Evolution

[knell]

I think he was referring to earlier mentions of George and the Dragon from snypa, who started this thread.

any votes for a lock? I don't see this issue going anywhere, although it's remained shockingly polite.

[Fitzaaaaaay]

Deserves to be locked for saying that creationism is in any way logical

[noam]

George and the Dragon???

CAN. NOT. BE. SERIOUS.

massive troll sesh

[kay]

There is no incontrovertible proof that either evolution or intelligent design are correct. For evolution to be a 100% certainty (and therefore a Law, not a Theory) we need to be able to observe speciation in action. Based on typical evolutionary timescales, the only types of living organisms that can demonstrate such speciation within humanity's window of observation are viruses, and potentially bacteria. Remember, we've only been looking at nature in great detail for a couple hundred years - things may have evolved over the period of time that humanity has been around, but we have not been looking for all that time. Even then, against the backdrop of the several billion years that the Earth has been around that is pretty much nothing.

For intelligent design to be correct, God (or at least a Designer) has to exist. Significant portions of humanity have been waiting for over 2000 years for such a being to be proven to actually exist. So proof of said Designer's existence has been absent for a much longer time than we have been considering the concept of evolution. Christians believe that this God being exists, but Faith is different from actual Evidence. That's why it's called Faith. Taken a little bit further, if there is/was an Designer, which of the multitude of gods was the real Designer? Or were there multiple Designers? If so, the Earth must indeed be a really interesting place for so many Designers to come and make stuff.

Of course, there's also no real reason why evolution and intelligent design cannot co-exist. We can now design computer algorithms that evolve themselves through selection.

We don't really understand our existence so there's no point in closing our minds to possibilities at this stage. Check back in a few hundred years.

[mks]

There is no incontrovertible proof that either evolution or intelligent design are correct. For evolution to be a 100% certainty (and therefore a Law, not a Theory) we need to be able to observe speciation in action. Based on typical evolutionary timescales, the only types of living organisms that can demonstrate such speciation within humanity's window of observation are viruses, and potentially bacteria. Remember, we've only been looking at nature in great detail for a couple hundred years. Against the backdrop of the several billion years that the Earth has been around that is pretty much nothing.

For intelligent design to be correct, God (or at least a Designer) has to exist. Significant portions of humanity have been waiting for over 2000 years for such a being to be proven to actually exist. So proof of said Designer's existence has been absent for a much longer time than we have been considering the concept of evolution. Christians may believe that this God being exists, but Faith is different from actual Evidence. That's why it's called Faith.

Of course, there's also no real reason why evolution and intelligent design cannot co-exist. We can now design computer algorithms that evolve themselves through selection.

Well put. As I posited earlier, perhaps both sides may have a point. It's just that most people debating this are polarized into one viewpoint or another without really looking at the middle where a combination of both these ideas may be true.

[sonar]

Thought OP was trolling, confirmed by citing Kent Hovind. Guarantee'd all those 'quotes' in that post from scientists were cherry picked and/or the scientists were infact other moron young earth creationists.

[snypadub]

Where I have given sources to my citation you can look um up yourselves. As for the st george and the dragon thing Dinosaur is a relatively new word, before that we only had words like dragon to describe them. The earliest forms of art including cave paintings included pictures of people with spears killing large dinosaur like animals. Human history is littered with allusions to dinosaurs co existing with man.

[knell]

There is no incontrovertible proof that either evolution or intelligent design are correct. For evolution to be a 100% certainty (and therefore a Law, not a Theory) we need to be able to observe speciation in action. Based on typical evolutionary timescales, the only types of living organisms that can demonstrate such speciation within humanity's window of observation are viruses, and potentially bacteria. Remember, we've only been looking at nature in great detail for a couple hundred years - things may have evolved over the period of time that humanity has been around, but we have not been looking for all that time. Even then, against the backdrop of the several billion years that the Earth has been around that is pretty much nothing.

