Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Thaliur]

You didn't read did you? Here's how they came up with that idea.

They wrote a computer program that compares selected physical characteristics to decide how closely related various species are and assigns them to various groups. The comparisons that the computer makes are all based on what the programmer tells it to compare, and how heavily to weight each feature. The validity of the conclusion depends entirely upon the subjective decisions made by the programmer.

When they take the new creature out of the program and run it, Archaeopteryx is placed as a bird. Put the new creature in, and Arch is no longer a bird. How does a new creature being found changes whether or not a different one is a bird or not?

I did read it, and I added my remarks about exactly that passage to my original post by editing because I thought it didn't need a new post. In fact, the whole "article" is worth less than the memory required to store it.

I'm seriously starting to consider "free speech" a bad idea. There should at least be some exceptions. If advertisements are not allowed to blatantly lie anymore, why is it still OK if creationists do it? Can't we introduce technocracy in exchange for democracy?

 

[Olrod]

Um... WHICH creation story?

There are as many different Creation stories as there are different religions.

So which one, why THAT one and why NOT any of the others?

 

[David Devine]

Original poster, would you consider it a good usage of time for Geographers to spend two weeks studying the Theory of the Flat Earth? How about Physicists spending two weeks studying the Theory that (at close ranges) Gravity is a Pushing Force? Or how about Chemists spending two weeks studying the merits of transmuting Lead to Gold?

Furthermore, please spend two weeks learning how to use punctuation, spelling, and sentance structure.

 

[evilneko]

I love how monfang just keeps jumping back and forth between arguments, and once one of his arguments gets thoroughly disproven, he doesn't even acknowledge it any more and moves on to a new argument, which gets disproven, etc.

In that he is quite typical of creationists.

He also flagrantly abuses many logical fallacies, displays an unwillingness to accept evidence offered to him, and bases his belief in part on his own lack of understanding of evolution. 'bout the only thing he's done that most won't is admit to the latter.

 

[Olrod]

I believe that Evolution is true. Up to the point where it gets into going from one species to another, as in going from a reptile to a bird or a mammal. Reptile breasts don't seem very believable to me.

Also there are problems with the 'Evolutionary Tree' such as plant eating Panda Bears being put in the Carnivora (Carnivore ie meat eater) Order and how those same pandas have a bone growth on their wrist that they use to split Bamboo and how moles have that same growth. Doesn't evolution state that similar creatures have the closest common ancestor? If so, why don't they put the Panda with the plant eating animals near the moles with the wrist growth? Wouldn't they have a closer ancestor than a creature that eats meat only and doesn't have the bone growth?

The Panda actually has the digestive tract of a carnivore, along with with canines. It's lineage is also firmly routed in the carnivora order. And it's actually omnivorous not herbivorous.

Also your assertion that simply because two separate animals share a similar trait they must share a recent common ancestor is so far off base that it's mind boggling.

You literally have no freaking clue what you're going on about do you?

Look up 'convergant evolution'.

There are thousands of examples of two or more isolated lineages developing similar solutions to the same problems.

Examples such as the Human and the Octopus eye. Structurally they're very similar, or so I've heard.

But then again, The Flying Spaghetti Monster did make the Octopus in His Noodly Image, so I guess they'd have some similarities with Humans.

 

[DracoSuave]

Here's another disproof of one of creationism's hypoetheses.

The young earth.

Alright, so ask a creationist how old the universe is and he will point out that it is some number of centuries old. Sometimes sixty, sometimes more, sometimes less.

Okay.

Then explain this:

Why is there light bombarding the earth from objects that are too far away for that light to have reached us if they were created such a short time ago?

Why are there geological phenomena that can be measured using multiple methods of radio isotopes, and determined to be older than every arbitrary date set by a young earth creationist?

Why are there fossilized trees, which can have their rings matched up with other fossilized trees, and so on, and so forth, until they match up with one tree that is over four thousand years old? Thus providing an unassailable timeline of tree rings going back over 10,000 years, well before any arbitrary YEC's date of creation?

The answer you will get is simple: God put them there to test our faith.

To which, I ask you this. You now have a god who is willing to deceive you to test your faith. In other words, God is fucking with you. But obviously you'v got a book or tablet or scripture or whatever, written by God, that shows the right way, correct?

Then you have a contradiction.

Your book must be taken literally, therefore God falsified aspects of the universe to test peoples' faith. But that means you have a God who lies to test faith, meaning that the word of God could be a lie, meant to test your faith. Meaning your book could be as much a falsified test of faith as the very fossils, radio-isotope dating, celestial objects, and all other phenomena that point to a very old earth.

BILL HICKS says it best. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo]

 

[BrassButtons]

I imagine he'll just abandon this like every other point he's lost and move onto his next ill-conceived point.

