5 best proofs of evolution

[canalon]

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.

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.

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.)

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.

[Dov Henis]

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/

[Zenithar66]

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?

[canalon]

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.

[Zenithar66]

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.

[canalon]

A paper by the Prof. Sturrock discussing the cause, but not the extant (as far as I can understand):
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA523527

And here is another very interesting discussion, although it might be suspected of bias, it seems to be only based on scientific litterature. The comment section is interesting:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... earth.html

So it appears, that there might not be much in fact here.

[Zenithar66]

A paper by the Prof. Sturrock discussing the cause, but not the extant (as far as I can understand):
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA523527

And here is another very interesting discussion, although it might be suspected of bias, it seems to be only based on scientific litterature. The comment section is interesting:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... earth.html

So it appears, that there might not be much in fact here.

Hey thanks for the links here , very good info but i dont think we can draw too many conclusions here, especial about the long term variances, either way its very intersting and i will be keeping my eyes out for sure!

[canalon]

Well from the second link it appears that a simpler explanation than neutrino affecting decay rate, it is the air temperature that affects the detctor.
If you google the subject you will find that other things can affect the decay rate of certain atoms (notably Beta emitters), notably the atomic structure of the molecules they are part of. However the decay is identical for all atoms in the same structure. But even if the Jenkins/Fischer effect and the results presented by Dr Sturrock were wrong (and I now tend to think they are, the atomic clocks in orbit do not present any variations of decay rate, while being exposed to the same neutrino flux), at least I learned a few things from that.

[Dov Henis]

This will help unravel some present nature's complexities:

UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS.
Extend Evolution/Natural Selection Backward To Genes/Genomes, BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.


Again, Correct Some Figments Of Science Imagination
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27 ... index&bb=0

[Mod Edit: no need to paste a copy of your blog's rambling in this thread. The link is enough. If you want to add something that would be on topic and comment you are welcome, otherwise, abstain]

[JorgeLobo]

Evolution is a theory - there are no proofs for evolution or any other biological theory. The term "theory" as used here is not just a guess, it has special substance in the concept of science.

See: www.ohiosci.org/Whatisscience.PDF

[JackBean]

Evolution is a theory - there are no proofs for evolution...

You have obviously no idea about evolution at all.

[JackBean]

or rather the research regarding evolution