Evolution

[Guest Paul]

Interesting how your argument leads into a bible discussion. Atheists always like to bring up the

bible when they argue against I.D. Clearly, the bible contains many fables and parables that aren't

accurate that I think reflect the attitudes and fears of the ancient people that penned it's passages.

It's also interesting how you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the vast universe and all

it's wonders, earth and it's amazing forces; weather, gravity, radiation, etc. and of course evolution

were planned by I.D. All the Darwinians can show is that evolution is a fact. We all know that species

evolve, what Darwinians have been unable to show is where one specie became another (the missing link). While Darwiniacs can't explain gravity (for example) they're quick to say God didn't do it.

You cannot disprove God's hand in all this any more than I can prove it. So we're left with faith, you believe the incredible complexities of the gene pool, DNA, cell structure, etc. are all just natural selection, serendipity and happenstance. I'm on God's side.

You seem like a nice person, but you've completely mischaracterized the argument. There's nothing wrong with quoting a Christian scholar on a point that has nothing to do with myths and everything to do with life. You have it completely backwards about which of us acknowledges possibilities and which of us does not. You say you accept evolution, but you deny its central finding.

The name-calling (Darwiniacs) is unnecessary, but maybe you didn’t realize it was a disparaging term, derived from maniac. The proper term is Darwinist, or maybe Darwinian.

One premise seems to be driving your argument. You seem to believe it’s a good thing to believe things even though you admit you don’t know them. I can list several reasons why that isn’t a good thing. Why do you think it is? Why isn’t it better just to admit you don’t know and leave it at that?

[Guest Guest]

... for some reason intelligent guidance of the evolution of the eye was apparently ruled out at some point. What was the rationale?

How about the complete lack of evidence?

Things aren't 'ruled out' per se, though--we start with EVERYTHING 'ruled out', and from there, we 'rule in' that which has the most/best supporting evidence.

The only argument about the eye is a fallacious argument from personal ignorance. Arguing that the eye was intelligently designed because one doesn't understand how it could have evolved is utter nonsense.

For someone with such a fetish for fallacies, one would think you'd immediately recognize how ridiculous the argument against evolution by natural selection of the eye was. Irreducible complexity is a textbook example of that fallacy.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that even if it was somehow proven that evolution of the eye (or whatever else) was found to literally be impossible, guess what? You are still not a single step closer to proving it was intelligently designed. Science works by building up a theory, not by tearing down others. That's the cdesign proponentist's fatal flaw--they treat science like politics, where someone can get elected just by bashing the other person. Doesn't work that way in science--you evidence your own idea, or you get nowhere. Since cdesign proponentists HAVE no evidence for their idea, it is no wonder that they are, in fact, getting nowhere in the scientific community.

[Guest Guest]

The proper term is Darwinist, or maybe Darwinian.

Actually, Paul, that's not really accurate either, as it incorrectly implies that evolution is based on Darwin's word or something. Fact is, evolution has been expanded on DRASTICALLY since Darwin's time--the man would scarcely even recognize it if he were to see it today.

That terminology in general is a creationist fabrication in an attempt to make evolution look like a religion with Darwin as the god/pope/whatever. The Theory of Evolution is Darwin's no longer. He got a lot of stuff wrong, you know. But, he also got some really big things right, and we built on that.

[Guest Guest]

How do you explain the evolution of arrogance?

How do you explain the evolution of stupid?

[Guest 2smart4u]

How about the complete lack of evidence?

Things aren't 'ruled out' per se, though--we start with EVERYTHING 'ruled out', and from there, we 'rule in' that which has the most/best supporting evidence.

The only argument about the eye is a fallacious argument from personal ignorance. Arguing that the eye was intelligently designed because one doesn't understand how it could have evolved is utter nonsense.

For someone with such a fetish for fallacies, one would think you'd immediately recognize how ridiculous the argument against evolution by natural selection of the eye was. Irreducible complexity is a textbook example of that fallacy.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that even if it was somehow proven that evolution of the eye (or whatever else) was found to literally be impossible, guess what? You are still not a single step closer to proving it was intelligently designed. Science works by building up a theory, not by tearing down others. That's the design proponentist's fatal flaw--they treat science like politics, where someone can get elected just by bashing the other person. Doesn't work that way in science--you evidence your own idea, or you get nowhere. Since cdesign proponentist HAVE no evidence for their idea, it is no wonder that they are, in fact, getting nowhere in the scientific community.

Irreducible complexity of the eye (for example) is valid. Scientists (probably atheist) give Mother

Nature way too much credit to suggest an eye could be created where none existed without I.D.