For intelligent design to be correct, God (or at least a Designer) has to exist. Significant portions of humanity have been waiting for over 2000 years for such a being to be proven to actually exist. So proof of said Designer's existence has been absent for a much longer time than we have been considering the concept of evolution. Christians believe that this God being exists, but Faith is different from actual Evidence. That's why it's called Faith. Taken a little bit further, if there is/was an Designer, which of the multitude of gods was the real Designer? Or were there multiple Designers? If so, the Earth must indeed be a really interesting place for so many Designers to come and make stuff.

Of course, there's also no real reason why evolution and intelligent design cannot co-exist. We can now design computer algorithms that evolve themselves through selection.

We don't really understand our existence so there's no point in closing our minds to possibilities at this stage. Check back in a few hundred years.

We're debating the merits of evolution as a theory, not whether or not intelligent design and evolution can co-exist. No straw men please.

If you're unaware of dog breeding or fruit fly experiments, yeah sure you could say that we have yet to observe significant speciation, but you'd be wrong. What more are you looking for? Please fill me in, as is seems to be more than enough for the scientific community thus far, piled in with observational evidence (which you have to use in a lot of sciences)... it's developed from fossil records, not a storybook/historical text. That's the beautiful thing about it, a new discovery tomorrow could change or refute it completely, but until then this is the most logical theory we have. As for your "closed mind" comment... who do you think has their minds more closed? Someone who believes solely on faith and has to argue all their points as they're refuted, or a scientific community that eagerly explores and records evidence as they see it, and build knowledge from the bottom up, changing every day? Pretty easy answer.

Irreducible complexity can and does evolve while remaining irreducibly complex, before I hear that tired argument. Again, evolution is bottom up.

I can't stand someone who says they have all the answers and know how old the Earth is no matter what new evidence arrives (any scientist worth their salt would easily accept new evidence after peer review). All this pseudoscience does horrible things to my blood pressure.

[AllNightDayDream]

There is no facepalm gif to express how this thread makes me feel...

Yes, we have "observed" speciation happening within the span of decades, and not just microbes (even if we didn't, that is still enough evidence). Yes, we have observed substantial variances in genetic data from generation to generation. In fact the reason our current form of homo sapiens survived is our interbreeding with neanderthals which adjusted our immune system to fight diseases that wiped out other similar species. Yes, we have dug up fossils of transitional species. Yes, Evolution is fact, micro and macro are the same thing, and perpetuating the notion that a scientific "theory" isn't true because it's a "theory" leads me to believe the only way you passed science class is from copying other people's work, or you were given a joke of an education. It's a theory because it is constantly revising itself in the quest for truth, yet doesn't claim to have a monopoly on it, unlike your man-made religious texts(even though theology goes through its own kind of evolution, based on veiling its absurdity in a modern world, not on evidence)

I can go and dig up all the links to explain this to you, but sometimes it seems the only way to convince you people would be if someone uploads a youtube video of a cow giving birth to a giraffe. I may seem a bit polemic, but you might as well deny the theory of general relativity, or gravity for that matter. Why do they let you kids graduate school

[cyberneticghost]

[kay]

[quote="knell]We're debating the merits of evolution as a theory, not whether or not intelligent design and evolution can co-exist. No straw men please.

If you're unaware of dog breeding or fruit fly experiments, yeah sure you could say that we have yet to observe significant speciation, but you'd be wrong. What more are you looking for? Please fill me in, as is seems to be more than enough for the scientific community thus far, piled in with observational evidence (which you have to use in a lot of sciences)... it's developed from fossil records, not a storybook/historical text. That's the beautiful thing about it, a new discovery tomorrow could change or refute it completely, but until then this is the most logical theory we have. As for your "closed mind" comment... who do you think has their minds more closed? Someone who believes solely on faith and has to argue all their points as they're refuted, or a scientific community that eagerly explores and records evidence as they see it, and build knowledge from the bottom up, changing every day? Pretty easy answer.

