Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see evolution as a problem free explanation. That's the nature of science. We probably won't ever have ALL the answers and details. The only way you can do that is to make up answers and declare it to be God's Own Truth. It's not that easy in real life. Regarding evolution, there is still more than sufficient evidence of that being the mechanism of the diversity of life. This is all true, but it's being applied too early in this case. The questions TF has have been answered virtually without question, he just doesn't have a strong enough grasp of the subject to see it. In TF's defense, I am confident he has what it takes to understand it if he's willing to put in the time and educate himself. TF? I actually have a pretty good grasp of evolution. It was a factor in my deconversion. I am sure that you meant LC. Freudian slip... Yeah, so sorry. It wasn't Freudian, I confused the two of you; perhaps because you guys are often in the same threads discussing the same subjects. Only 9/11 suspicions as far as I can recall... I suspected that caused you to lump into the ignorant conspiracist bucket. Thanks a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Like all theories (and I am using the term "theory" in the actual scientific sense here), evolution is the best explanation we have for a phenomenon, observation, or set of measurements. In this case, how life has changed over time to get to the state it's in now is that phenomenon. At this time, evolution is the only viable explanation for the current state of life on earth that reasonably fits the data that we have, after over a century of testing the theory. Right now, there are no scientific challenges that present alternative explanations for how life has arrived at its present state. If another theory comes along that better explains all of the data that we have, then that is the theory that science will go with. Just to clarify for those who don't have a good grasp of the word theory in science or a good understanding of evolution. We basically know for a fact that life evolved/s. The likelihood of this theory, which is arguably one of the most well-vetted, of all scientific theories being completely replaced at this point is essentially nil. We may learn more that causes us to adjust the theory, but the basic idea that life evolved is as solid as it gets scientifically speaking. Moreover, a theory has predictive capability and ToE has been used to accurately predict numerous phenomena, further strengthening the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 That settles it then. Half wing/half arm is useful and obviously survive-able - even though, this creature today would quickly die. The fins of a fish are half-arms. The legs on a turtle, lizard, bird, ... all not full arms like a human arm. So what is a "half" of anything? The problem here is what you mean with a "full" vs a "half". For instance: http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040415/armbone.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Just to clarify for those who don't have a good grasp of the word theory in science or a good understanding of evolution. We basically know for a fact that life evolved/s. The likelihood of this theory, which is arguably one of the most well-vetted, of all scientific theories being completely replaced at this point is essentially nil. We may learn more that causes us to adjust the theory, but the basic idea that life evolved is as solid as it gets scientifically speaking. It's also worth noting that in science, there are often competing theories to describe the same phenomena, until one is found to explain the evidence better than the other. For example, the observations that led to what we now call "dark matter" were also at least partly explained by a competing theory called MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). At this time, dark matter explains why stars move in galaxies the way they do better than MoND, which makes it the currently accepted theory. I think there is currently some competition when it comes to the nature of matter between quantum loop theory and string theory. This is all to say that science isn't as dogmatic as people like to think, and there can be quite a bit of competition among scientists with differing theories, with various individuals and groups trying to prove their own theories correct. The one that prevails is the one that better explains the data we have. Yet, even though there is much competition in science, there is no competing scientific theory against evolution. To my knowledge, since Darwin first started publishing his work, there never has been a theory that competes with evolution to describe scientifically how life on earth became what it is now. Every objection to evolution either invokes "god did it," or just tries to find flaws in understanding of evolution without actually proposing non-deity-caused mechanisms to explain why life is the way it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 there is no competing scientific theory against evolution. Right. And I'd argue that's because it is so obviously clear what is happening, unlike other newer, less vetted theories about things like dark matter and such that are much harder to test and gather evidence for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I agree with you guys too. I was convinced about evolution, but then I took a couple of classes... I was blown away with the logic, facts, artifacts, details of reasoning. It was mind-numbing how well supported evolution is. The problem is, a lot of evidence and arguments take some time to get into. It's like learning trigonometry; you have to understand algebra first. And I think the problem is that most fundamentalists just don't have the patience to learn the "fundamentals" of evolution because they're too busy reading the next church-approved book that repeats the same dogma as last year. I know I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I agree with you guys too. I was convinced about evolution, but then I took a couple of classes... I was blown away with the logic, facts, artifacts, details of reasoning. It was mind-numbing how well supported evolution is. The problem is, a lot of evidence and arguments take some time to get into. It's like learning trigonometry; you have to understand algebra first. And I think the problem is that most fundamentalists just don't have the patience to learn the "fundamentals" of evolution because they're too busy reading the next church-approved book that repeats the same dogma as last year. I know I was. Yeah, I went into Botany not thoroughly convinced even after already studying biology at the lower collegiate level. Botany sealed the deal. When you see how small organisms reproduce using water to transfer dna and then see how this process becomes more complex, yet shares similar traits of their water-born ancestors, in plants that live near the water's edge and then see how reproduction of older plants, such as snake grass and ferns, changes into more complex methods of seeding in the newer, more complex plants that move further from direct water sources, it just becomes impossible to argue with anymore. You can truly see the progression as it unravels before you from class to class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Consider the first one celled organisms. One of the millions of protein molecules in what we call a gene's chemical makeup changes slightly during interaction with other molecules. If the new "version" survives to reproduce, the change continues. If not, there will be millions of other reactions. And millions of years for them to reproduce or die off. Voila. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REBOOT Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see it... All these variables coming together to get us to where we are today. Fully-functional beings with the balance of nature and all it's spectacular features to coax us along. I don't understand how intermediate creatures can evolve. Flight for example... How does that even work? How does a creature have an arm that later turns into a wing - thrive while it's in the intermediate state? How is half of an arm and half of the makings of a wing even useful? How can a creature survive this state to later achieve it's later greatness? They would be sitting ducks. I just don't see how imperfect creatures can thrive and flourish when they are not fully functional - especially with creatures that require the use of other creatures in their final state, to survive. I think there's a mention of symbiotic relationships and evolution... But that idea baffles me. Whales and plankton for example... It all seems a little too perfect to be coincidence... And it is in this subject that my agnosticism really becomes magnified. I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. It seems awfully and magnificently unlikely to me. Anyone else in this place of confusion? The Dodo bird... read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo .....PS... it didn't make it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't see it... All these variables coming together to get us to where we are today. Fully-functional beings with the balance of nature and all it's spectacular features to coax us along. I don't understand how intermediate creatures can evolve. Flight for example... How does that even work? How does a creature have an arm that later turns into a wing - thrive while it's in the intermediate state? How is half of an arm and half of the makings of a wing even useful? How can a creature survive this state to later achieve it's later greatness? They would be sitting ducks. I just don't see how imperfect creatures can thrive and flourish when they are not fully functional - especially with creatures that require the use of other creatures in their final state, to survive. I think there's a mention of symbiotic relationships and evolution... But that idea baffles me. Whales and plankton for example... It all seems a little too perfect to be coincidence... And it is in this subject that my agnosticism really becomes magnified. I simply don't know enough to embrace the idea that all of this is mere coincidence. It seems awfully and magnificently unlikely to me. Anyone else in this place of confusion? Some might say coincidence and others chance, both would be wrong. Probability does factor in, but what it comes down to, is the basic expression, "whatever can happen, will happen." We just happened to be the lucky ones to survive and be the ones with the brains and bodies fighting for survival, and flying to the moon. Just think though, an ant isn't anywhere near the path to that point. And when our life got started, most forms around with us just failed. The odds were for and against us, we just had better odds because the conditions were right. When the conditions are right, life can and will form, and if the conditions are right, will be intelligent and advance technologically. I think your question about evolution is more like asking how so much gold exists, because its all formed when a star is exploding. Why isn't there even less. You're thinking to hard about it. With who knows how many stars, 100 million in our own galaxy, there's bound to be a few at least with conditions just right like ours to form life. Let alone the entire universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 given time this little guy's great grandkids will be walking right along. change is slow my friend. Evolution doesnt progress at a rate that we can make sense of.You asked about wings. think of the ostrich, chicken, and penguins. All these animals have wings but can't fly.And remember that species adapt. They didnt always live in their current habitats and conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 After reading up on this stuff all day. I still can't accept it and don't really care to. Because it could all be some crazy-huge act of chance doesn't mean it is. Yes, yes, I get it... If you have forever it could happen, however unlikely it may seem. I'm not buying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 This illustration may help, aimed at deniers but still valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 Right, so man evolved from some lower form where the Darwin man says only the fittest survive and all along this process what was to become man, over millions of years was the fittest, luckily never being snuffed out by another fitter species because one didn't exist in any shape or form. I believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 "After reading up on this stuff all day. I still can't accept it and don't really care to." (That's why you can't grasp it) Then it's all about ego. Being "special"... being the center of the damn universe and all this wonder, everything, is all about YOU. You don't care about it because that would mean that you are just a speck in the universe, cog in the wheel that is the universe, and not very friggin' special at all... and you can't face that. That's what religion is (unless you have another hypothesis for evolution) it's to feel like the universe revolves around you—it was all put here for you, and you are god's "special child". The arrogance is phenomenal. This kind of arrogance is what fuels bigotry, callousness and the raping of the earth... because people think the universe was made for them. "Screw all the other life forms.. it's all about me." Narcissistic. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 That settles it then. Half wing/half arm is useful and obviously survive-able - even though, this creature today would quickly die. The fins of a fish are half-arms. The legs on a turtle, lizard, bird, ... all not full arms like a human arm. So what is a "half" of anything? The problem here is what you mean with a "full" vs a "half". For instance: http://chronicle.uch...5/armbone.shtml Flying squirrels, anyone? Haven't noticed them "quickly dying," despite having both legs and webs that allow them to glide through the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Right, so man evolved from some lower form where the Darwin man says only the fittest survive and all along this process what was to become man, over millions of years was the fittest, luckily never being snuffed out by another fitter species because one didn't exist in any shape or form. I believe that. If you think "survival of the fittest" is state-of-the-art evolution theory, you're decades out of date. The reallity is much more complex than that. You know, nobody can or should expect you to "embrace" the theory of evolution. But before rejecting it, perhaps you should examine it a lot more closely than you have. It's very true that there are holes in our knowledge. But the holes you're showing in your knowlege are pretty huge, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Right, so man evolved from some lower form where the Darwin man says only the fittest survive and all along this process what was to become man, over millions of years was the fittest, luckily never being snuffed out by another fitter species because one didn't exist in any shape or form. I believe that. Any healthy species is "fit" for it's current environment. We are the only survivors on our branch of the tree. Many other species of man went extinct. We too came close to going out around 60k years ago. There is a genetic bottlneck in our DNA from that time because our numbers fell to perhaps a few thousand - that is to say there was a time when only a couple thousand of us were alive on Earth. Oh and keep in mind that the universe didn't owe us anything. It didn't have to create us. It could have created anything or nothing. The mutation part is random but natural selection is not random at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Hey LifeCycle, I struggled with evolution myself. I'm going to put some links to some docos up for you that I found helpful. First of all, this is a link to the a doco about the Dover trial, where the validity of evolution as opposed to intelligent design was put on trial and examined in court. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-trial/ Secondly, we have The Genius of Charles Darwin, which is a three part doco made by Richard Dawkins: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/genius-charles-darwin/ Lastly, this is the most recent one I've watched, which is an overview of everything from the big bang to now, called a History Of The World In Two Hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPRw9jJjIds Give those three a whirl, in that order, and see what you think, afterwards. By the way, I have more docos Like I said, this subject was incredibly hard for me to get my head around. Good luck 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Right, so man evolved from some lower form where the Darwin man says only the fittest survive 1. Darwin didn't come up with that phrase 2. The phrase is misleading 3. It doesn't say "only" The fittest has a higher chance of survival and reproduction. The unfit has a lower chance of survival and reproduction. It's a process of statistics and slightly tilted scales. You will have survival of less fit, but over time, less fit (in the meaning of reproduction) will decrease. Unfortunately, people misunderstand "unfit" in the sense of power, strength, intelligence, etc, but it's not correct either. "Fit" only means that a species can reproduce and have offspring that carries the same genes. and all along this process what was to become man, over millions of years was the fittest, luckily never being snuffed out by another fitter species because one didn't exist in any shape or form. Kind'a. We have many of the transitional forms from pre-apes to humans. And we know they're transitional because of many factors you can study by just looking at the skulls and teeth. Many branches of "homo" didn't make it. And there have been interbreeding through the ages as well, two compatible, yet long distant relatives, crossbreeding to a new mixed form. And we are still mutating and forming new DNAs, even today. But we've reached a form of apex when it comes to most of the phenotypes (outside, external, "macro" forms, i.e. two legs, 5 toes, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 "After reading up on this stuff all day. I still can't accept it and don't really care to." Save your breath, folks, that says it all right there. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 "After reading up on this stuff all day. I still can't accept it and don't really care to." Save your breath, folks, that says it all right there. Oh shit. Didn't notice that. I don't get it when people say that. This topic shouldn't be in a discussion forum if it's just a statement of opinion and "don't care" to discuss it. Part of not understanding evolution in its fullest is partly to blame for why we're having an increase of drug resistant pathogens. Damn it. It's important to know and understand it to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Evolution is a difficult thing to grasp if you haven't studied molecular genetics, biochemistry, biology, and the like. Maybe you could get a graduate level evolution textbook and study up on it. (I found undergrad level texts on evolution to be not much more helpful than a high school version since there is so much background science that needs to be understood for it to make sense... a graduate level text will give you a better in-depth study and reference for the chemistry and genetics behind it all.) It has been too long since I studied evolution to be able to explain it eloquently or succinctly, so I will just say that once you study the science behind it, it makes more sense. These changes occurred over billions of years, not from generation to generation. Some attributes came to be with a single mutation that proved to be beneficial or non-consequential in nature, other attributes evolved over millions of years. It is very difficult for humans to imagine that kind of scale. I am sure that some of the specifics in our evolution theory may be wrong in its assumptions, but overall the theory is very sound and the fossil record supports the general idea. We will never be able to duplicate macroevolution in studies or experiments, but we CAN document microevolution and take the principles from there and extrapolate it into how it must have gone over millions of years. However it happened, it certainly makes a ton more sense than a magic being speaking things into existence. *Poof!* LOL Good luck in your search. Don't let it trouble you too much. I hope it doesn't make or break your faith or lack of faith in a god. Try not to get caught up in the details. If you haven't studied the sciences deeply, it won't make as much sense to you as if you had. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts