Evolution & common descent: facts. I'll answer all questions and criticisms

[Apos]

Ask me anything. Not convinced that evolution happened on this planet? Not convinced that all life is related on a single tree of common descent? Don't understand why scientists think it probable or even likely that life began spontaneously on the ancient Earth?

Well, just ask away. If you want to read some REALLY long versions of my defenses of evolution, common descent, and abiogenesis, check here:
http://forums.tolkienonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=85498&sid=382c2c919657e7a4908bfbc02274b563

But for now, I'm happy just to field questions or criticism anyone has. I'm tired of seeing misinformation and idiot demogouges like O'Reily mangle the most basic concepts of science and biology, all just to pander to a few religious extremists.

 

[Ranga]

i believe in evolution, but i'm slightly hesitant to rule out any divine intervention.

will we ever become like monkeys again? coz i have a friend, and, well, he looks like a monkey

 

[DoctorGordon]

...Amen

 

[HunterSeeker]

Whats the chance of a single cell organism developing a brain of human complexity in 10 billion years?

I belive in evolution but I have wondered about this for some time.

 

[Apos]

Science really can't speak to whether or not some random being might have done "stuff" at some unspecified "sometime." There's no evidence of it, and no way to test it, so there's really nothing to be said for it as a scientific theory. The best science can say is simply that its an extraneous and unecessary to explain the diversity of life.

Become like monkeys? We are still monkeys (well, actually that term is reserved for tailed primates: we're actually apes). If your friend looks like an ape, that's because he IS an ape.

 

[Apos]

Whats the chance of a single cell organism developing a brain of human complexity in 10 billion years?

First of all, the very upper, upper bound on how much time the entire process would have taken is only 4.5 billion years: the age of the earth. And while we don't know exactly when like began on earth, the time is probably much closer to 3 billion years. It's possible that life began elsewhere and was then later "seeded" on our planet by space debris which would leave much more time, but that scenario is highly unlikely.

As to the "chance," that's actually a pretty strange way to think about it. The hardest part about the concept of evolution is realizing that while the particular direction it takes is pretty much aimless and undirected, it isn't actually a process that's "up to chance" at all. That is, it doesn't rely upon lucky accidents to come along in order to work as many people seem to think: all it needs is the basic conditions of replication with slight variation to be in place, and it proceeds from there as a natural and ongoing process.

As to humans specifically, there is no real guarantee that humanity _in specific_ would evolve if evolution began all over again from single-celled life. Certainly it would be VERY unlikely that, specifically, it would be large hairless primates that first became highly intelligent. However, given that it is in evolution's nature to "experiment" with all sorts of different developmental directions, it is pretty likely that evolution would spit up intelligence at some point, though when and where can't be tied down.

In short, my answer is that you can't really meaningfully calculate the "chance" of any particular thing happening in the evolutionary process. All you can really say is that it's very likely that all sorts of different designs and pathways will arise over time, and that once intelligence starts becoming a useful direction, it's even more likely that it will continue to get more and more advanced.

 

[el Chi]

i believe in evolution, but i'm slightly hesitant to rule out any divine intervention.

Good call. I don't necessarily believe that there WAS divine intervention, so to speak - it would certainly make things easier to understand, but then that's not what it's all about.

There is so much evidence for evolution, but if you still want to believe that God created all life, then why not say that God started the ball rolling, according to some general grand plan?
Everyone's a winner.

 

[Eg.]

i think god said "what if i..." and then made a little cell and then he took a nap

 

[Edcrab]

Evolution happened, it's a fact. However, people still refer to Darwin's findings as a theory with good reason in my book- there is the odd hole in the scheme.

I don't just mean in the typical sense (i.e., we still have apes/amoeba/lesser lifeforms etc.) but in the occasional anachronism we dig up. We keep finding fossilised remains that keep the "true age" of mankind enormously high- once we thought we were less than 5,000 years old, but some scientists believe recent evidence points to the first recognisable human appearing almost 100,000 years ago. Woo. I don't doubt evolution happens, I just understand entirely why it's still under scrutiny (to do the impossible, at least in my view, and find what rules govern it).

You'd be surprised how many Christians believe in evolution in the manner you mentioned el Chi- hell, I guess Darwin was one of them.