Irreducible complexity can and does evolve while remaining irreducibly complex, before I hear that tired argument. Again, evolution is bottom up.

I can't stand someone who says they have all the answers and know how old the Earth is no matter what new evidence arrives (any scientist worth their salt would easily accept new evidence after peer review). All this pseudoscience does horrible things to my blood pressure.[/quote]

Dude, I am a proponent for evolution, and have been so for the better part of the last 25 years. I work in scientific research, and have done so for the past 13 years. I have been on this forum arguing for years for the validity scientific methods and need for evidence-based theories, versus theologism and conspiracy theorists. I have also been pointing out that zealotry doesn't help arguments on any side. All I am trying to do is maintain a balanced, detached viewpoint between the two, and point out to both sides why each side thinks that the other is wrong. Science has to be detached, otherwise personal inclinations may influence the interpretation of data. I have pretty much stopped posting in all science-related threads because they just turn into bitch fights. To be honest, I don't even know why I bothered to post in this one since it has been pretty much a waste of time (apart from BM's gem of a post which was a pleasant surprise). You haven't even bothered to read and comprehend my post correctly before responding negatively, picking only on the bits that annoy you. Yet you say that you advocate scientific methods. If you go back and read it again, you may perhaps notice that I have also said that there is absolutely no proof that intelligent design kicked it all off.

When polarisation is utterly complete, there can be no room for sensible conversation. Why do you think there's such a big gap between creationists and evolutionists? Because they simply cannot find any common ground to have a considered discussion. It is almost impossible to convince someone about anything if you get them on the defensive by ripping straight into them. In this sense, I would say that Dawkins has probably done as much harm as any proponent of creationism in hopes of ever convincing the creationists that evolution is correct. And if people like you keep launching into middle ground people the way you launched into me, you are only serving to alienate them. Fortunately, I believe in the theory of evolution.

Also, I am very well aware of dog breeding and fruit fly experiments, thank you. They aren't examples of natural speciation though are they? Humans have had a hand in the breeding process. I'm also aware of how humanity has altered cows and carrots (amongst other things) through selective breeding. There was, however, a report a couple years back that one isolated community of animals (I forget which) was suspected to be in the process of becoming a new species but it remains under study. And as I said before, some viruses and bacteria can potentially be considered to have developed into new species although the waters are slightly muddier in their case. Scientists have also demonstrated that, by using fairly simple algorithms, programmes can be made to evolve. There are studies in the process of programming robots to do the same, thus getting successive generations of robots to self-evolve to better fit their environment/purpose. And since DNA is nothing but programming/information this represents a good step toward demonstrating the applicability of the principles of evolution.

[JBoy]

Youre an idiot if you think earth and all its life forms were created by a god in seven days.....

[knell]

@kay, most scientists couldn't care less about what creationists believe, it's not up to them to try and convince everyone of the facts as we know them. It's fine if you want to remain neutral to build bridges, but that's your humanitarian effort, not science's.

I read your whole post, I just wanted to steer you towards the topic at hand, and make sure no one got all twisted up in the polarization of intelligent design versus evolution, which you seem to be steering towards again.

And you claim to be involved in the scientific community, yet you insist on speciation being natural in order for it to be included in evidence? Also that all breeds of dogs exist because of human intervention? Okay, well if that's what you need to be convinced, you can wait several thousands of years for random mutations to become beneficial enough to become prominent. Meanwhile, the order Sirenia will still be composed of dugongs and manatees, if you're looking to speed things up a bit.

We agree with each other, but ignoring evidence while waiting for something tangible is a little counter productive, and every scientist I've ever encountered hasn't gone in that direction. Programs do indeed evolve, as displayed by the irreducible complexity evolver, so I'm glad you brought that up.

Anyway, I just really feel sorry for everyone who wants to substitute storybooks in place of observation, they're really missing out on everything science has to offer in terms of closure. Oh well, if that makes them happy then I'm happy for them.

[deadly_habit]

Anyway, I just really feel sorry for everyone who wants to substitute storybooks in place of observation, they're really missing out on everything science has to offer in terms of closure. Oh well, if that makes them happy then I'm happy for them.

just keep that shit out of public schools

[Pistonsbeneath]

There is no facepalm gif to express how this thread makes me feel...

Yes, we have "observed" speciation happening within the span of decades, and not just microbes (even if we didn't, that is still enough evidence). Yes, we have observed substantial variances in genetic data from generation to generation. In fact the reason our current form of homo sapiens survived is our interbreeding with neanderthals which adjusted our immune system to fight diseases that wiped out other similar species. Yes, we have dug up fossils of transitional species. Yes, Evolution is fact, micro and macro are the same thing, and perpetuating the notion that a scientific "theory" isn't true because it's a "theory" leads me to believe the only way you passed science class is from copying other people's work, or you were given a joke of an education. It's a theory because it is constantly revising itself in the quest for truth, yet doesn't claim to have a monopoly on it, unlike your man-made religious texts(even though theology goes through its own kind of evolution, based on veiling its absurdity in a modern world, not on evidence)

I can go and dig up all the links to explain this to you, but sometimes it seems the only way to convince you people would be if someone uploads a youtube video of a cow giving birth to a giraffe. I may seem a bit polemic, but you might as well deny the theory of general relativity, or gravity for that matter. Why do they let you kids graduate school

you see things so utterly black and white you are totally lost

why do you have to convince anyone of anything?

as you say science is constantly revising itself and as a result often you have radically different views being the status quo latterly a relatively short time after the former...maybe for all you or i know the 'truth' science is heading for is way way off the one you have been brainwashed to believe and closer to people you would happily label as idiots due to their faith?

im sure many staple views held by humans in the past such as the world is flat were widely accepted as fact in much the same way as evolution is now

we know nothing and in a way all we have is faith unless were on the cutting edge finding things out for ourselves

and your attitude stinks, nobody here is being rude and people are just expressing their opinions in an articulate manner so keep the graduating school nonsense for when it is actually justified, you just cant handle a view that challenges your view ultimately whether yours is right or wrong you are merely standing on the shoulders of brighter men and women

[noam]

@kay, most scientists couldn't care less about what creationists believe, it's not up to them to try and convince everyone of the facts as we know them. It's fine if you want to remain neutral to build bridges, but that's your humanitarian effort, not science's.

I read your whole post, I just wanted to steer you towards the topic at hand, and make sure no one got all twisted up in the polarization of intelligent design versus evolution, which you seem to be steering towards again.

And you claim to be involved in the scientific community, yet you insist on speciation being natural in order for it to be included in evidence? Also that all breeds of dogs exist because of human intervention? Okay, well if that's what you need to be convinced, you can wait several thousands of years for random mutations to become beneficial enough to become prominent. Meanwhile, the order Sirenia will still be composed of dugongs and manatees, if you're looking to speed things up a bit.

We agree with each other, but ignoring evidence while waiting for something tangible is a little counter productive, and every scientist I've ever encountered hasn't gone in that direction. Programs do indeed evolve, as displayed by the irreducible complexity evolver, so I'm glad you brought that up.

Anyway, I just really feel sorry for everyone who wants to substitute storybooks in place of observation, they're really missing out on everything science has to offer in terms of closure. Oh well, if that makes them happy then I'm happy for them.

preaching scientific methodology to a scientist

chill mate, diplomacy is the way to go for ANY serious debate or discussion and if you enter into it like you have you look like a cock and people are disinclined to believe what you say, i think thats more what Kay was talking about

its like that BBC program on Science and the Media and talk Brian Cox gave

Brian Cox especially can come across as an arrogant shit sometimes

i think scientists can sometimes be so caught up in their world they forget there's an entire world of people out there who either couldn't give a shit what it is they do or simply dont think the same way, and it pays to take this into account when attempting to enter into debate from anyone of either of those sphere's of thought.

