Login

Join for Free!
118323 members


Who did we evolve from?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby David George » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:15 am

There are no scientific alternatives for evolution but it is good to find faults in it to prove someother concept as that leads to the increase in knowledge but don't tell me that concept is creationism plese don't tell me it is creationism I would rather believe Lamarckism for that.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Postby Leben » Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:30 pm

Okay fine I will keep this strictly about science then.
Being scientific about this evolution is a myth, as well as the big bang. Both are nothing but a hypothesis, they are NOT theories.

If they were theories then there would not be all this controversy.

Why can evolution NOT be a theory, simple, how does a hypothesis become a theory?

1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.

2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.

3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.

4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data.

5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.

6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.


How is evolution even a theory? It can not be tested, there is not REAL evidence that it exists. (If we found the "missing links" then there would at least be something) We can not test evolution in a lab either.

(When I say evolution I mean macro, not micro. Micro evolution does exist, but it is simply adaptation. << I think I got the terms right, if not you know what I mean.)

So how is evolution even a real theory? Same thing with the Big Bang, they are still simply guesses.

When you start thinking that these are FACTS, or even theories then you are changing from science to religion. You are creating your own set of beliefs.

Did anyone know that genetically we are most like pigs? So if I said, Hey we came from pigs. That in itself would be a simple guess. But we definatly did not come from pigs, and nor is there any REAL evidence that we came from a monke.

Any questions, comments would be great.
User avatar
Leben
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:34 pm

Postby alextemplet » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:17 pm

Leben, do you really think you need to lecture us on the scientific method?

If they were theories then there would not be all this controversy.


No, I think that's exactly why there's so much controversy, hence the famously weak "It's just a theory." argument.

How is evolution even a theory? It can not be tested, there is not REAL evidence that it exists. (If we found the "missing links" then there would at least be something) We can not test evolution in a lab either.


It can very easily be tested. Just observe lifeforms evolving to changing environments. I've listed a few such studies myself in the "Origins of Life" and other threads. Evolution has been observed in nature occurring at a rate several thousand times faster than in the fossil record. I think the real question should not be "Is evolution possible?" but "Why is it so slow?"

(When I say evolution I mean macro, not micro. Micro evolution does exist, but it is simply adaptation. << I think I got the terms right, if not you know what I mean.)


Same thing.

So how is evolution even a real theory? Same thing with the Big Bang, they are still simply guesses.


How is evolution not a theory? Same for the big bang?

As I said before, I'm the resident Catholic around here, so I'll take a moment to mention that the big bang theory was first proposed by the Catholic Church in order to prove that God exists. It's a long story but very interesting if you're interested.

When you start thinking that these are FACTS, or even theories then you are changing from science to religion. You are creating your own set of beliefs.


I thought the entire job of science was to identify facts and use them to validate or reject theories. Boy, was I wrong!

Did anyone know that genetically we are most like pigs?


No, we are most genetically like chimps.

Any questions, comments would be great.


Here you are, but I'm still waiting for your proposal for a scientific alternative to evolution.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)


Postby Leben » Mon May 01, 2006 3:03 am

Evolution suposedly should not be so slow, if we had all this evolution happen withen such a small amount of time then why do we not see ANY today. There are no new species being made, only species who are adapting to their environment. So thus this is not the Darwin evolution, it is simply adaptation. If I got married and moved up to the Artic then my children, and my childrens children would be better suited for that environment. We are not becoming an entire new species, just simply adapting to were we live.

And why is it that there are no fossil records of a progressive evolution throughout history?

On the matter of the pigs, that information came from a highly respected instructor of mine. He is greatly involved in Science and he explained that we are genetically closer to pigs. I would gladly give you the info on it, I would have to type it up first though.
But with this information it shows that PHYSICALLY we are closer to a monkee, GENETICALLY to a pig. Which do you think seems more logical in the face of science.

Big Bang? All due respect but I do not really care that it came from the Roman Catholic Church, it does not make it right, nor does it make it an ACTUAL theory. Only a myth, or if you will a hypothesis. Just like evolution.