Thinking of amoeba, anyone remember the "giant" one discovered in some cavern? It was a huge, sofa-sized, slow moving colony of billions of the things- it could walk across the cavern floor (over a day or two) and then collapse on itself- the individual celled lifeforms would then proceed to suck the nutrients from the patch of floor they'd reached. It was incredible, and really got scientists thinking on how "co-operative" cells might have started.

 

[Ranga]

Become like monkeys? We are still monkeys (well, actually that term is reserved for tailed primates: we're actually apes). If your friend looks like an ape, that's because he IS an ape.

lol..... he calls himself baboon.

 

[Scoobnfl]

we ever become like monkeys again? coz i have a friend, and, well, he looks like a monkey

weird..... we have a president and he looks like a monkey too.

Thinking of amoeba, anyone remember the "giant" one discovered in some cavern? It was a huge, sofa-sized, slow moving colony of billions of the things- it could walk across the cavern floor (over a day or two) and then collapse on itself- the individual celled lifeforms would then proceed to suck the nutrients from the patch of floor they'd reached. It was incredible, and really got scientists thinking on how "co-operative" cells might have started.

no. got a link? that sounds like it would be a good read.

 

[Brian Damage]

Sounds like a slime mould. Except I think that slime moulds move faster. I hear that some of them look almost exactly like the slimes you hear described in D&D books. Although they don't eat people.

 

[Apos]

Evolution happened, it's a fact. However, people still refer to Darwin's findings as a theory with good reason in my book- there is the odd hole in the scheme.

This is a basic misunderstanding about what the word "theory" means in science. There is no higher level in science than a theory: it means that something is a well developed and thouroughly tested and worked out explanatory framework. That there are specific elements of evolutionary history that are unclear in their dating or specific genetic code are not threats or weaknesses to evolution. On the contrary, it is evolution that is the framework that is used for filling in these holes.

I don't just mean in the typical sense (i.e., we still have apes/amoeba/lesser lifeforms etc.)

Evolution predicts that we will have all these other forms of life around: it predicts not humanity but diversity. While we have our own self-centered view of our own importance, all evolution really selects for is success. And from that perspective, bacteria are still by far the most successful lifeforms on this planet, and likely always will be.

but in the occasional anachronism we dig up. We keep finding fossilised remains that keep the "true age" of mankind enormously high- once we thought we were less than 5,000 years old, but some scientists believe recent evidence points to the first recognisable human appearing almost 100,000 years ago.

I don't understand what you are saying here: it doesn't ring any bells with what I know of the actual discussions of human ancestors. There is no such thing as the "true age" of mankind. At no point did someone give birth to a "true" human (either Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens. Evolution is gradual. Our branch of ape (the hominid) diverged from chimpanzees eoughly about 6 million years ago. Our specific species appeared. But there is a real REASON that these are vague dates: and not just because we lack the knowledge and fossils we need to date exactly. The reason is that species only ever arise gradually, and they are only ever called species either in hindsight or because they exist in the modern day. When you compare different time periods, trying to find a hard line that divides one species from another is generally futile.

Woo. I don't doubt evolution happens, I just understand entirely why it's still under scrutiny (to do the impossible, at least in my view, and find what rules govern it).

As a theory, it's no longer under scrutiny. Some religious fundamentalists are waging a war of disinformation and "wedge" strategies to try and unseat it, because they don't like that it conrtadicts their beliefs. But among biologists and scientists in general, there is little if any dispute about the core theory or common descent. Scientists of course strongly dispute the specific aspects of history: what the order of species was, and exactly what methods and for what reasons particular traits emerged. But in doing this, they are not challenging evolution as a theory, but are, in fact, using it to settle their disputes about matters of history and biology.

You'd be surprised how many Christians believe in evolution in the manner you mentioned el Chi- hell, I guess Darwin was one of them.

The vast majority of scientists are indeed Christians: just as the vast majority of almost any group are Christians. Darwin was marginally a Christian, though he became more of an agnostic as time went on.

Thinking of amoeba, anyone remember the "giant" one discovered in some cavern? It was a huge, sofa-sized, slow moving colony of billions of the things- it could walk across the cavern floor (over a day or two) and then collapse on itself- the individual celled lifeforms would then proceed to suck the nutrients from the patch of floor they'd reached. It was incredible, and really got scientists thinking on how "co-operative" cells might have started.

