnant theory here; nothing in science is. So yeah, it is relevant that the glasses being used by scientist are sugar coated with a specific epistemology.

So the thousands upon thousands of theist scientists who agree with evolution are skewing the data to support the existence of God?

If a catholic tells me that Jesus shat skittles does that make it a biblical truth? Can I assume this is an accurate portrayal of the catholic belief?:sarcastic

 

[ftv1975]

I lack the scientific background to get into the details of this. But if you want here is a counter
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009_05.html

However as a general principal I point out this very important fact. We do not know EXACTLY how ToE works. There are many things yet to be learned. The mechanics in particular are not well understood. However the same can be said of the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease. We don't know exactly how those work either. But they do work and we use them both daily - to good effect.

The totality of the evidence supporting ToE is overwhelming. The fossil record, DNA, lab work, predictions made and confirmed ALL lead the same general conclusion. Life has evolved on this planet from simple to more complex organisms over billions of years.There is just NO other explanation for the diversity we see.

We don't know it all. But that much is a certain as science gets.

thanks for finding this article. i have a lot of informaition to think about and absorb. a person suggested that i start this thread if i wanted to learn. i didn't think i was going to get this amount of info.LOL i hope more info is revealed on this thread. Definitely suprised with the possitve outcome and particapation.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's not enough that scientist are actually doing this but someone needs to provide a publication to prove it to you?

I gave you two examples of respected scientist (Richard Dawkins and Victor J. Stenger) who have done exactly what I said and you choose to ignore it.

Have a nice day.

All you've offered is examples of two scientists making arguments about gods. That is not in dispute. No one is saying scientists don't take positions on the existence or non-existence of gods.

That doesn't mean the existence or non-existence of gods is "science". If it were "science", someone would be doing research on it and publishing the results in scientific, peer-review journals.

The fact that there is not a single scientific article in the scientific peer-reviewed literature that addresses the existence or non-existence of gods is ample evidence that the subject is not "science".

 

[Venatoris]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

Hey ftv, you might find this interesting. I thought it was kinda neat.
Researchers observe evolution chain reaction

 

[Jose Fly]

thanks for finding this article. i have a lot of informaition to think about and absorb. a person suggested that i start this thread if i wanted to learn. i didn't think i was going to get this amount of info.LOL i hope more info is revealed on this thread. Definitely suprised with the possitve outcome and particapation.

You should start with the basics. I suggest you begin here: Evolution 101