Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

KGB/Stasi

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 9:54am

Originally posted by brihard 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.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 9:48am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky 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?


micro evolution? that still takes place over a few generations, rather then one though...

depends on exactly what you mean by "forms" of evolution, if you mean by that forms of the evolutionary theory, then yes, i do, if you mean things like micro-evolution (which has been observed) natural selection, etc. then no.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 November 2008 at 9:03am
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.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9819
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 10:57pm
I believe in evolution because it's the best explanation for certain people I know that seem much more simian than human. 
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 9:31pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky 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?
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Evil Elvis View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Crusher of Dreams

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4250
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evil Elvis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 8:29pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise 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...


looks like goo to me.

Edited by Evil Elvis - 03 November 2008 at 8:29pm
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:59pm
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...
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:54pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

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...


No, not at all.

I am referring to a theroy that is proven. (just forgot the name... )
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:17pm
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...
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:


Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Yep.  Just like "The Secret" is a theory, Newtonian physics is a (set of) theory, the 9/11 conspiracy is a theory, and general relativity is a theory.


Not all theories are created equal.


Meh.  I think there is still a lot of work to do on the specifics of evolution, that's all that theory means.  I don't count out the Biblical description of creation though.  I don't necessarily think that one precludes the other, as do most Christians.


Exactly, one does not disprove or even have to contradict the other.

Adrenalinejunky: Evolution does not necessarily take place over thousands of years as you seem to think. Some forms of evolution can change a species dramatically in the period of a generation.
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:05pm
My $0.02:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise 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
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 6:29pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

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.

Fair enough.

I have nothing against alternate theories.  My beef is when people try to bring non-science (like ID) into a science discussion.  I like philosophy as much as the next guy, but I do try to not let it touch my science.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:53pm
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.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:37pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:


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

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

Ah.

My familiarity with these are less, but would not any non-evolutionary ID basically just be direct creationism?

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:36pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner 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.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:28pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:


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.

...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.

Bias is always a concern, of course, and I am sure scientists have it in piles.  But here the main bias is a "pro-scientific method" bias.  The evidence put forth by Behe & pals has consistently failed to meet even the basic levels of scientific rigorousocitiness.

As to the existing scientific evidence, you are correct that is supports ID as much as it does conventional evolutionary theory.

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.

Occam's Razor tells me that I must go with traditional evolution until the ID can prove their kitchen sink.  I am not saying that ID false - I am saying that ID adds nothing, and should therefore be disregarded until it does add something.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:16pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:


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


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

Quote

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
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:13pm

I just brought evolution up to prove to Rbl that there would be stuff to talk about after tomorrow...

 

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:01pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky 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)

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 3:08pm
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:



Gravity shmavity.  When I fall, it is the invisible hand of God pushing me down. 

Fixed before you get the wrath of the Christian right after you.

 



my pushing is australias pulling.

That's ok then, since God only Blesses the USA, so he must reside in our airspace.

"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.