Amoeba are indeed really cool examples of how single cells can find it profitable to function as a group. Even farther down the line, we find sponges, which basically only have four cell types. These types are not really arranged in any higher structure (sponges don't have organs or structure per se), though they link together in particular ways in the micro-scale that lead, on the macro-scale to a workable system we call a sponge. You can actually take a sponge, pull all the cells apart, and then put them back in a vat, and they will reform into the sponge again: or two sponges if you separate them into two vats.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Ask me anything. Not convinced that evolution happened on this planet? Not convinced that all life is related on a single tree of common descent? Don't understand why scientists think it probable or even likely that life began spontaneously on the ancient Earth?

Well, just ask away. If you want to read some REALLY long versions of my defenses of evolution, common descent, and abiogenesis, check here:
http://forums.tolkienonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=85498&sid=382c2c919657e7a4908bfbc02274b563

But for now, I'm happy just to field questions or criticism anyone has. I'm tired of seeing misinformation and idiot demogouges like O'Reily mangle the most basic concepts of science and biology, all just to pander to a few religious extremists.

it is as silly to argue about evolution as it is religion. it is 98% supposition and 2% fact based on "if" and "perhaps" and "we think" strife with factual errors that are perpetuated for the sake of dogma and it has it's extremists just as religion does.

 

[burner69]

OK, here's one.

You know us people have the Neo-Cortex, the bit of the brain at the back (I think) that is believed to be what makes us smart, and chimps comparatively dumb.

Well, are there any other animals that show any sign of evolving a neo-cortex, so in a few million years can we hope to see pigs talking to eachother, dolphins reading aqua books, or beetles enjoying a beetle-beer after a hard game of tennis?

 

[gcomeau]

it is as silly to argue about evolution as it is religion. it is 98% supposition and 2% fact based on "if" and "perhaps" and "we think" strife with factual errors that are perpetuated for the sake of dogma and it has it's extremists just as religion does.

That's quite the statement... I don't suppose you could provide an example of one of these factual errors modern evolutionary theory is rife with?

And which 98% were you under the imression was just "suppposition" if you don't mind my asking?

 

[seinfeldrules]

then why not say that God started the ball rolling, according to some general grand plan?

My thoughts exactly. I believe in evolution, but I believe God had a hand in getting that started, as you said.

 

[clarky003]

does it matter what we believe..? it happened, were here today. perhaps there was an unseen divinity that started it off, but it most likely isnt even comprehendable by any kind of science or religious belief, its tough to say when all we understand of is our existence as the one race at our level of concious developement, it gives us a very narrow perspective, it leads us to believe in personified gods, whereas universally speaking if you had to label a 'god' it would be the unified energies that constitute our reality... we need fresh perspectives to even begin to get closer to understanding better.. that could be achieved by contacting other races in the universe at some point , perhaps on a more advanced level of concioussness in their development they would provide insight into the whys and hows,.

the critical realisation in an advancing mind, is that god doesnt really exist, its just pure conciousness which windows into our reality through our minds subconcious (although you may want to call that God, but we are part of it, so it cannot be superior to us, superiority is an illusion). its only our outward awakened mind that searches for purpose and logic for survival and meaning in the physical that creates our want for idols and gods.

its hard to comprehend , but the world is only confusing to us because of our disposition as a physical entity, therefore we are programmed to exist in our reality, that programming doesnt need to include the boundary's and what is beyond because it doesnt need that to survive in this reality,

best way to describe it would be the analergy of Conciousness as a Camera fixed above an Ocean, our outward mind sees the ocean , it is its reality, the inner self is under the ocean , its connected to everything, the internal workings of the sea (universe). As we perceive outward we see the waves but cannot see under the surface to explain why our reality works, we cannot see the undercurrents, because our outer mind is clouding our inner through its dominance, misting the truth behind the layers of our universe.

really what we are is part of a unified conciousness, that through this reality manifests itself as seperate, its the ulitimate illusion, it can be realised but the illusion is why our outward mind struggles to comprehend.

 

[Apos]

it is 98% supposition and 2% fact based on "if" and "perhaps" and "we think" strife with factual errors that are perpetuated for the sake of dogma and it has it's extremists just as religion does.

Un hunh. Care to back that up with some actual basis in fact yourself, or will it just be a round of insults for us today?