Well of course--how else are we supposed to get Bingo [http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/bingo-creationi.html]?

 

[Knight Templar]

ShadowsofHope asserts that Monfang should take more Math classes, if he honestly believes meters do not exist.
ShadowsofHope finds this response to show futility in explaining evolutionary concepts to someone whom just seems to want to willfully not get it.
ShadowsofHope leaves the explaining of Evolutionary facts and logic in sake of debate to others now.

He won't listen, when I called him out on the dating and the whole griffions thing he just changed topic.
I do not think he is here in good faith.

 

[DracoSuave]

For the record.

Evolution is not a process that is restricted to life. So long as you have any process that has:

-reproduction of information
-mutation of that information
-means of selecting based directly or indirectly on that information

Over multiple generations, you will observe evolution towards suitability towards what is being selected for.

This concept is a core idea behind neural networks and AI study. This for example. [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/language-from-games-0712.html]

 

[razer17]

this is the reason I don't believe evolution i studied it enough to realize its very unstable at best but creation is no better

Wait a minute... You don't believe in evolution, but you also don't believe creation... How on earth does that work.

Secondly, the evidence supporting evolution is actually very compelling to everyone but those unable to be reasonable. And you can't research creationsim. There is no scientific way of researching that. All the "evidence" that creationists provide is really stale rhetoric like the blind watchmaker and intelligent design.

Based purely on the fact that evolution has at least some evidence, and that creationism has zero, I believe in evolution.

 

[dantoddd]

I see that people have even busted out godel here. S*** has got real

 

[icaritos]

I'm going to start with the video first.

IT'S A JOKE!

Seriously, you couldn't pick it up that it was a joke? If you did your research you would see that the owner of the site held a contest for the funniest explanation of evolution. That one won.

Now for my proof:

Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."

Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.

The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.

Claim two: Scientists hide facts and lie.

Proof two A: In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Proof two B: Also, personal option that I have gathered based on listening to the people ramble on.

Claim Three: Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings

Proof Three: Lets start with the Griffin. That's right, that half bird half lion creature.. is really different than what you believe. First off, as apposed to other creatures of the time, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands.

Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.

Now look up the Protoceratops. Or let me do it for you: http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Protoceratops012.jpg

Beak, claw. And the researcher goes on to talk about how the creature was treated differently than other 'mythical' animals. You can read all about it here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8f.htm#footnote1

For the rest, read here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

Any questions?

Are you mental? Do you even know where lava comes from? Just because it erupted 50 years in the past it doesn't mean the rocks existed for much much longer.

What you aren't catching is that the lava was tested. Not the rocks. The lava was tested using the method of testing lava formations and it was found to be WAY off.

At the risk of discussing against a troll here it goes. First I did a little goggling around the subject, there is no mention anywhere of this supposed research. Not even websites that are pro creationism make any direct reference to this occurrence. It is either bogus or unproved and unnoficial research.

Secondly, what does "the lava was tested" even mean? The lava IS the rocks, it just so happens to be melted. Dating methods depend on the decay of the elements, whether it has solidified in the last 50 or 100000 years is irrelevant. Lava tends to come from very deep within the earth, from layers that can be thousands if not millions of years old. Hell this is the whole reason why analyzing eruption material is so interesting for scientists.

What you are referring to makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[Fudd]

I love how monfang just keeps jumping back and forth between arguments, and once one of his arguments gets thoroughly disproven, he doesn't even acknowledge it any more and moves on to a new argument, which gets disproven, etc.

In that he is quite typical of creationists.

He also flagrantly abuses many logical fallacies, displays an unwillingness to accept evidence offered to him, and bases his belief in part on his own lack of understanding of evolution. 'bout the only thing he's done that most won't is admit to the latter.

Not to mention he has quite failed to take me up on my challenge to literalist interpretations of Genesis from a theological and interpretational standpoint. That's par for the course as well, mind you, but it would be nice to have an excuse to take out the primary leg YEC stands on. 'Tis bad theology and poor interpretation that's the problem. The bad non-science that these things inspire is a terribly unfortunate side-effect.