If there wasn't a conscious concept of an eye to begin with, how would "Mother Nature" know

what parts were needed, how they were to be designed, what would they look like, how would they

all interact. And without a vision of the finished product, Mom Nature couldn't know in fact what parts

were needed to begin with. While evolution is valid, it will only take you so far.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Irreducible complexity of the eye (for example) is valid. Scientists (probably atheist) give Mother

Nature way too much credit to suggest an eye could be created where none existed without I.D.

If there wasn't a conscious concept of an eye to begin with, how would "Mother Nature" know

what parts were needed, how they were to be designed, what would they look like, how would they

all interact. And without a vision of the finished product, Mom Nature couldn't know in fact what parts

were needed to begin with. While evolution is valid, it will only take you so far.

The problem being that ID doesn't actually solve anything.

The question:

How did the eye evolve?

ID:

An intelligent Designer designed it.

Further question:

By what mechanism?

See the problem? The question of how still hasn't been answered by the ID crowd. That would be why it isn't a valid theory-it doesn't actually get you any further than where you started, so it is superfluous.

As far as the eye-that is kind of a bad example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Now we can't prove how the eye came about for one simple reason-eyes don't fossilize.

[Guest Guest]

1. Irreducible complexity of the eye (for example) is valid. 2. Scientists (probably atheist) give Mother Nature way too much credit to suggest an eye could be created where none existed without I.D.

3. If there wasn't a conscious concept of an eye to begin with, how would "Mother Nature" know what parts were needed, how they were to be designed, what would they look like, how would they all interact. And without a vision of the finished product, Mom Nature couldn't know in fact what parts were needed to begin with. While evolution is valid, it will only take you so far.

1. The overwhelming body of scientists throughout the world disagrees with you. What explanations have you seen on this point from reputable, mainstream scientists?

2. If you want to use your complexity standard, then how do you explain the existence of God, except by saying "God just is"? That's no more an answer for you that it is for us. That's just admitting you don't have an answer and calling what you don't know "God."

You would have to know the answers to these questions for your argument to be valid. Show us that you do. That would prove your argument.

3. Nature doesn't plan anything. Simple light-sensing mechanisms gradually become more sophisticated because each advance conveys a survival advantage, which is then passed on. That's how evolution works, not by "Mother Nature" knowing anything. This has been studied and verified up and down the evolutionary line, and more discoveries are being added all the time.

[Guest Guest]

Here, in brief form, is a summary of the overwhelming case for evolution.

1. The fossil record proves evolution. If you visit the fourth floor of the American Museum of Natural History at 79th Street and Central Park West in Manhattan, you will see one of the best teaching exhibits in the world. Paleontologists have identified how seemingly minor changes, in a bone in the inner ear or the mobility of the ankle joint - to cite only two examples - conveyed survival advantages, which led to the evolution of new species. As we trace the evolutionary record through fossils, not one piece is out of place.

2. Dating of fossils proves evolution. We do not just have fossils. We have dating methods that tell us how old they are. Every time scientists discover another fossil and date it, they give anyone who doubts the reality of evolution another opportunity to find an example that would prove the theory wrong. If, for example, scientists found human remains that pre-dated any other vertebrate, according to the dating methods, such a discovery would throw evolutionary theory or the science of dating physical objects into complete chaos. In science, this is called falsifiability. The theory makes predictions, and has been tested millions of times. Not once, in all those millions of times, has a fossil been dated in a way that contradicts evolutionary theory. On the contrary, all the dating verifies the functional story we see by looking at the fossil record in gross observation.

3. The genetic record proves evolution. Evolutionary theory leapt ahead by light years with the development of microbiology. We can trace the development of species through DNA, RNA, genes and chromosomes. As with the dating of fossils, a break in the pattern would disprove the theory, but yet again, after millions of genetic samples have been taken, evolutionary theory has a perfect record of verification. Anyone who doubts evolutionary theory should understand the enormous amount of information we now have, and the number of tests, any one of which could have proved the theory false. Just the opposite, all the testing has proved the theory true.

4. Evolution has been replicated. A common canard among those who would dispute evolutionary theory is that no one ever saw a monkey turn into a human. Of course not. Even if humans had descended from monkeys (we have a common ancestor), it doesn’t happen that way. Evolution occurs over many generations. We cannot see evolution happening among complex species like our own because a single generation takes at least fifteen years or so to occur. However, the same evolutionary principle applies to simpler species, and among those, scientists have replicated evolution in the laboratory. The most famous example is the drosophila fruit fly, which is commonly used for research. There are others, and as the science continues to advance, there will be more.

5. Evolutionary theory is so reliable that we use it in practical applications in two of our most important fields of science: biology and its cousin discipline medicine. As a result, life expectancies in the developed world have increased by more than a decade in recent years. Much of this is due to advances in medicine and biology as a direct result of evolutionary theory.

6. Evolutionary theory is the organizing principle for modern biology. That is how important it is. It is the principle that brings together all of biology, to such an extent that biologists are virtually unanimous in saying that modern biology cannot be understood without evolution; or to put it another way, biologists could still do some biology without evolution, but they could not understand it. Because evolutionary theory advances understanding, exponentially, beyond what would be possible without it, most biologists and most scholars of intellectual history say that it is among the greatest discoveries in history. Many say it is the greatest and most important of all, because it profoundly alters what we know about ourselves. Perhaps that is why some people oppose it so vehemently.

7. Evolutionary theory applies to all organic and quasi-organic systems. Every dynamic system that survives by reproduction in any form operates on the evolutionary principle. For example, social interactions are governed by evolutionary principles. All other things being equal, if an aspect of human behavior conveys a disadvantage, it will tend to disappear from the population; if it conveys an advantage, it will tend to spread. That is why political candidates pander and lie, why news media spoon-feed us entertainment instead of presenting real news and why religions tend to offer comforting stories: We reward them for it, and as a result those behaviors thrive and “reproduce.” An entire discipline, called game theory, has been developed from this understanding, has attracted some of the most brilliant minds in the world, and has been applied to everything from simple children’s games to business transactions to arms negotiations.

8. As our fund of knowledge increases, verification of evolutionary theory becomes progressively stronger. Because it makes accurate predictions, evolutionary theory has opened entire disciplines, and brought others from a barely coherent infancy into the realm of genuine science.

9. If we discarded what we have learned from evolutionary theory, our modern standard of living would not be possible. People who argue against evolution simply do not understand it. They assume that we would enjoy the advantages of modern life without it, but the truth is, we would not. No doubt, some of evolution’s critics have benefited from medical advances that evolutionary theory made possible. Fortunately for them, we do not withhold medical care from those who say they reject the very things that made it possible, but if we did, opposition to evolutionary theory would collapse very quickly.

I have used the word theory several times. Most people do not understand what the word means, so they say things like “that’s just a theory, it can’t be proved.” A theory can be proved. A theory may also be a fact. Evolutionary theory is both. It is a proven fact. A “theory” is an organized explanation for a set of phenomena, based on evidence and reason. Newton’s theory of gravity is a theory. If you have read the above with a misunderstanding of what a theory is, I can only invite you to read again with the proper definition in mind.

No doubt we will see the usual litany of smart-aleck remarks and non-responses from those who do not wish to know the truth if it conflicts with what they wish to believe. I can only invite them to have some courage, take a deep breath, read, think and evaluate. It's not going to go away just because you refuse to believe it.

And whether you accept it or not, it is very important to the kind of life we have chosen to live together. Think about how we are bound together socially whether we like it or not. This isn’t possible without evolution.

This is a lengthy exposition for a forum like this, but it barely scratches the surface of this vast and exciting subject. I invite anyone who doubts the truth of evolutionary theory to get out of their comfort zones long enough to study it – not what its most ignorant detractors write about it, but what its practitioners have written about it. Let them read books by Mayr, Gould, Eldridge, and dozens of others. Then let them re-evaluate their views. If they study with an open mind and a modicum of intelligence, they will embrace one of the most well-established and useful principles in all of science.

Notice, NOBODY answers this explanation.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

Irreducible complexity of the eye (for example) is valid. Scientists (probably atheist) give Mother

Nature way too much credit to suggest an eye could be created where none existed without I.D.

If there wasn't a conscious concept of an eye to begin with, how would "Mother Nature" know

what parts were needed, how they were to be designed, what would they look like, how would they

all interact. And without a vision of the finished product, Mom Nature couldn't know in fact what parts

were needed to begin with. While evolution is valid, it will only take you so far.

Absolutely right. While there are scientists that believe the eye has evolved from some primitive

light-sensing cells, their claims are nothing more than imaginations. The theory of evolution has

never illustrated the ability to produce an incredibly complex organ such as an eye.

Irreducible complexity is the 800 lb. gorilla in the atheists kitchen, it's no wonder their feathers

get ruffled when I.D. is mentioned.

[Guest Guest]

Irreducible complexity of the eye (for example) is valid.

No, it's an argument from incredulity, a fallacy.