Evolution and common descent are settled facts within the scientific community. They are as if not more certain than almost all the other major scientific theories. As I explain in my longer essays, the sort of proof we have of them is extremely powerful: perhaps more powerful than most people are even used to. Instead of like with a murder crime, where there are just a few bits of physical and circumstantial evidence, the proof of common descent is found in litterally HUNDREDS of different independant methods, all of which cross-confirm each other and point to the same answers. Even if one or two of these methods or lines of evidence were wrong, it is astronomically unlikely that they would all give the SAME wrong dates and answers. Truth is a great coordinator of facts. Error and mistakes tend to be random: to give all sorts of different wrong answers. Instead, what we have is coordination.

That's evidence. To call that dogma is to show wanton disregard for the vast difference between bold unsupported statements and carefuly reasoned argument with evidence.

 

[Apos]

My thoughts exactly. I believe in evolution, but I believe God had a hand in getting that started, as you said.

As I noted, science just can not speak to this. If it's important to you to believe it, by all means believe it.

Some people still believe that God makes it rain, even though we have plenty of evidence and understanding of hwo and why this natural process occurs. Because God is defined as being supernatural, one can always claim he's involved in litterally anything, even if we already have a good cause for it, with no evidence whatsoever. That's why science doesn't bother with such explanations: they go nowhere and don't explain anything. In a sense, they explain too much, too easily, too lazily.

 

[Apos]

You know us people have the Neo-Cortex, the bit of the brain at the back (I think) that is believed to be what makes us smart, and chimps comparatively dumb.

Well, are there any other animals that show any sign of evolving a neo-cortex, so in a few million years can we hope to see pigs talking to eachother, dolphins reading aqua books, or beetles enjoying a beetle-beer after a hard game of tennis?

There is already some evidence that dolphins, to take one example, have some the functions on the neocortex which we had believed were reserved to us. For instance, meta-cognition: the ability to think about ones own thoughts.

Indeed, it wasn't so long ago that we believed that tool-use and tool-making were unique to humans, but we've since found that both apes and even, get this, _crows_ can fashion tools, which displays abstract-problem solving thought we though was exclusive to us.

However, there isn't any hard and fast promise that these features will continue developing these capacities. Evolution works not by foresight in heading to a planned direction, but merely on the here and now selection. For instance, right now we're artificially breeding pigs for tastiness, not for intelligence. It's unlikely that small moves towards developing language are being rewarded in higher reproductive success in domestic pigs. Only tastiness is being rewarded.

We see big brains as special and important because we have them (and, after all, its necessary to have them before we can abstractly think about them and see them as important!). But to nature, big brains are an extravagence that is rarely worth the cost. When you have a population of deer in which some have slightly bigger brains, and some have slightly faster legs, faster legs are going to win out more often than not. In general, mammals have larger brains for their body size than most animals, and primates have larger brains per bodysize than most primates. But you still have to remember that this is only two or three lines out of MILLIONS of different forms and directions that nature is developing: plenty of which favor smaller brains, not larger ones.

The particular development of human beings towards their big brains actually being beneficial is quite a complicated story, and it's still one of the most hotly debated subjects within evolutionary biology. Still, most agree that sexual selection: one of the most powerful evolutionary mechanisms ever to arise and which characteristically pushes species towards relatively fast wild and crazy changes, played a major role.

 

[Edcrab]

Hmm, not to get to far into semantics there, but I was try to make a parralel with the terminology "theory" in the most basic sense of the word, not the official scientific meaning; i.e., purely using it as a play on words to further my point... meh, it backfired...

As for "scrutiny", I don't mean to imply that it's still being investigated for verification, just that there's always research trying to discover its core principals.

Anyway, thinking of principals, it's interesting how such ideaology as the "devolution" stance (supposed opposite; organisms degenerating because a "plus" feature wasn't need) has rotted away with research, while evolution is still a primary theory. Thing is, if you have a benefit over another lifeform, it makes no sense that time would erode it, even if it wasn't used. Admittedly, the appendix is often raised as justification for such a stance, but even now scientists think it may have hidden depths.

Oh, and note that when I make a comment I don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying- my bracketed statement regarding the continued existence of bacterium etc. was merely an example of the most commonly flaunted "holes" in the theory. Personally, I feel the only so-called hole is that we don't understand it yet- we can't make- and never will, in my opinion- a definitive link. Dragonflies existed millions of years ago, and evolution reduced their size... early mammals were the size of small dogs, and nowadays we have elephants and whales, pretty huge scale increase- it all makes sense why these things happen, but predicting future developments, that's the biggie...