Prove to me that you can actually test evolution and the big bang SCIENTIFICALLY, not on faith, and I may take you seriously.

As a scientific alternative to evolution, there is no scientific alternative unless I create another myth.
The only explenation is that we have a creator. Get mad at me for saying that if you want, but science can go along with a creator.
User avatar
Leben
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:34 pm

Postby alextemplet » Mon May 01, 2006 3:25 am

Leben, please don't take this the wrong way, but I get the feeling that you didn't read a single word I typed. Example:

Evolution suposedly should not be so slow, if we had all this evolution happen withen such a small amount of time then why do we not see ANY today.


That's exactly what I meant when I said that evolution shouldn't be so slow. I was referring to studies where scientists actually watched evolution occur at a rate much faster than that seen in fossils. That means we can see it. Are you going to make me look up those studies again?

So thus this is not the Darwin evolution, it is simply adaptation.


That's exactly what Darwinian evolution is.

And why is it that there are no fossil records of a progressive evolution throughout history?


There is.

would gladly give you the info on it, I would have to type it up first though.


Please do.

But with this information it shows that PHYSICALLY we are closer to a monkee, GENETICALLY to a pig. Which do you think seems more logical in the face of science.


Well, since physical appearance is determined by genes, I find this very hard to believe.

Big Bang? All due respect but I do not really care that it came from the Roman Catholic Church, it does not make it right, nor does it make it an ACTUAL theory. Only a myth, or if you will a hypothesis. Just like evolution.


Like I said, I only mentioned the big bang because it was interesting, and it isn't a myth. Few theories in any scientific field are more solidly supported by evidence. And I think you need to research the scientific definition of theory.

Prove to me that you can actually test evolution and the big bang SCIENTIFICALLY, not on faith, and I may take you seriously.


Once again I don't think you read a word I typed. I said before, as far as testing evolution, simply watch and see if you can watch it happening. I guess I am going to have to re-explain the studies I mentioned in the "Origins of Life" thread, but first I'd like to know that you're listening.

As a scientific alternative to evolution, there is no scientific alternative unless I create another myth.


I think I'm inclined to agree with this one. There is no scientific alternative, or any alternative, to evolution, except for mythology.

The only explenation is that we have a creator. Get mad at me for saying that if you want, but science can go along with a creator.


As a Catholic, I wouldn't get mad at anyone for saying that we have a creator. I've said it myself on this forum quite a few times. But one thing needs to be made very clear: Science deals with the natural, and religion deals with the supernatural. The two are not mutually exclusive but that doesn't mean they have to overlap.

Here's an off the wall question. Who do you think that creator is, and can you prove the creator's identity scientifically? Were we created by the God of Abraham, or by aliens? Perhaps Mithras or any of the other Greco-Roman gods? Or maybe by a Hindu god? Or the Egyptian gods?

I'm only asking because you seem so intent on scientifically proving a creator, I was wondering if you could scientifically prove who that creator is.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby kabuto » Mon May 01, 2006 7:25 am

Leben wrote:Evolution suposedly should not be so slow,


William Dembski, in The Creation Hypothesis, suggests the following argument.

Darwin thought that all life, including humans, arose from a one-celled organism. But to get from a one-celled organism to a human being with a least a trillion cells, there would have to be many changes. Darwin says these changes were produced at random, but they would have had to occur in the right order. It doesn't do any good to give an organism a leg until it has a nervous system to control it. Even if we limit the number of necessary mutations to 1,000 and argue that half of these mutations are beneficial, the odds against getting 1,000 beneficial mutations in the proper order is 2^1000. Expressed in decimal form, this number is about 10^301.

10^301 mutations is a number far beyond the capacity of the universe to generate. Even if every particle in the universe mutated at the fastest possible rate and had done so since the Big Bang, there still would not be enough mutations.

There are about 10^80 elementary particles in the universe. The fastest they could mutate would be Planck time, or 10-42 seconds. Planck time is the smallest unit of time and can be approximated as the time it would take two photons traveling at 186,000 miles per second to pass each other. If every particle in the universe (10^80) had been mutating at the fastest possible rate (10^42) since the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, or 10^17 seconds ago, it would produce 10^80 x 10^42 x 10^17 or 10^139 mutations. But to have a chance at even 1,000 beneficial mutations takes 10^301 tries. Thus, the chance of getting 1,000 beneficial mutations out of all the mutations the universe can generate is 10^139 divided by 10^301, or 1 chance in 10^162.

For Darwin's theory to have a chance of being right, the universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is. Because the universe is so young, Darwin's argument fails,
User avatar
kabuto
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:30 am

DangerMouse

Postby DangerMouse » Mon May 01, 2006 3:25 pm

What utter tripe. I'm rather busy, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who are qualified to tell you why that's nonsense, but if nobody does I suppose I'll have to. In the mean time, read the first few chapters of "Selfish gene" by Dawkins. That should fill you in.
DangerMouse
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby canalon » Tue May 02, 2006 12:56 am

kabuto wrote:William Dembski, in The Creation Hypothesis, suggests the following argument.


And this suggestion proves only one thing: That its author have only a very weak (to put it nicely) grasp on the basic of the mechanism of evolution.
Basically and because I can't write a whole textbook on the subject here, it suppose only point mutation, and forget all other way to create diversity (horizontal genetic transfer, gene duplications, mobile elements to name but a few).

May I suggest that you try to understand and take the time to learn about evolution before you start trying to disprove it?
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

Postby alextemplet » Tue May 02, 2006 12:58 am

If natural selection worked that way, you would be right. But it doesn't.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby alextemplet » Tue May 02, 2006 1:00 am

Canalon wrote:May I suggest that you try to understand and take the time to learn about evolution before you start trying to disprove it?


Where's the fun in that? :P
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Linn » Tue May 02, 2006 1:56 am

I saw some discussions here about the big bang.
Just reminder about the new info out on that it did happen.
And astronomers are "mapping" the universe.
from the size of a marble >>> to all obsevable space in trillion of trillionth seconds(for those who missed it in the other thread>not you Alex) :lol:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/factcards ... rprint.pdf

And Einstein who fought the idea of a creator his whole life,
finally opened to the idea of imtelligent design in the end.

Here is a quote from him from his book :

that the harmony
of natural law "Reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
an utterly insignificant reflection."
~Albert Einstein The World as I See It

Just some stuff to ponder thats all :)
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby AstusAleator » Tue May 02, 2006 2:10 am

Hmmm
Well I'll take a quick stab:
Your "probability" is a typical straw-man argument. You're altering the nature of your opponents argument in order to more easily defeat it. It's essentially the same argument as irreducible complexity.
Your argument is kind of like the argument that a man evolving from an ape (ancestral homonid) is as likely as me throwing all the pieces of a puzzle up in the air and having them come down perfectly put together.
It doesn't take into account the process of natural selection.
Take the very earliest proto-cells for example. No one really knows what they were, but hypotheses state that they were rybozyme-ish in that they could replicate their own genetic code. But before that could even occur, your argument states that all of the amino acids would have had to randomly aligned just perfectly, and that the odds of that happening are pretty much none. Well, you're right that the odds of that happening are very low, but that's not what scientists hypothesized happened.
It is hypothesized that it all started with the formation of a protein capable of self-catalysis. This protein would have attached other amino acids together and to itself. It would have been a bit of a crap-shoot, but it would greatly increase the probability of a proto-cell forming eventually.
Think of the puzzle example. Say you get one or two pieces that were suddenly capable of picking up random pieces and seeing if they fit with themselves or the pieces around them. At that point, it wouldn't take too long at all for the puzzle to be finished, especially if in the process, the pieces that were put together gained the ability to also start randomly assembling the puzzle.
But the puzzle example is still faulty for many reasons. For one, it assumes that there is only one way that the puzzle can be put together meaningfully.

Anyhow, that's about all the energy I'm going to spend on that, as it's ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE in other evo threads. Do a quick search through the evo forum and you'll see what I mean.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests