KGB/Stasi

brihard wrote: My problem is with the actual use of the term 'evolution', in lieu of the more correct term 'natural selection'. 'Evolution' is merely the perceived improvement of a species as a result of the natural selection process.

I see what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree and clarify.  Natural selection is merely one of many forces causing evolution.  Evolution is the result of a number of things.

*grabs evolution textbook*

Genetic drift, for instance, accounts for more change over time than natural selection.  Sexual selection (which, admittedly, some view as a subset of natural selection), is a major driving force.

And, of course, underlying all of this is genetic mutation and recombination (for sexual species).

Natural selection is one of the contribruting factors of evolution.  Evolution is the result.

My problem is with the actual use of the term
'evolution', in lieu of the more correct term 'natural
selection'. 'Evolution' is merely the perceived
improvement of a species as a result of the natural
selection process.

There's no magical force propelling a species to get
better. What simply happens is that the weakest members
of a species in any given generation will tend towards
less reproductive success. Simultaneously, most species
on earth are prone to random and sporadic mutations with
each new generation. Any new trait that favours an
individual's reproductive success, and which can be
passed on to future offspring, will over the course of
many generations become more prevalent. Conversely, any
mutation that does not favour increased reproductive
success will either die off or will find itself very
limited within the species.

'Evolution' simply refers to the phenomenon of
perceivable change in a species of the course of these
many generations as a result of these selective
pressures. Chimps became man because the chimps that
were smarter, stronger and better able to live within
their environment over time out-bred their bretheren,
and that process simply continued on until the present.

The actual spark of intelligence is indeed a very
interesting question, and one we don't yet have an
answer to- but there are other species that demonstrate
rudimentary intellectual abilities approaching some of
the traits associated with sentience. Humans, thus far,
are simply the only complete package that has combined
intelligence with the biomechanics allowing us to
manipulate our environment, and with those two traits
reinforcing each other.

TL;DR- If Dolphins ever evolve opposable thumbs we're
probably screwed.

adrenalinejunky wrote: if its not that, then i assume you must be refering to punctuated equilibria, however, while that does state there are periods of accellerated evolution, they still require a much, much longer timespan then a single generation. and even punctuated equilibria, though its widely accepted among evolutionists, is not proven...

No, I'm talking about a simpler, grade 12 biology example.

So do you think that all forms of evolution are unproven?

if its not that, then i assume you must be refering to punctuated equilibria, however, while that does state there are periods of accellerated evolution, they still require a much, much longer timespan then a single generation.

and even punctuated equilibria, though its widely accepted among evolutionists, is not proven...

i assume your refering to the "hopeful monster" theory?

while that is true, i havent really found any scientific circles that actually still take that seriously...

My $0.02:

FreeEnterprise wrote: I think God made me, I didn't come from some magic goo, that turned into a fish, then a worm, then a monkey, then me..,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOOLLOLLLLOLLLL

*gasp*







LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Edited by Benjichang - 03 November 2008 at 7:06pm

pretty much, though not neccessarily adhearing to all preconceptions commonly assosiated with creationism.

for instance, maybe we are just a science experiment by advanced aliens who got bored.

that would still be intelligent design.

i would like to note, that is just an example, i'm not saying i have evidence supporting that particular explanation.

Bruce Banner wrote: But ID is basically "evolution plus".  ID comes in different flavors, but the commons ones basically agree with (or at least don't disagree with) all of current evolutionary theory, but add in the concept of the design - without evidence for the design.

while this does indeed compose some beliefs in ID, ID is such i broad field i should have specified earlier.

i dont really even see a point in argueing evolution vs "evolution plus".

i was refering more no non-evolutionary flavors of ID.

Bruce Banner wrote: (sorry - as you know, I could go on about this for some time)

yes, i'm well aware, as could I...

And yes - all of the evidence for evolutionary theory is also consistent with ID.  And it is consistent with any other theory that adds in a superfluous feature.  ID adds nothing to the table, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the outside influence theorized by ID.  ID is a fine philosphical theory, but that is all it is.  It may be true and correct, but we have no evidence that this is the case.  Zero.

or perhaps its the other way around - i do see MOUNDS of evidence, but i also see a system of evaluating such evidence which is largely based on bias.

dont get me wrong, thats not an insult - despite common perceptions that invovle the negative connotations assosiated with bias, the pure fact is that everything we hear we evaluate based on what we believe - some people do have too much bias, or and unfounded bias, this is true, but everyone has it to some extent. i personally look at the evidence, and there is nothing to suggest to me that it should support evolution rather then ID, which i'm not neccessarily meaning to imply a God like figure, though that is one of the mostly widely upheld possibilities when speaking of ID.



Edited by adrenalinejunky - 03 November 2008 at 4:17pm

adrenalinejunky wrote: some things i have issues with lack of evidence - for instance, the fossil record, i seem to recall we touched on this point a long time ago, my opinion is that even under punctuated equilibrium, we should be uncovering a much larger number of fossils from forms with very slightly differing levels of evolution, instead of the fossil record that we do have. others i have problems with interpretation of evidence, for instance, common ancestry. having similar genetic makeup is something that COULD indicated evolution, but it also could indicate ID, or perhaps something we arent aware of yet. and also for some i have issues with methods used to obtain evidence, for instance - and i know i'm gonna get it for even bringing this up - radiometric dating.

And each of those independently would perhaps give one reason to doubt.

But they are not in a vacuum - they work together and corroborate each other.

Prior to modern genetics and radiometric dating, the phylogenetic trees were devleoped based mainly on examinations of fossils and current species.  Fossils were dated primarily based on stratification.

Based on those limited facts, fairly detailed phyogenetic layouts were devleoped.

Then modern genetics came along, and it was like getting the teacher's edition of the textbook.  Suddenly you could see all the relationships spelled out.  And those relationships turned out to be almost EXACTLY the same phyogenetic relationships as were predicted by the pre-genetic science.

This was a massive confirmation of fossil interpretation.

Then came radiometric dating, which again confirmed the strata-based dating of fossils and other finds, and confirmed the timelines predicted by genetics.

Each of these three sources independently arrived at basically the same result.

And there are others - tectonic history turns out to align perfectly with genetic movement across continents.

Etc.

My point is that focusing on weaknesses in the fossil record as weaknesses in the support for evolutionary theory is a mistake, because the fossil record is only a small piece of the puzzle.

If you read the works of the ID folks, they keep talking about fossils.

If you read a textbook about evolutionary biology, it is all about genetics.  Evolution is a genetic phenomenon, not a fossil phenomenon.  It's all about the genetics.  No gap in the fossil record can undo that - to the contrary, every fossil found supports the genetic theory.

Based on existing learning, scientists were able to not only predict the existence of a feathered dinosaur (which creationists said would never be found), but also to predict more or less what it would look like, where it would be found, and how old it would be.  All of those were borne out.

And yes - all of the evidence for evolutionary theory is also consistent with ID.  And it is consistent with any other theory that adds in a superfluous feature.  ID adds nothing to the table, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the outside influence theorized by ID.  ID is a fine philosphical theory, but that is all it is.  It may be true and correct, but we have no evidence that this is the case.  Zero.

(sorry - as you know, I could go on about this for some time)