 

[Apos]

Anyway, thinking of principals, it's interesting how such ideaology as the "devolution" stance (supposed opposite; organisms degenerating because a "plus" feature wasn't need) has rotted away with research, while evolution is still a primary theory. Thing is, if you have a benefit over another lifeform, it makes no sense that time would erode it, even if it wasn't used. Admittedly, the appendix is often raised as justification for such a stance, but even now scientists think it may have hidden depths.

Again, your wording is a little too confusing for me to know what you are getting at. But as far I know, there has been no serious question that lifeforms generally lose features that are not selected for or get in the way. Dodos lost the power to fly, because they flew to an island that had no predators, and had no need of flight. Speigelman's monsters lost the genes that allowed them to work in bacteria once they were removed from a bacterial environment. Whales eventually lost their hind limbs, which created too much drag and were poorly placed to help motion.

All features have a sort of "cost" associated with them: they generally require food energy to maintain, blood, they add weight, etc. If they are not serving any particular beneficial purpose, then natural selection will tend to select against them, picking variations that feature them less and less prominently.

Personally, I feel the only so-called hole is that we don't understand it yet- we can't make- and never will, in my opinion- a definitive link.

"it" what? And how is this a hole? In what?

 

[gh0st]

Apos, the belief that a diety makes it rain doesnt necessarily mean Jesus is up there on his throne, wiggles his pinky finger, and BOOM, rain. More like, as was said earlier, the ball starts rolling, everything happens for a reason, blada yada. Anyway, I'm comfortable with my stance here, but what makes you so uncomfortable as to your own as to try and disprove other peoples faith with science? We know why rain happens, but who are you to say whether its planned, etc. I'm not a particularly Christian person, but I certainly wouldent make a thread like this. Fact is, until Apos on halflife2.net can prove or disprove the existence of god, one can hypothesize whatever they want. No, this is not an endorsement of creationism in the biblical sense.

 

[Tr0n]

Apos, the belief that a diety makes it rain doesnt necessarily mean Jesus is up there on his throne, wiggles his pinky finger, and BOOM, rain. More like, as was said earlier, the ball starts rolling, everything happens for a reason, blada yada. Anyway, I'm comfortable with my stance here, but what makes you so uncomfortable as to your own as to try and disprove other peoples faith with science? We know why rain happens, but who are you to say whether its planned, etc. I'm not a particularly Christian person, but I certainly wouldent make a thread like this. Fact is, until Apos on halflife2.net can prove or disprove the existence of god, one can hypothesize whatever they want. No, this is not an endorsement of creationism in the biblical sense.

First time I am ever gonna agree with you. lol

So...QFT.

 

[Locust]

Evolution is the devil!

 

[Edcrab]

Eh, "it" is evolution. We were just discussing the fabricated flaws in the theory, yes? Perhaps you've never heard of the term "hole" (it's well known, for example, that it underwent a grammatical shift and merged with "plot" to coin "plothole"- Think the same thing, except regarding a theory or even a simple statement).

I thought I was fairly clear myself- "devolution" has lost support, evolution hasn't.

 

[Apos]

I thought I was fairly clear myself- "devolution" has lost support, evolution hasn't.

This is what I mean about not being clear what you mean. Devolution of particular traits hasn't lost any support. But the religious theory about how all life has "decayed" since the time of Adam and Eve was discredited, although quite a long time ago. You still hear creationists bring it up again from time to time though.

 

[Apos]

Apos, the belief that a diety makes it rain doesnt necessarily mean Jesus is up there on his throne, wiggles his pinky finger, and BOOM, rain. More like, as was said earlier, the ball starts rolling, everything happens for a reason, blada yada.

I think you missed the point of what I said. As I said, that's fine if you believe that. It's just that it's too abstract and unrelated to any testable claim for science to have anything to do with proving or disproving it, or really having much at all to say on the subject. It's a matter of faith, not one relevant to evidence or empirical truth.

Anyway, I'm comfortable with my stance here, but what makes you so uncomfortable as to your own as to try and disprove other peoples faith with science?

The only way that science would disprove someone's faith is if they made a testable claim that turned out to be wrong, as happened with creationism coming from a reading of the Bible as a literal account of events. And in the end that doesn't have much to do with how they got to the claim (i.e. by faith) just that they made the claim (say, that the world is 6000 years old or that humans didn't evolve from ancestral apes) and it is belied by the facts.

If your faith is simply that there is a God somewhere that may intervene in scattered events here and there in untracable ways, or is distant from events but has some ultimate purpose that he set in motion, then there is nothing really to dispute in that case. Those claims are outside the realm of science and logical argument, because there is no way to test whether or not they are true. Nothing can contradict them, so there is no problem.

We know why rain happens, but who are you to say whether its planned, etc.

I didn't say any such thing! All I said is that even once you understand why it happens, further explanations are no longer _necessary_. That doesn't mean you can't still offer them or believe in them, but there is no longer any explicit need to like there was before we had an explanation. For centuries, people have tried to "explain" natural events by saying that god did it (as in, actually made them happen). The problem with such explanations is that first they don't really explain anything (so vague) and second that time and time again it turns out that there is an explanation to be found that doesn't require divine intervention.

I'm not a particularly Christian person, but I certainly wouldent make a thread like this. Fact is, until Apos on halflife2.net can prove or disprove the existence of god, one can hypothesize whatever they want.

I never said anything in this thread about proving or disproving the existence of god. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you were so eager to jump to that conclusion. You say that you are comfortable with your stance, and yet you seem awfully defensive about things no one ever claimed or said.

There are lots of ways that believers reconcile their beliefs with the fact of evolution. Indeed, for many, evolution is an aid to their faith because they believe it helps illuminate their understanding of their god's creation. Kenneth Miller, a prominent evolutionary theorist, believes in God, and wrote a fantastic book on the subject called "Finding Darwin's God." Miller, for instance, believes that the idea of God breaking his own natural laws to constantly tinker with nature, as creationists and intelligent design people would have us believes, is a blasphemous one. That's of course, just his opinion, and I'm offering it just as an example as to what's out there.

People can have all sorts of different opinions about what a god is and does. Since I don't believe in a god, I can't really offer an opinion other than to just say what science tells us about the natural world and point religious people who are questioning in the direction of other religious people who support evolution (like Miller, Bishop Spong, the Pope, etc.) who have their own beliefs about how God might factor into things. I don't have an opinion because I'm not a believer, but that doesn't mean I don't respect people's sincere beliefs, and I'm happy to let them figure their own faith beliefs out or even give them leads to other interesting theist thinkers.

I just don't want zealotry to corrupt scientific inquiry the way it's happening in Dover and around the nation where wedge strategists are trying to undermine science education because they don't like what its telling us about the world. I don't want a blowhard like O'Reily pretending that he's standing up for some common man's truth of religious supremacy over evil evolution. I don't want demagouges running science.

No, this is not an endorsement of creationism in the biblical sense.

This is what troubles me though. Here we have a subject about examining the natural world. Normally, people don't have a problem with that. But suddenly, when it comes to evolution, everyone acts like it is some forbidden taboo to talk about what the facts tell us, that mentioning something like common descent is as rude as insulting someone's religion. Well, I'm sorry, but evolution is a fact: and indeed a it's helpful and important and illuminating one if you want to understand the world around you. It's time America caught up with the rest of the world on this.

 

[Ranga]

Well, are there any other animals that show any sign of evolving a neo-cortex, so in a few million years can we hope to see pigs talking to eachother, dolphins reading aqua books, or beetles enjoying a beetle-beer after a hard game of tennis?

Dolphins are already the smartest living creature on earth, followed closely by mice, and then us humans.

weird..... we have a president and he looks like a monkey too.

You must live in America.. "It has been proven that the operation of an abortion can cause substantial damage to a mother, and her fetus." - G.W.

 

[GiaOmerta]

There is so much in our universe. In our world that we dont understand. Ourselves included. We know more about space. We know more about the ocean then we do about the human brain.

Our thought is limited in the scheme of things.

Apos, the belief that a diety makes it rain doesnt necessarily mean Jesus is up there on his throne, wiggles his pinky finger, and BOOM, rain. More like, as was said earlier, the ball starts rolling, everything happens for a reason, blada yada.

I believe Jesus is the Author and Finisher of everything in our plane of existance. The Developer. The Programmer. The Scripter.
He created us, sentinel and self aware beings in He's image. Having engineered us, He has a infinite understanding of our potential. He's understanding pierces time, which He also engineered.

So, Jesus wouldnt have to wiggle He's toes. Our existance is scripted in a sense, programmed by the perfect Programmer.

 

[seinfeldrules]

It's time America caught up with the rest of the world on this.

I was taught evolution in school...

 

[GiaOmerta]

Pwned.

I couldnt resist.

 

[Apos]

I was taught evolution in school...

Good for you. And indeed, most kids in the US were taught it: unfortunately though in such a rushed, stripped down, and archaic form as to have made almost no impact. And the results are certainly not impressive: majorities of Americans can barely even explain what evolution is, and most don't believe in common ancestry. The rest of the world doesn't have this problem understanding or accepting basic science: just our anemic science education programs.

So yes, the US has a heck of a lot to make up for when it comes to science education.

 

[gh0st]

Good for you. And indeed, most kids in the US were taught it: unfortunately though in such a rushed, stripped down, and archaic form as to have made almost no impact. And the results are certainly not impressive: majorities of Americans can barely even explain what evolution is, and most don't believe in common ancestry. The rest of the world doesn't have this problem understanding or accepting basic science: just our anemic science education programs.

So yes, the US has a heck of a lot to make up for when it comes to science education.

let me get this straight. Kids, because of society and their family, believe in creationism. Then, magically, the school feeds them an "archaic" lesson plan for evolution, and suddenly they believe in it, just a little bit. Can I see some statistics? Where did you see that the majority of Americans cant explain what evolution is? I agree our schools could be better, but they are doing their jobs. Hell where did you see that "the rest of the world" (which could mean anything, frankly) 'knows more' (which, by your definition, is advocating creationism, which all of our schools already do...soooo...)

 

[seinfeldrules]

And indeed, most kids in the US were taught it: unfortunately though in such a rushed, stripped down, and archaic form as to have made almost no impact.

Honestly I have no idea where you are coming from. I spent an entire quarter of my year on it during high school, even more time during elementary school.

 

[Apos]

There is so much in our universe. In our world that we dont understand. Ourselves included. We know more about space. We know more about the ocean then we do about the human brain.

Do we? I would put it to you that we know a lot more about the human brain than most people know, and a lot less about the ocean than most people think.

The whole point of science is that we admit our ignorance, and seek to subject all claims to constant checking and attack with evidence. Only a very few facts and theories survive this sort of process. Evolution is one, plate tectonics is another, the Big Bang is another, and so on. But just because the realm of that which we don't know will always be huge, doesn't mean that we cannot with great assurity state that particular well-studied ideas are facts. We may not know exactly how a memory is encoded in the brain, for instance, but that doesn't mean that we don't know a lot of really important things about both memory and how it works in the brain.

I believe Jesus is the Author and Finisher of everything in our plane of existance. The Developer. The Programmer. The Scripter. He created us, sentinel and self aware beings in He's image. Having engineered us, He has a infinite understanding of our potential. He's understanding pierces time, which He also engineered. So, Jesus wouldnt have to wiggle He's toes. Our existance is scripted in a sense, programmed by the perfect Programmer.

Okay, that's nice but it doesn't have anything to do with evolution or science, and has as little to do with the subject of this thread as it would in any other thread on this board.

And its important to note that the natural world doesn't reflect any sort of ideal of perfect programming: it instead has all the aspects of living things having made it through long and chaotic trial and error processes. The DNA code of modern animals is a horror of sloppy duplications hacked into place, tons of junk and parasite sequences that have accumulated, and so on. A lot of the genetic diseases we are familiar with in both humans and animals are caused by some really obvious defects and poor design. The biological world is indeed incredibly complex, but it's also extremely messy and almost unbelievably wasteful. It's important not to have a false picture of what nature is like, whether or not that image of perfection and harmony comes from an expectation of what a perfect designer might design, or not.

 

[Apos]

Honestly I have no idea where you are coming from. I spent an entire quarter of my year on it during high school, even more time during elementary school.

Again, that's great, but the proof is in the results. US students in general are woefully uninformed about even the most basic concepts. They somehow come out of high school thinking that evolution is just a matter of chance, that there shouldn't be apes since they should have all evolved into humans, and so on. This is just an unavoidable problem with American science education.

 

[Apos]

let me get this straight. Kids, because of society and their family, believe in creationism.

That's really too much of a generalization: creationism can range anywhere from belief that the Bible is a literal account of history, to theistic evolution, which basically accepts all of evolution.

Then, magically, the school feeds them an "archaic" lesson plan for evolution, and suddenly they believe in it, just a little bit.

Magically? No. Ineptly. But then, our schools don't generally do much of a great job teaching any other subject either.