Scientists (probably atheist) give Mother

Nature way too much credit to suggest an eye could be created where none existed without I.D.

If there wasn't a conscious concept of an eye to begin with, how would "Mother Nature" know

what parts were needed, how they were to be designed, what would they look like, how would they

all interact. And without a vision of the finished product, Mom Nature couldn't know in fact what parts

were needed to begin with.

Natural selection guides the process by favoring the mutations that help. This is how the eye evolved:

photosensitive cell

aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin

pigment cells forming a small depression

pigment cells forming a deeper depression

the skin over the depression taking a lens shape

muscles allowing the lens to adjust

While evolution is valid, it will only take you so far.

It's taken us a lot farther than your ignorant self is aware of.

[Guest Guest]

No, it's an argument from incredulity, a fallacy.

Natural selection guides the process by favoring the mutations that help. This is how the eye evolved:

photosensitive cell

aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin

pigment cells forming a small depression

pigment cells forming a deeper depression

the skin over the depression taking a lens shape

muscles allowing the lens to adjust

It's taken us a lot farther than your ignorant self is aware of.

Since there are no fossil records of any of this and certainly no way to prove any of it, I'll just

assume it came to you in a dream.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Absolutely right. While there are scientists that believe the eye has evolved from some primitive

light-sensing cells, their claims are nothing more than imaginations. The theory of evolution has

never illustrated the ability to produce an incredibly complex organ such as an eye.

Irreducible complexity is the 800 lb. gorilla in the atheists kitchen, it's no wonder their feathers

get ruffled when I.D. is mentioned.

So you can answer the question of how the Designer did it? If not, your ID hasn't actually answered anything.

Occam's Razor-heard of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

That's all that we need to dispel ID. If you can show how ID actually answers more questions than it raises, then you'll have a valid point. In Dover ID had the chance and failed. No one is bent out of shape. No one is saying you can't believe what you want. Heck, there might even be an Intelligent Designer, since we can't logically disprove one. However, until ID actually produces results, it is more of a mosquito than a gorilla.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Notice, NOBODY answers this explanation.

The easiest way to defeat a creationist is to ask exactly which element of evolutionary theory they disagree with. For the most part creationism of most stripes is just an argument from incredulity.

[Guest Guest]

Absolutely right. While there are scientists that believe the eye has evolved from some primitive

light-sensing cells, their claims are nothing more than imaginations.

1. There is NO dispute in scientific communities about the evolution of the eye.

2. There are NO scientific communities that feel that the eye is irreducibly complex.

3. There is NO peer-reviewed research that even BEGINS to imply that the eye 'could not have evolved'.

4. The evolutionary pathway of the eye IS well-understood, and requires no imagination.

Learn something, for crying out loud. Instead of leveling baseless accusations of "imaginations", how about you make a legitimate attempt to educate yourself?

The theory of evolution has

never illustrated the ability to produce an incredibly complex organ such as an eye.

Absolute lie. Here is the pathway:

"photosensitive cell

aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin

pigment cells forming a small depression

pigment cells forming a deeper depression

the skin over the depression taking a lens shape

muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today."

Irreducible complexity is the 800 lb. gorilla in the atheists kitchen

No, it's the non-argument creationists like to pretend can be assigned arbitrarily with no evidence. No atheism is needed to know how absurd it is. It's an empty claim. It's like pointing to a puddle of water and flatly stating that it definitely could not have come from a cloud in the sky, it just couldn't. And then walking away, confident that you have proven your point.

Get real.

, it's no wonder their feathers

get ruffled when I.D. is mentioned.

Scientists and science aren't too kind to liars--get used to more of the same when you spew your dishonest claims. What kind of reaction do you expect when you lie so blatantly?

Here are a bunch of examples of the pathway of evolution of the eye...you know, the kind of explanations you claim DON'T EXIST:

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte...stract/96/3/171

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5795/1914

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3783/42...yeevolutms4.png

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html (pay special attention to the Further Reading section)

"I don't get it" is not evidence.

[Guest Guest]

Absolutely right. While there are scientists that believe the eye has evolved from some primitive

light-sensing cells, their claims are nothing more than imaginations. The theory of evolution has

never illustrated the ability to produce an incredibly complex organ such as an eye.

Irreducible complexity is the 800 lb. gorilla in the atheists kitchen, it's no wonder their feathers

get ruffled when I.D. is mentioned.

". . . there are scientists . . ."? Yeah, virtually all of them.

So, then two questions:

1. What makes you more knowledgeable than all the world's biologists and paleontologists combined?

2. Exactly what aspect of evolution do you believe in?

[Guest Guest]

While evolution is valid, it will only take you so far.

What a ridiculous statement. Here is how far it has taken us.

1. It is the organizing principle for the entire discipline of biology. It has completely revolutionized the field.

2. It has produced developments in medicine that have expanded the average human lifespan by more than a decade.

3. It has opened up entire new areas of research, which have also generated practical applications and improved human life.

4. It has revolutionized the social sciences, turning them into real sciences for the first time in history.

5. For the first time in history, it gives us a theory we can work with to understand the nature of life.

Not to mention the fact that even though you admit evolution is valid, you keep arguing against its main principles.

[Guest Guest]

Absolutely right. While there are scientists that believe the eye has evolved from some primitive

light-sensing cells, their claims are nothing more than imaginations. The theory of evolution has

never illustrated the ability to produce an incredibly complex organ such as an eye.

Irreducible complexity is the 800 lb. gorilla in the atheists kitchen, it's no wonder their feathers

get ruffled when I.D. is mentioned.

False. Irreducible complexity is the 800-pound gorilla in the theists' kitchen. You can't explain God.

Scientists can explain the eye, and they have.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/primitive.html

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/..._of_the_eye.asp

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200508222...trunc_sys.shtml

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#EYES

http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s/9103

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/td...neye/index.html

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte...stract/96/3/171

http://www.livescience.com/animals/070712_butterfly_evo.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evo..._of_the_eye.htm

http://evolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/...f_the_human_eye

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/abs/nrn2283.html

[Guest Keith]

Absolutely right. While there are scientists that believe the eye has evolved from some primitive

light-sensing cells, their claims are nothing more than imaginations. The theory of evolution has

never illustrated the ability to produce an incredibly complex organ such as an eye.

Irreducible complexity is the 800 lb. gorilla in the atheists kitchen, it's no wonder their feathers

get ruffled when I.D. is mentioned.

You said. "their claims are nothing more than imaginations." Please tell me and be as specific as you possibly can how that statement can't be more accurately applied to religion.

[Guest Guest]

Since there are no fossil records of any of this and certainly no way to prove any of it, I'll just assume it came to you in a dream.

You can assume whatever you like, a prerogative you avail yourself of regularly. However, you can't ignore that we have living examples of the primitive precursors to the eye, and DNA to trace the evolutionary lineage. There's your proof.

[Guest Guest]

You said. "their claims are nothing more than imaginations." Please tell me and be as specific as you possibly can how that statement can't be more accurately applied to religion.

This is exactly right. Kearny Christian, you now have a responsibility to address this point, since you're the one who raised it and for other reasons. The fact that you didn't realize you were arguing against yourself is no excuse for ignoring the point.

Come on, you guys. You want a discussion, then let's have a discussion. You can't just run away from every point that doesn't support your argument.

[Guest Guest]

Since there are no fossil records of any of this and certainly no way to prove any of it,

Certainly? Really? Just how certain are you?

I'll just

assume it came to you in a dream.

Yes, because that's all creationists know how to do--assume. Thanks for making my point. Now leave the scientists alone while they actually make progress, and you can stay at home and assume all day.

[Guest 2smart4u]

False. Irreducible complexity is the 800-pound gorilla in the theists' kitchen. You can't explain God.

Scientists can explain the eye, and they have.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/primitive.html

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/..._of_the_eye.asp

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200508222...trunc_sys.shtml

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#EYES

http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s/9103

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/td...neye/index.html

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte...stract/96/3/171

http://www.livescience.com/animals/070712_butterfly_evo.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evo..._of_the_eye.htm

http://evolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/...f_the_human_eye

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/abs/nrn2283.html

To quote one of your sources: "Scientists have come up with scenarios to explain the eye".

In other words, they don't know.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You said. "their claims are nothing more than imaginations." Please tell me and be as specific as you possibly can how that statement can't be more accurately applied to religion.

It can also be applied to kids at Disneyworld, so what's the point?

[Guest Guest]

To quote one of your sources: "Scientists have come up with scenarios to explain the eye".

In other words, they don't know.

They "don't know" only in the same sense that they "don't know" what water is made of. They "only" have a theory backed with evidence. Absolute certainty in ANYTHING by humans is impossible, as human perception is very limited. Therefore, the best we can do is stick with the things we have evidence for.

I'm not surprised someone like you doesn't understand the scientfic method.

[Guest Keith]

It can also be applied to kids at Disneyworld, so what's the point?

If you want to equate religion to Disneyworld then I certainly won't argue. If you didn't understand the question then I'm not surprised.