[knell]

I wouldn't consider anyone who disregards observable evidence of an event to be a scientist, but that's just me.

You really think that anyone is going to come out of this discussion with a changed mind?

The facts are there, giving pseudoscience the same credence as hard science under the guise of being diplomatic is ridiculous. I don't even think it's worth debating with someone if they believe in that to begin with, it's something they'll have to realize for themselves by looking at legitimate sources of science, or continue in their mythology. I don't mind if they want to ignore science, whatever helps them sleep at night.

[noam]

I wouldn't consider anyone who disregards observable evidence of an event to be a scientist, but that's just me.

You really think that anyone is going to come out of this discussion with a changed mind?

The facts are there, giving pseudoscience the same credence as hard science under the guise of being diplomatic is ridiculous. I don't even think it's worth debating with someone if they believe in that to begin with, it's something they'll have to realize for themselves by looking at legitimate sources of science, or continue in their mythology. I don't mind if they want to ignore science, whatever helps them sleep at night.

you ignore that scientific theories are based on assumptions that are unproven and also that scientific theories have counter theories which may be just as plausible in your zealot-like approach

im with you btw on the evolution debate, im FIRMLY on your side of the coin

but where did Kay 'disregard' the evidence, he said it was evidence of speciation in a controlled environment, despite whatever you may WANT to believe there is technically a difference between experimentation in a controlled environment and evidence observed occuring naturally dont you agree??

[knell]

kay said that he's holding out for real-time evolution, something that he sees happening right at the moment that it happens, that is not influenced by humans in any way.

Think about if a particle physicist took the same approach, and said that he/she was going to wait until he could witness a subatomic event, rather than gather evidence of the event happening. That train of thought would get him/her nowhere, and would stall scientific progress dramatically. It's a little different with evolution of course, but not much. Ignoring the best theory of the fossil record that we have in lieu of holding out for absolute, observable, perfectly controlled proof is a little silly as far as science is concerned. Yeah evolution isn't a law, but it's a theory. Things don't become theories overnight.

A better method would be to look for something within known evolution that's falsifiable, at least then you'll be actively engaging in scientific thought rather than waiting for the proof to present itself.

[noam]

kay said that he's holding out for real-time evolution, something that he sees happening right at the moment that it happens, that is not influenced by humans in any way.

Think about if a particle physicist took the same approach, and said that he/she was going to wait until he could witness a subatomic event, rather than gather evidence of the event happening. That train of thought would get him/her nowhere, and would stall scientific progress dramatically. It's a little different with evolution of course, but not much. Ignoring the best theory of the fossil record that we have in lieu of holding out for absolute, observable, perfectly controlled proof is a little silly as far as science is concerned. Yeah evolution isn't a law, but it's a theory. Things don't become theories overnight.

A better method would be to look for something within known evolution that's falsifiable, at least then you'll be actively engaging in scientific thought rather than waiting for the proof to present itself.

tbf man you IGNORE falsifiable evidence, and have done at every stage during this discussion, thats the ONLY evidence that creationists can possibly use against Evolutionary theory with any hope of credance, their scientific attempts are all easily surmountable by referencing the CONTROLLED experiments in speciation that have been discussed

its not silly holding out for it, its scientific... you dont call a theory a law when it lacks the pre-requisite base in fully observable evidence

that ISN'T to say that you can just abandon the strengths of the evolutionary argument... but its saying that you dont close your eyes to the world of views and opinions around you that may not completely cohere with that viewpoint, because you simply aren't able to if the strength in your argument isn't there

thats all it seems like Kay was saying, thats the diplomacy involved, and it doesn't give credence to bizarre creationist theories at all... in my view its certainly better than martyring those creationists in the eyes of others and those who are undecided

like John Stewart Mill said, if you censor bad ideas from the public arena there isn't any arena for them to be openly discredited.

Dawkins is a twat for this, and he comes across very badly, whereas when he engages, he comes across as intelligent and articulate and ultimately credible.

Get me?