Can I see some statistics? Where did you see that the majority of Americans cant explain what evolution is?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

"Similarly, according to one opinion poll, belief that "Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..." is much smaller in the United States (35%) than in other countries (as high as 82%)."

Also notable is that even among religious leaders, the belief that the world is only a few thousand years old is largely an American phenomenon. In Britian, for isntance, a poll of priests and pastors (some of the most religious people around) found that 97% didn't believe in a 6-day creation. Compare that to the almost 43% of people in the US that believe in a literal six-day creation.

In England, for instance, only about 7% of people think that the world is only 10,000 or so years old. Compare that to

Gallup's polls show that 46 percent of respondents (on average) believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." While I personally have no opinion about what God might or might not have done, the idea that man simply appeared in his present form only 10,000 years ago runs counter to every bit of evidence we have.

Here's more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

I can't find net links to the polls which asked about people's actual knowledge of biology (and gave such appalling results), but among the things I remember being the views of a plurality of respondents were things like that evolution proceeds purely by chance mutation and that something being a "theory" in science means that it is just a guess. This sort of thing is confirmed by the Dover sticker, which grossly misuses the word "theory" to mean what "hypothesis" means.

Can't you agree, regardless of the subject, that our public education system is appaling and needs some major reform?

I agree our schools could be better, but they are doing their jobs.

Without the necessary funding, and with curriculumns so highly politicized that if we mention that most of the pictures dipicting the American flag being flown during the Revolution are bogus, there will be a huge uproar.

Hell where did you see that "the rest of the world" (which could mean anything, frankly) 'knows more' (which, by your definition, is advocating creationism, which all of our schools already do...soooo...)

Again, where did I say that our schools advocate creationism? What I said was that they teach evolution: poorly, too poorly. Claiming I said something I did not say is not the way to have a coherent debate about some issue.

 

[Hazar]

There is an awful lot to comment on in this thread, but for now, I'm going to try to stick to the basics.

Evolution is absolutely not a fact.

Let me give you a few examples:

1) Evolution has no way of 'blundering' on such a devine creation such as us. Let me take the sense of sight for an example. Let's just imagine that there is this little worm back in primordial times. This worm has developed slighly dark spots on it's forhead, a very primitive retina. Then, let's say by sheer chance, it passes along the genes that are responsible for this trait to it's decendent (never mind the fact that this trait would not help the species in the slightest to increase it's chance of survival; therefore not concentrating the gene). This next decendent happens to get a small mutation that makes these spots darker. This happens for several generations just by chance. Well these primordial retnias arn't going to do the worm any good, it doesn't even have an optic nerve, it still doesn't have a part of the brain that processes the signals from the primitive eye, and it still doesn't even have an eyeball. As you can see, all these build up of genes will be lost in a single generation, because they have no advantage by themselves. Only the entire system provides an advantage, no missing peices.

This example can also be applied to a primitive lizard that 'needs' to 'evolve' into a bird. One lizard by chance has slightly longer scales then the average lizard of the time. It by chance, passes these genes onto the next generation. This happenes for several generations by 'chance.' However, now that this particular lizards' scales are so long, now it can't run as fast to catch it's dinner. But it still has a long way to go until it's a bird. Now these genes are harmful to the species, and one generation later, all that build-up of genes is wiped out.

2) Another reason why evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes ever: These 'inbetween' species have absolutely no fossil record. None. Logic would say that there would be more of these, since they would tend to die out quicker, as illustrated in the previous example. However, a complete lack of fossil record rules out evolution even more.

3) Many of you have been shown the stuff in high school that 'proves' that evolution is correct. Let me give you the horse example. There's this picture in many books that shows a small horse with stripes and such all over it, then a slighly bigger horse, then a bigger one, and so on. This 'proves' that the horses evolved genes that made them bigger right? Well, I hate to break it to you, but if you start out with 2 medium sized horses, you can selectively breed thoes two horses to miniture horses and giant horses in a single man's lifetime.

4. Your brain has 10^15 nural pathways. Now you might say, "so what, that doesn't mean much to me." Well, let me try to make it seem like something to you. Let's say that you had a forest. This is a rather large forest, it takes up the area of half the United States (that is 1,000,000 square miles). This forest is made up of 10,000 trees per square mile. Each tree has 100,000 leaves on it. Now count the leaves for the entire forest. that's how many connections your brain has. Chance? You've got to be kidding.