 

[Vault101]

disclamer: my knowlege of science is very limited/sctechy....so please if anyone out there could correct me If Im wrong

1. I'm not sure evolution relies on mutations..arnt mutatiosn suposed to be random? (blond hair is a mutation isnt it?) evolution relies on natural selection, of useful traits (for that place and animal) being passed on, animals adapting to thrive in their environemtn, makes perfect sense to me

You are very close to the truth. Mutations are important for evolution because without them differences could not occur. Every lifeform "mutates" over time. Radiation, radical ions (basically atoms with a high "desire" to bond, thus ripping apart other molecules to create molecules of their own) and other influences, even "write errors" during mitosis, cause bits of the DNA to change. most of these changes, however, are quickly repaired by mechanisms insde the cells (the DNA has two interlocking strands, so if a part of one is damaged, it can be reconstructed from the other strands. Pretty much like a mirroring RAID configuration in hard disks). Some mutations can not be repaired though, and can potentially cause diseases like cancer in some cells. if a mutation happens in the cells used to procreate (sperm and egg cells for example), it can cause more extensive effects, since all other cells of the growing organism are derived from these original cells, and unfixable errors are copied along the useful "data". This way, mutations affect future generations, and while some of them essentially render the new lifeform useless or at least less suitable for its place in the world (like being born without the ability to produce certain enzymes. We can substitute these now, since biochemists are able to extract them from other organisms or even create specific bacteria that produce them, but it would have been bad a few centuries ago), other mutations actually improve the lifeform and most of them just don't matter since they happen in one of the inactive parts of the DNA (humans have a lot of leftover code from their ancestors which serves no recognisable purpose today except for "padding" the actual code by lowering the chance that mutations will happen in the important parts. Even some virus DNA was permanently integrated in human DNA, but is usually inactive).
Whichever trait is able to "live on" will become part of the species. For example, in an area with a low concentration of oxygen (on mountains, for example) some goats are born with a set of genes that leads to a higher concentration of hemoglobin (the stuff most mammals use to transport oxygen) or even erythrocytes (red blood cells, contain hemoglobin, and almost nothing else) in their bodies. These goats are now able to take more of the available oxygen into their bodies, thus they have a higher endurance than most others of their generation. Then the male goats start fighting over the females. The ones with higher endurance can fight longer, more opponents and are probably still in good shape after the others gave up. Now they get to have children, who will inherit this improved composition of their blood.
Lots of these tiny changes can even lead to different species.
This is the process of natural selection, which was imitated by humans trying to breed cows that produce more milk or meat than others, horses that are stronger or faster than others, and all the different kinds of dogs, some of which would never be able to survive under natural conditions.

2. wait, since when has lucys bones been only from 10 000 years ago?, I thourght it was general consensus she was from around 3 million years or so oh and you know lucy is waaaay before anything resembling a neanderthral? in fact didnt neanderthals and humans more or less co-exist?

Yes, according to the current scientific opinion, they did, and apparently even cross-bred (seems they were still similar enough), but these are recent findings, you know? Not the true knowledge that was absolutely not made up thousands of years ago.

and what do you mean we arnt finding bones? we HAVE found bones...

to me it seems that people who argue against evolution..their understanding of it isnt 100%

This exactly is the problem. And they are actively trying to spread that ignorance, at least in the US, which is unacceptable.

thanks for clearing that up

and this just seems to prove somthing else, that some dumbass like me who hasnt studied science since year 10 seems to have a better understanding of this than some of thease so called "educated" creationists

 

[Dexiro]

Most signs of this type of evolution come from broken, scattered bones from long gone animals.

Way to dismiss an entire field of science. "Oh, this is just supported by paleontology--there's no real evidence."

Of course it isn't. Real evidence can only be provided by people writing books about something, like the strictly scientific observations about Griffins no one ever found any remains of:

The point I am trying to make is that these creatures are the only ones to be so detailed. Their discriptions match our modern models for the creatures that we only formed though simulations using bones and advanced computers. They did it ether using their own imaginations or perhaps they truely saw it.

Read Flavius Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, translated by F. C. Conybeare, volume I, book III.XLVIII., 1921, p. 333.

As to the gold which the griffins dig up, there are rocks which are spotted with drops of gold as with sparks, which this creature can quarry because of the strength of its beak. ?For these animals do exist in India? he said, ?and are held in veneration as being sacred to the Sun ; and the Indian artists, when they represent the Sun, yoke four of them abreast to draw the images ; and in size and strength they resemble lions, but having this advantage over them that they have wings, they will attack them, and they get the better of elephants and of dragons. But they have no great power of flying, not more than have birds of short flight; for they are not winged as is proper with birds, but the palms of their feet are webbed with red membranes, such that they are able to revolve them, and make a flight and fight in the air; and the tiger alone is beyond their powers of attack, because in swiftness it rivals the winds.

No great power of flying. They are not winged. The man speaks about how it is able to fight dragons, elephants and tigers and win. Mine gold with it's beak. (Or perhap it is carving out a nest in stone like a woodpecker with wood.) I hope you understand that the Griffins that are seen in games like WoW is not the Greek Griffin.

That's all that I can find on the subject. You make your final point which I believe will go back to your prior point and I will wash my hand on the subject.

I watched it. And I'm not convinced. Fusion of the chromosomes is not proof of common ancestry. If anything, it just means that humans and apes are already even more different. It was already known that Apes and Humans share 98% of their DNA (That might change after finding Arti) so finding that this 'fused' chromosome is similar to two pairs of the ape's doesn't surprise me. It just means that humans are different from apes.

The joint of my cars rear-view mirror was broken. I glued the mirror directly on the socket. The bad news is the mirror can't be adjusted to other drivers anymore since the socket and the mirror carrier are now essentially one part. The good news is, I now have a completely different car...


But of course you are not convinced. I have a handy set of wikipedia articles which you might find interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_credential
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentional_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup_bias

And last but not least, one that seems to be very widespread among creationists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_cascade

I just can't decide which of these fit you best...

Now I will stop reading this thread for a while, because it's 2:39 according to my computer clock.

Maybe tomorrow monfang will finally realise that by rejecting science he lost the right to use any electronics.

I love this post

 

[Thaliur]

Hmm, apparently America is sleeping right now, so I'll take this opportunity to provide some On-Topic entertainment:

A good explanation of Abiogenesis [http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_cronin_making_matter_come_alive.html]
And apparently, we are able to build new lifeforms [http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html]
why it is possible to deduce species from even little evidence, and how evolution can be proven by DNA analysis [http://www.ted.com/talks/svante_paeaebo_dna_clues_to_our_inner_neanderthal.html]
Why it isn't all that important if archaeopteryx is a dinosaur or a bird [http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html] (Yes, e still calls archaeopteryx abird in this speech, it took place more than three weeks ago)
Why creationism is still so successful [http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html]
Why discussing with creationists is worthless [http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html] (be sure to watch this one to the end, it's hilarious)
How we can find signs of evolution in our preferences [http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_cute_sexy_sweet_funny.html]

There are more on the same site, if you are interested.



Lewis Black presenting conclusive evidence for Creationism:

This one is mostly the same as the previous, you should skip to about 2:50

And an interesting video of him talking bout Glenn Beck. Not on topic, but amazingly funny anyway:

 

[Monkey lord]

what scientific evidence ?

can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?

creationism

well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.

just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.

God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/

well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.

there are no arcilogical evidence of jesue ever existing except for the bible and the bible is not hard evidence. And as far as creationism goes the only so called evidence they have is the bible says so.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm that website has outside sources talking about Jesus Christ, so either the Romans are lying about him or he actually lived. True most creationism do believe the bible on that of the creation of the world, but then do you believe the bible is one big myth or a bunch of little myths?

I actually think the bible is a big pile of crap.
and jesus beaing mentiond in other texts is not proof of his existens there are also some ancient texts discriping the origin of the universe in norse mythology if this is all the evidence you need then congratulations

the beginning of life was fire and ice, with the existence of only two worlds: Muspelheim and Niflheim. When the warm air of Muspelheim hit the cold ice of Niflheim, the jötunn Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla were created. Ymir's foot bred a son and a man and a woman emerged from his armpits, making Ymir the progenitor of the Jötnar. Whilst Ymir slept, the intense heat from Muspelheim made him sweat, and he sweated out Surtr[citation needed], a jötunn of fire. Later Ýmir woke and drank Auðhumla's milk. Whilst he drank, the cow Audhumbla licked on a salt stone. On the first day after this a man's hair appeared on the stone, on the second day a head and on the third day an entire man emerged from the stone. His name was Búri and with an unknown jövb bctunn female he fathered Borr (Bor), the father of the three gods Odin, Vili and Ve.

When the gods felt strong enough they killed Ymir. His blood flooded the world and drowned all of the jötunn, except two. But jötnar grew again in numbers and soon there were as many as before Ymir's death. Then the gods created seven more worlds using Ymir's flesh for dirt, his blood for the Oceans, rivers and lakes, his bones for stone, his brain as the clouds, his skull for the heaven. Sparks from Muspelheim flew up and became stars.

One day when the gods were walking they found two tree trunks. They transformed them into the shape of humans. Odin gave them life, Vili gave them mind and Ve gave them the ability to hear, see, and speak. The gods named them Askur and Embla and built the kingdom of Middle-earth for them; and, to keep out the jötnar, the gods placed a gigantic fence made of Ymir's eyelashes around Middle-earth.

why is this mythology but not the bible?

 

[xiac79]

I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

That's a very weak argument. I could just as easily say a monkey built it from the ruins of a past universe and then use your explanation as "evidence".

true, i ain't going to lie that is one way of looking at it. i should study some more before talking on this subject again, and please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject >.<

Fair enough, we all say things we haven't fully thought through sometimes.

 

[Amphoteric]

I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.

Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.