Login

Join for Free!
118873 members


5 best proofs of evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby canalon » Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:59 pm

Jonl you are a bit confused:
- The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are not related.
- Order can arise from disorder, it happens all the time, it just requires energy. Buy a jigsaw puzzle and solve it and you just demonstrated that it can happen. Your lack of understanding of entropy is demonstration of your ignorance, not a problem with the theory of evolution.
- Yes, biologist do not have a perfect (not even close admittedly) idea of how, where and when life came from, but that is not problem in terms of evolution since:
*The theory of Evolution deals with how life adapts and change over time, and
*It does not deal with how life appears in the first place
*Hence it works also in computer simulation, and would probably be useful to understand non terrestrial life forms that have appeared and evolved independently
-The theory of evolution and all science that annoys creationist is accepted because it allows us (scientists) to make predictions and model how our world work which are grounded in facts, not myth or fictions. And it works. Religions have little (or more accurately, no) practical value.
-The fact that lawmakers panders to the stupid and uninformed and jeopardize public health making ad hoc regulations to satisfy their electors is not a scientific proof of anything. Except maybe of the trust we can put in our elected officials to put the common good before their particular interests.
-The plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to convince anyone that this diet has any value, you better provide some better proof.
-Archeological evidence are proving that the Earth is older than 6000 years old, why would you rely on them when it is confirming your fantasies and not the part were it shows that they are just that, fantasies? And they show that 6000 years ago, the life expectancy was probably not that great, and certainly not up to Bible standard (multiple of hundreds years).
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 5 best proofs of evolution

Postby Jonl1408 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:54 pm

okay, I agree I was wrong about the big bang being connected to evolution, but I do not agree with the statement that archaeology disproves the Bible.

The book of Daniel in the Bible speaks of many events, which include the battles of Antiochus Epiphanes, which happened after the time the Book of Daniel was written, that is to say the 6th century B.C. Therefore skeptics claim that it was written in the 1st century B.C., after the events it foretells, and that it was faked to have been that old, but there is one important fact that made the Book of Daniel stand out, it claimed that Belshazzar was the last Babylonian king. The historians of the 1st century and before, until recently had always claimed that Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king, and therefore they all agreed that the Book of Daniel was false. This all changed in 1854, when the Nabonidus Cylinder, and The Nabonidus Chronicle were found. The Nabonidus Cylinder, records a prayer from Nabonidus for his son Belshazzar, the Nabonidus Chronicle states that Nabonidus was in Tema with his army, while his son, Belshazzar, stayed in Babylonia as co-regent. The Book of Daniel also states that Belshazzar rewarded Daniel for a favor, by naming him 3rd in the kingdom, why name him 3rd, why not second?
Could it be because Belshazzar himself, was 2nd in the kingdom, since his father was gone? Here is a link on the subject, http://chriswatsonlee.wordpress.com/200 ... chronicle/.


There is also the story of Sennacherib, in which he came to take the city of Jerusalem. To take the city of Jerusalem, he had to also take the city of Lachish, which was nearby. There is a hexagonal prism named Sennacherib's prism, because it tells of him and his conquests, this prism tells of the siege of Lachish, but says nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, in fact it tells of Sennacherib going home after the siege of Lachish. There is even an archaeological find in the British Museum, of tons of stone panels from the South-west Palace of Sennacherib, that all depict the siege of Lachish, in great detail, and even what he did to the prisoners afterwards, but they found nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, which was his main target. What happened, why does he say nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, why do the records say he went home and never invaded Israel again? The Bible says that Sennacherib camped around Jerusalem, and in one night his whole army was destroyed by the Angel of the Lord. Since Sennacherib says nothing of this, skeptics claim that the Bible is false, but if you had just had your whole army destroyed in one night, and you think that you are the mightiest king ever,
( check what his prism says at http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html)
would you put it down in the history books to be laughed at? Most people would not, they would do exactly what Sennacherib did, go home have them write down stories of the battles you did win, and blot the night that your whole army was destroyed from the history books. These stories were in the Bible before any archaeological evidence had ever surfaced. These are just two examples, but I don't have time to write down all of the archaeological finds corroborating the Bible.
Thanks for reading this, and God Bless
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould
User avatar
Jonl1408
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:26 am
Location: South Carolina

Postby canalon » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:27 pm

You should read more carefully. I did not say that the archaeological evidences are disproving the Bible. That would be stupid and factually wrong.
But archaelogy and paleontology and geology all demonstrate clearly that if the historical framework is correct for the near past, the deep past (creation myth, the flood...) are at best poor memories of historical event (a big local flood vs a world wide event) or complete myth (the 2 accounts of creation).
What I am saying is that you are Cherry-picking facts that fit your world view, but reject the ones that do not, like an billions year old earth, fossils dating etc.
If evolution is taught in school in science class that is because it has been proved to be useful to understand the biological world again and again. The details are still not all clear, but the basic tenet explained by Darwin and Wallace, plus more than hundred year of biological sciences have clearly demonstrated that the theory of evolution is the best model to explain life as we know it and how it came to spread on our planet (lacking data on other planets). While creationism is just repeating a myth found in an old book without any proof.

