D
DÛke
Guest
Nail on the head.EricBess:
Either that or intelligence has never been a survival trait.
Nail on the head.EricBess:
Either that or intelligence has never been a survival trait.
evan d said:Could some one tell me where evolution fails as a theory? Maybe at 15 I haven't been taught its failures? PM or Post. I would like to know how it fails.
In some hybrids, females can be fertile, but males can't. There is a genetic explanation for this that isn't all too difficult to grasp, but I forget how it went...mythosx said:In other words most major mutations cause things to die, if it doesn't die, it has to be able to attract a mate in order to pass on its genes, if it is a new species the mate has to be compitable, or else it won't reproduce or will reproduce infertile offspring like the jenny.
And this proves what? That mutation is not always successful? Thank you for stating the obvious.mythosx said:Any major mutation to a complex organism is 99.999% fatal.
When debating a subject, it is best to at least understand what you are debating. Both of these examples have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory is a slow process with many minor changes, not huge leaps. Also, both parents need not have the same changes to pass them on, ever heard of resseive and dominant genes?mythosx said:For example a man born with an extra heart usually dies before he hits puberty. And even if you could have a stable quantum mutation such a person with four arms, in order to pass on said genes of the new species would require a mate to have developed the same evolutionary changes.
Mooseman said:Question: mythosx, do you know what the word Quantum means. It's best to use a dictionary before using $4 words.
And this proves what? That mutation is not always successful? Thank you for stating the obvious.
When debating a subject, it is best to at least understand what you are debating. Both of these examples have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory is a slow process with many minor changes, not huge leaps. Also, both parents need not have the same changes to pass them on, ever heard of resseive and dominant genes?
Eric,
The theory of evolution is not complete and written in stone, but that does not mean that the basic underlying science is flawed.
I am still waiting for one, just one scrap of evidence that ID or Creationism is a valid theory.
Sorry if you took it that way, It wasn't intended that way.mythosx said:Hey mooseman, please don't be so stand-offish. This is a classy site lets keep it that way.
I can't even respond to this...... to me it make no sense..... Half a heart? What are you talking about? No never mind, I see that you have your mind set on your belief and nothing anyone can say will change that.mythosx said:For example, the animal heart. If you claim evolution, then it slowly evolved and then all the other supporting organs had to evolve slowly over time. But this can't really be. A heart by itself doesnt work. It requires the entire respritory system to be there at the same time.
That means there had to be a creature without a heart, lungs, blood vessels, madula oblangata...etc. And then within 1 generation had to develop or mutate all that. You can't kind of have a half heart and evolve that thing, it either exists or it doesnt. And it can not exist by itself, the entire system has to develop at the same time.
More bad logic.... sorry but this is getting nowhere. I started this post to see what people on CPA thought of ID, but I did not expect such blind faith.mythosx said:Let me present you all with this idea. Since evolution is a theory, that means its not complete. That means its not a fact. Ergo, you must have faith that it works. If that is the case, why is it ok to present one faith based idea in school and not another?
Everything that requires evidence negates faith. The most beautiful desires, beliefs, and hopes - from the simple desire of being loved and loving someone to the brief moments in which one hopes that there really is peace out there, and along all of our ideals (supposing that we have ideals, of course) - all these are things that have never been, and will never be proven - and yet they constitute the very engine of life, provides its sustenance. Man would have not gotten "this far" if it were only for mere science; everywhere we have come to know today, and everything that we will know tomorrow, and every bit of sanity that keeps us asking these questions while consequently forming irreconcilable doubts, all this...rests on the back of faith: faith in our questions, faith that there are questions and the need for questioning, faith in science, faith in knowledge, faith in mankind, faith in yourself as an individual who deserves to ask, doubt, speak, and understand answers. There is absolutly no evidence, for example, that I should respect or tolerate you as a human being. There is no evidence that you have freedom, much less, the freedom to ask and doubt. There is no evidence of the American Constitution. There is no evidence of the law. There is no evidence of good and evil. Without faith in them - a lot of faith! - everything is possible. Every rule, every law, every legal matter, every question of racism, equality, freedom, war, peace, good, evil...in other words, everything that we need necessarily in order to function enough to have our "sciences," is based on nothing more than...faith. Take that faith away, enter nihilism, and you shall not even have your precious science. The world would enter a stage of unending, blatant upheaval.Mooseman:
I am still waiting for one, just one scrap of evidence that ID or Creationism is a valid theory.
I thought it was obvious enough that hybrids wouldn't be a very good vehicle for speciation. But I guess pointing it out can't hurt.mythosx said:Oversoul, you are right about the hybrid females being fertile, but with out males, the new species dies or reverts back to one of the original species. Genetics is a finicky mistress, one that doesn't really care of hybrids. Cept huskies apparently, that one I don't know. I personally think dogs and wolves are the same though, they should don't do it with each other. Normally.
And herein lies the problem. IDT is, to put it bluntly, a cop-out. I can say "God did it" about anything and no one can prove me wrong. If there's absolutely no explanation for something, despite rigorous testing, I can always tack "God did it" to the phenomenon and call it a "theory." But what's the point of a theory if it is of no use to me? As I stated earlier, theories are tools. "God did it" (perhaps Intelligent Design Theory should be called God Did It Theory) is not a tool. It's an empty dismissal. Even if a good explanation (with lots of evidence) is given for my phenomenon, I can claim that God is responsible for the workings of whatever powers the (former) phenomenon. This is a continuous and scientifically pointless cycle until such a time as...judgment day or whatever (well, either until I die or God starts helping me out).Mooseman said:I am still waiting for one, just one scrap of evidence that ID or Creationism is a valid theory.
That there in is my point. Thanks oversoul. It isn't dogma.Oversoul said:I thought it was obvious enough that hybrids wouldn't be a very good vehicle for speciation. But I guess pointing it out can't hurt.
Anyway, dogs and wolves have been considered the same species for some time now. They used to be Canis familiaris and Canis lupus respectively. But now they're both Canis lupus and are divided into subspecies. Domesticated dogs are typically (if I remember correctly) Canis lupus familiaris while wolves (or at least gray wolves) are Canis lupus X.
Shouldn't do it with each other? You're silly.
And herein lies the problem. IDT is, to put it bluntly, a cop-out. I can say "God did it" about anything and no one can prove me wrong. If there's absolutely no explanation for something, despite rigorous testing, I can always tack "God did it" to the phenomenon and call it a "theory." But what's the point of a theory if it is of no use to me? As I stated earlier, theories are tools. "God did it" (perhaps Intelligent Design Theory should be called God Did It Theory) is not a tool. It's an empty dismissal. Even if a good explanation (with lots of evidence) is given for my phenomenon, I can claim that God is responsible for the workings of whatever powers the (former) phenomenon. This is a continuous and scientifically pointless cycle until such a time as...judgment day or whatever (well, either until I die or God starts helping me out).
The response to the somewhat significant adherence to IDT (or GDIT) is illogical, but entirely predictable. As DÛke pointed out, "Science is mind-numbing. On a research, ambitious, curious level, I have no doubt that there are some people out there who truly think scientifically; on a casual and social level, however, science is nothing more than a new God, worshiped even more so blindly than once upon a time God was worshiped. The masses sway from one idolatry to the next."
And so, where I conclude that IDT's use is limited to thought experiments, it seems that many will not stop there. Since IDT is not really a valid theory, Darwinian evolution MUST be right about EVERYTHING. So instead of searching for truth, scientists are focused on backing up the current pet theory.
And they've extended the theory from a biological one, to a universal one. If something in geology doesn't fit with "evolution" (which I have have seriously seen referred to as the Grand Unifying Theory) then it has to be replaced or thrown out.
This theory should be treated as a tool. Instead it is treated, by members of the so-called scientific community, as dogma. This leads to people spouting nonsense about Darwinian evolution having as much evidence as gravity does.
Well, when IDT was originally concocted, it was to provide an alternative to evolutionary theory that appealed to creationists (and was all about God). I do know that there are now some other factors involved. But "aliens did it" is just as dismissive as "God did it" until it can be tested with the scientific method (this is not to say that evolution is tested much with the scientific method).mythosx said:Acutally ID isn't just about god. A very narrow branch of scientist have a distant origins theory. Life came from some where else by some fluke or aliens even.
Well, special conditions are hypothesized in which life might result (obviously spontaneous generation could not just magically happen).mythosx said:Well met oversoul, I don't have an issue with evolution, and people don't seem to understand that. Things evolve. I know this, everyone knows this. The kicker that people associate with evolution without realizing it is spontaneous generation.
When science first came about one of the first theories it disproved was spontanious generation. Basically, life doesn't just spring out of no life. You can have non-living matter generate living matter. So if this is the a KNOWN FACT why do "evolutionists" (not what evolution is all about anyway), why do people insist that a theory of life generating from no life is scientific? IT IS A KNOWN FACT that life does not come from no where.
mythosx said:When science first came about one of the first theories it disproved was spontanious generation. Basically, life doesn't just spring out of no life. You can have non-living matter generate living matter. So if this is the a KNOWN FACT why do "evolutionists" (not what evolution is all about anyway), why do people insist that a theory of life generating from no life is scientific? IT IS A KNOWN FACT that life does not come from no where.
This is a very interesting comment, Duke...I'm going to yank it a bit out of context and use it to make a point.DÛke said:Man would have not gotten "this far" if it were only for mere science
Grasshoppers don't have hearts, they have a series of pumps and an open circulatory system that floods their tissues with oxygenated blood. It's completely different from a "heart" or any closed circulatory system.evan d said:1. On hearts, look up the cardiov vascular systems of smaller animals like grass hoppers. They have many small hearts that beat along one main line.
2. There are groups of single cell organisms that form larger clumps in order to float up to the surface of the water, thereby getting more oxygen.
There are multicellular organisms, that consist of about 20 some cells. They have the specialization also.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Some proponents of Darwinian evolution do believe God started/guided the process. Others are atheists and still others don't make any assertions in this area. But "creationists" generally believe that God poofed the universe into existence and often use literal interpretation of the Bible to claim that evolution contradicts it. Most of them I've met are "young earth creationists" who believe the world isn't all that old (the lowest figure is usually about 6,000 years, based on the work of a scholar, which is taken out of context anyway), but larger numbers like 10,000 or even 20,000 also make appearances.3. Evolution: What happens with life over many years.
Creationism: How life starts.
Wheres the conflict?
Indeed, it mostly begins in the class room. Two failures: teachers, from my experience, fail to inform the students regarding the holes in the theory of Evolution. Instead, it is taught as "hard science": as something that is useful, practical, and long time proven. The other failure concerns the students: students who learn not the lesson, but the mistakes taught throughout the lesson. They grow up to be what you see today: "evolution is not a theory, it is a fact."Ericbess:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there is absolutely nothing to the theory, I'm just rephrasing my original argument that we shouldn't be even implying something like that is factual in the classroom, which is where entirely too many people take this.