As an aside, since you are obviously a christian, would you have any proof that your particular myth of creation is any more relevant, factual and real than any of the hundreds of other creation myth proposed by other religions? That the christian bible is more the true word of god than the Qur'an or the popol vuh?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Re: 5 best proofs of evolution

Postby Jonl1408 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:11 am

The "facts" that you say that I am rejecting, have been disputed over and over, and that is why they have never been confirmed, because there is no proof to back them up. First of all I would have to say that the Jewish faith has been around longer than any other viewpoint or religion still standing today. I also want to say that the Jewish faith has the most split off religions(Christianity, Roman Catholicism etc..). The only difference between the Jewish faith, and Christianity, is that Christianity acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Messiah. also the Bible has the most detailed history of any other religion, and as I said had proof of historical figures, that even 1st century B.C. historians, had not heard of. The Bible also foretold events in detail before they happened. As to Christianity being a myth in an old book, it was a very active myth for at least 2-3000 yrs.

As a side note, the comment about the jigsaw puzzle earlier, doesn't fit, because it came from order, and you use order to put it together. To answer your other comment too Christianity, is not just a religion, it is based on history and science, because the Creator of the world is the Deity not some statue.

Also Jesus Christ is still living and working in the lives of people, and no other religion can claim that of the of the men who started their religions. God was alive before He formed the World and He is still alive today and loves you and I more than we can imagine! True peace and satisfaction can only be found in Him and His unconditional love! All you have to do to receive it is believe on Him for salvation! I will pray that the Lord will work in your heart and show you personally his truth. May God bless you!
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould
User avatar
Jonl1408
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:26 am
Location: South Carolina

Postby JackBean » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:29 am

you're completely ignoring not only the science, but also other religions as budhism (which is older than Christianity) or Islam
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby Jonl1408 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:08 pm

First of all, I have shown many proofs for creation, by science, but if you want more then I will post more. Second buddhism, was founded in 460 B.C. by Siddhartha Gautama, the Jewish faith started way before that, the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., and the Jewish faith had been around way before that. I will give you this link on the Fibonacci numbers, so you can read about it for yourselves, http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 ... rough.html
If you want scientific proof, think about the second law of thermodynamics, if you read anything I say read this, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html
P.S. I also should have specified the Jewish faith, instead of Christianity, because ultimately Christianity goes back to the Jewish faith, although as I said earlier the only difference, is that most people of the Jewish faith do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould
User avatar
Jonl1408
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:26 am
Location: South Carolina

Re:

Postby canalon » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:57 pm

Jonl1408 wrote:First of all, I have shown many proofs for creation, by science, but if you want more then I will post more.


I fail to find them in this thread, and I have not seen them in any other. Would you care to summarize?

Jonl1408 wrote:Second buddhism, was founded in 460 B.C. by Siddhartha Gautama, the Jewish faith started way before that, the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., and the Jewish faith had been around way before that.


And so what. The Judeo christian tradition is old. So are the sumerian, greek and roman pantheon. And animism. Do that make them more true? Less true? How do you objectively measure that the "trueness" of one creation myth compared to another?
By the way the greek philosophy is still alive and kicking and discussed and fundamental to many important and current problems, such as ethics.
Jonl1408 wrote: I will give you this link on the Fibonacci numbers, so you can read about it for yourselves, http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 ... rough.html


It does not prove anything. There is a lot of affirmation and very little data. But since I have no reason to believe that the author is a liar, I will assume that his staistics about the golden ratio are true (although it might not be, and they have at least some references) , I still do not see how that prove anything. The numbers from the golden ratio might be everywhere how is that a proof of intelligence? Or just confirmation bias and our brain finding patterns where there are not (a common occurence)?

Jonl1408 wrote:If you want scientific proof, think about the second law of thermodynamics, if you read anything I say read this, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html


Oh a beginning of an explanation, and some science. It is a bit sad though that they are not really good at science. The fatal blow according to them is that:
www.christiananswers.net wrote:Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?


But the thing is that in fact it would if the plant was not in a dynamic state. When the energy flow is stopped, the plant start to degrade, or rather stop fixing the permanent degradative mechanisms. And if you wait too long it won't restart because it is already too damaged too. In this respect it is very similar to a nuclear reactor: if you cut all source of power for too long, you will need more than just flipping back the switch to restart the plant, because the decay and its effect will have not stop. We have a timely demonstration unforlding in Japan. But if you can prevent those degradations, or slow them enough, then the flow of energy can be stopped for a long while without ill effects. Seeds, spores and a few other similar thing are doing exactly that. And when you provide them with energy and water, they restart.
So what makes life possible is a continuous supply of energy that allow it to locally decrease entropy, at the cost of the general increase of it in the universe. I suggest that you read and understand physics before using it. And not just the pop-culture "entropy=disorder" part.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 5 best proofs of evolution

Postby canalon » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:35 pm

Jonl1408 wrote:The "facts" that you say that I am rejecting, have been disputed over and over, and that is why they have never been confirmed, because there is no proof to back them up.


This is more history than science and not very relevant to the discussion of evolution, would you say?
And as I have said the historicity of the bible is probably okayish (with the usual caveat about only one side of the story for things like battle and the size and number of horses of the king). But that does not prove that it was inspired by god, just that it was written by people who lived at that time and described the world as they understood it.

Jonl1408 wrote: First of all I would have to say that the Jewish faith has been around longer than any other viewpoint or religion still standing today. I also want to say that the Jewish faith has the most split off religions(Christianity, Roman Catholicism etc..). The only difference between the Jewish faith, and Christianity, is that Christianity acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Messiah. also the Bible has the most detailed history of any other religion, and as I said had proof of historical figures, that even 1st century B.C. historians, had not heard of. The Bible also foretold events in detail before they happened.
As to Christianity being a myth in an old book, it was a very active myth for at least 2-3000 yrs.


Once again what you are proving is that the story has been carried through the generation quite well. Religious veneration of the text would have helped. But I does not prove the hand of god anywhere. Other older creation myth have been recorded, like the sumerian story, which are at least as old, and they have some similarity. But the gods are not one of them. Why one would be more accurate than the other objectively? Popularity and longevity are proof of popularity and longevity, and of nothing else.

Jonl1408 wrote:As a side note, the comment about the jigsaw puzzle earlier, doesn't fit, because it came from order, and you use order to put it together. To answer your other comment too Christianity, is not just a religion, it is based on history and science, because the Creator of the world is the Deity not some statue.


The puzzle example is just a metaphor. A shallow one I will admit, and obviously a failed one as you completely missed my point. Just trying to say that if you put the energy in something you can organize it. Order can be created, but it has a cost: increased entropy in the system (the universe in this case) because to assemble it you need someone who is burning energy to saty alive and to power neurons to recognize and assemble patterns in order. This is exactly what happens at an infinitesimal level in all living organisms. molecules are organizing and are assembling things that are more complex than themselves, and all they need is a supply of material and energy. This si only possible because energy is used in the system, with loss at many stage as heat.
And I am at a loss to see where christianity is based on science. It is based on a collection of text, thousand of year of interpretations, and very little else. (In this case history being the record of the activity of human is not relevant to the scientific basis of religion it does not prove anything, it just record.)

Jonl1408 wrote:Also Jesus Christ is still living and working in the lives of people, and no other religion can claim that of the of the men who started their religions. God was alive before He formed the World and He is still alive today and loves you and I more than we can imagine! True peace and satisfaction can only be found in Him and His unconditional love! All you have to do to receive it is believe on Him for salvation! I will pray that the Lord will work in your heart and show you personally his truth. May God bless you!

Well the buddhist are convinced that the Dalai lama has always been the same person periodically changing body through reincarnation. That is even better than Jesus living through other.
As for "Jesus living and working in the lives" would you care to prove how that is substantially different that if I was wacking you on the head in the name of Ughhh the prophet of the Neanderthal. People have been raised in the christian faith and analyse their actions using that particular point of view. OK, but essentially subjective. If I have been raised being told that doing good things is letting Jesus into my life, I would say that Jesus is in my life when I am doing what I believe is good. But that is just proof of your education, not that an external force acted through you.
My point being there are no external, objective proof of the action of god. This would be cool, and I might start to believe in God if there was anything new on that chapter. But I do not expect to sse my worldview changed in the near future.

And to finish. Would you finally provide anything factual that might support the contention that there is any kind of scientific support to creation. Not solely saying that evolution is wrong, but also the beginning of an inkling of a clue that facts are proving that the earth is ca. 6000 y.o. and that there was nothing, then something. Old stories and article of faith are not considered objects.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 5 best proofs of evolution

Postby Dov Henis » Sat Apr 02, 2011 7:03 am

Quantum Mechanics Of Life
Life's Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27 ... index&bb=0



From "Essence Of Quantum Mechanics"
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27 ... ategorized


The universe, and life within it, are not just conglomerations of mechanisms. The universe, and life within it, have come into being by the nature of energy-mass dualism, and their fate, their final outcome, is governed by this dualism. The genesis and, most probable cyclic, existence of the universe are governed by the energy-mass relationship.


Energy-mass relationship governs also the routes, the mechanisms, of cosmic and life evolutions.


Mechanisms do not set/determine the classical physics fate states. Mechanisms are routes of evolution between classical physics fate states. Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, probable, possible and actual mechanisms of getting from one to other classical physics states WITHIN the expanse from cosmic singularity to the maximum expanded universe and back to singularity states.


The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics. This is the fractal oneness of the universe. Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.


Life's Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology.
UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution/Natural Selection Backward To Genes/Genomes, BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.

The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.


Dov Henis
(Comments From 22nd Century)
"Rethink Evolution/Natural Selection"
http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/26/in-evo ... nt-page-1/
Last edited by Dov Henis on Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dov Henis
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:21 pm

Re: 5 best proofs of evolution

Postby Zenithar66 » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:44 pm

I thought i 'd jump in here an just add something intersting to the debate.

Now, I personally dont know how old the earth is, but , if i had to make a decision I would say alot longer then 6,000 years..
but what I find intersting is that, and I havent heard this debated yet, the apparently constant decay rate of isotopes is actaully not constant at all, that was an assumption that has now been seemingly proven wrong..
It seems the rate of decay is affected and changes cyclicly with the suns rotation and with the seasons...

check out these links and tell me what you think, does this put a question mark over all dates we have ascertained?

http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the- ... ticle.html

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093253.htm

Intersting eh?

I personally feel that those who believe in a literal creation are completely missing the allegory, science, and philosophy within our most ancient texts. I think they should do some real resaerch into the origins of there religion.
Not that i am convinced by evolutions mechanisms either...

but what do you guys think of this, cause for concern?
Zenithar66
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:29 pm

Postby canalon » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:51 pm

Dov you are verbose, you like big words, but you do not make sense.

Zhenitar,
Interesting. Although 2 of the links are actually the same, and sadly the 3rd one (or rather the first) do not bring much more information than the Press Release where it comes from. And following the footsteps of the numerous idiots that make a lot of science communication, the trainee that wrote this PR did not link to any primary data that would support what is presented. It is not that I suspect that this is wrong, but some of the questions that this raise are definitely not even close to be answered. The first one being, how large (or not) are those variations? We are talking about people who measure the decay of individual atoms within billions with enormous precision, and I doubt that variations are going to be massive. If they were even in the percent range I suspect that this would have already been observed and the discrepancy between the measurments noted.
Why would that be important? Simply because the confidence interval of most datation based on radioactive decay is already quite large due to other variable factor (including the exact proportion of the measured isotope at the time of formation of the experimental subject), and there is no way from what I read here to assess if that variation is going to change anything significantly or not.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re:

Postby Zenithar66 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:11 am

canalon wrote:Dov you are verbose, you like big words, but you do not make sense.

Zhenitar,
Interesting. Although 2 of the links are actually the same, and sadly the 3rd one (or rather the first) do not bring much more information than the Press Release where it comes from. And following the footsteps of the numerous idiots that make a lot of science communication, the trainee that wrote this PR did not link to any primary data that would support what is presented. It is not that I suspect that this is wrong, but some of the questions that this raise are definitely not even close to be answered. The first one being, how large (or not) are those variations? We are talking about people who measure the decay of individual atoms within billions with enormous precision, and I doubt that variations are going to be massive. If they were even in the percent range I suspect that this would have already been observed and the discrepancy between the measurments noted.
Why would that be important? Simply because the confidence interval of most datation based on radioactive decay is already quite large due to other variable factor (including the exact proportion of the measured isotope at the time of formation of the experimental subject), and there is no way from what I read here to assess if that variation is going to change anything significantly or not.



To be honest i would love some primary data also, as i suspect it is true, but i also think you or anyone else cannot predict the consequences of this discovery. If its true then it should be literally on the front page of nature becuase it could be one of those major milestones in science, I personally feel this puts a question mark over our knowledge of decay rates and therefore our dating techneques.
Zenithar66
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests