http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html Some salient points - there is no lost total of base pairs, only rearrangement, variations in the number of chromosomes are fairly common among related species, and the nature of that rearrangement makes it clear that both sets are from the same source DNA. A fundamental misunderstanding on your part is your belief that evolution somehow necessitates to evolving to more complexity. It has been pointed out to you already that this is a misunderstanding on your part, but you refuse to acknowledge this. If you evolve towards distance running on the savannahs or frequent swimming, the two competing theories of human evolution, things like longer, slimmer, lighter bones provide an evolutionary advantage.
Sigh and for the last time that isn't an argument. Look, lets analyze how logic works. There are claims and there are warrants. To make a warranted argument you need facts to back them up. But you have yet to make an argument. You have stated repeatedly, evolution has x number of holes. Congrats, but that isn't how argumentation works. You need to now provide an alternative as to how life came about and provide evidence as to why that is correct. So instead of reiterating your posts, please state how life came about on the world and the provide some justification as to why that is correct. Until then, evolution is the only theory with actual scientific backing (even if it has holes) whereas no other theory has any relevance in the world of science. This isn't a shot at religion either, but if you are going to attempt to make scientific arguments why evolution is wrong then make a scientific argument as to why an alternative is right.
Going back to the original point in the topic, there's certainly an issue where one can feel that God created him and ideas presented by evolution can cast doubt with some people. I don't agree there's mutual exclusivity between the two ideas, but I can acknowledge the viewpoint where one can imply evolution makes our existence into one of chance and probability, whereas a God rooted origin such as Creationism makes it one of certainty. Then again, a lot of science is about probability. It seems that more people are inclined to accept our universe relies upon chaotic acts rooted in probability but not when it comes to our own sacred orgins. Even if our origins are predicated upon probability, I wouldn't think a better life would be for a person to act within the odds. Life and society would be richer if more people stood upon their personal certainties.
^^^ To me sensible probability is better than no explanation. You also lost me on the life certainty point. We all have faith one way another in different forms.
Well Done. I know many instances of people who have had Faith experiences........and it lands them cuffed and locked away. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/12/Dad-God-told-me-to-kill-my-son/UPI-71281234475937/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1356811 http://www.alltruebible.com/genesis_22-01.shtml I see a lot of 'Faith Experiences' here..... only 3 were deemed insane and 1 is a touching story. Faith is what it is......belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof. So does evolution or religion have further to stretch to keep the masses sane? I am a big fan of the monkeys! By the way......I am not targeting you giddyup......just like to hear a different side to my rational....so please dont take offense. Like you said before.....it is the reason for the forum. Cheers Brother!
You seem to be mistaking the 1800s Lamarkian view of evolution with the current theory. Lamark believed that evolution was a linear process with an end goal. He believed that organisms, as they evolved, got more and more complex and more and more better. Your facts that in no way challenge the current theory, they challenge the this outdated Lamarkian view of evolution. Having less or more DNA does not mean that an organism is more evolved or more suited to its environment. Humans having more genetic disorders also has no bearing on whether we evolved from other homo species, simply because as our higher functions increased, the negative effects of disease on an individuals ability to procreate lessened. The fact that our bones are smaller and lighter also has no significance, because, contrary to what some believe, bigger is or heavier is not necessarily more or less evolved. The theory of evolution holds no value judgements - evolution proceeds through random changes in our DNA, in combination with natural selection whereby traits that are favorable to survival and thus procreation are carried on. This doesn't mean that traits such as proclivity to disease are not carried on, only that those negative traits which are inimical to an organisms ability to procreate are less likely to be passed on. In general don't bring up facts that have zero relevance to the argument that you are trying to make. It's nonsensical at best. Anyone can bring up a fact - for instance FACT: I'm currently typing and FACT: I like coffee. But these two facts do not support the argument that say humans descended from apes, well that just doesn't work. As far as the general argument you are failing to make, I'll echo what geeimsobored is saying.
I understand you are explaining your understanding of why Evolution is of such concern to the religious and not arguing a point of view. For the sake of debate though I would respond that I don't see why Evolution necessarily challenges the idea of divine certainty. Couldn't an omnipotent diety have planned out the path of Evolution to lead to the creation of humanity? If God works in mysterious ways what we perceive as a long string of chance happenings and coincindence could actually be planned.
You have a "funny" idea of a faith experience. Most faith experiences neither require nor result in some dynamic acting-out. I don't feel hounded. There have been and are other iterations of you. I certainly enjoy meeting... just don't want the clash. This is all meant to be fun, educational and potentially uplifting.
Just to follow up on this point we know how it is very possible to lose or gain chromosomes since that occurs in disorders such as Down's Syndrome. Just following on another point regarding the number of genetic disorders that we have versus other primate species consider that humans have been medically studied far more than any other species and also humans as a species have spread to many greater habitats than any other species. Various things we consider genetic disorders, like Sickle Cell Anemia, are actually mutations that provided an advantage in particular habitats: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html Also if you are arguing that humans have many more genetic disorders than other primates that's not much of an argument for a design argument as the most intelligent species also has some major design flaws. I was listening to an evolutionary sociologist talk about this last week and was thinking about this same thing while I was jogging this afternoon. Our lighter bones allow us to run longer distances than any other animal but in turn we also generate more body heat over that sustained time. Unlike many other primates our problem isn't maintianing heat but shedding it so thinner skin and less hair make it easier for us to cool ourselves.
Plate Tectonics is absolutely not a theory, and there is plenty of observable evidence supporting the notion that the Earth's crust is made up of plate tectonics, and they continue to move and violently interact with each other. Evidence? Volcanoes, earth quakes, undersea trenches, etc. In fact there is a show on the History Channel that comes on every Tuesday called "How the Earth was Made". Very fascinating show worth watching. Many episodes include plate tectonics, and it is not presented as a theory. Instead it is the foundation to explain the many features we encounter on this planet such as earth quakes and tsunamis. Physics and Astronomy major here. There are plenty of experiments that can be executed to demonstrate the existence of atoms, its protons, neutrons, and electrons, along with other subatomic particles, including neutrinos. Not to mention we have the holy Law of Conservation of Energy that demands the existence of these particles. We do have instruments that can detect neutrinos, and know they come in bunches from explosions of stars (supernovae). Hmmm... is this actually true? I'm surprised society as a whole even know about String Theory. You can call it a project under construction for sure. I'll be surprised if it is ever testable, and parts of Quantum theory also, such as quarks. Well, does Continental Drift directly interfere with any biblical passages? If it does, it doesn't even compare to the interference of Evolution.
I don't know this for a fact, but my guess is that if you took the total wild population of roughly 700-750 gorillas and expanded to the 6.77 billion volume of humans, you would find a comparable number of genetic defects. Tay-Sachs, for instance, occurs about 100 times out of more than 4,000,000 births anually in the USA. The chances a genetic disease of the same probability expressing itself in a population of less than 1000 gorillas is miniscule.
I cited plate tectonics since as you note we are able to witness the effects of plate tectonics but no human witnessed Pangea and like Evolution the evidence to support Pangea has to do with the shape of the continents and also geological evidence of related geography and carbon dating, similar to fossil evidence. Critics of Evolution frequently break it down into micro-evolution and macro-evolution by stating that yes we can see single cell organisms mutate and adapt and we can seen adaptions such as insects changing colors but we have never directly witnessed a more complicated organism make a major change such as a fish becoming a turtle. The theory of plate tectonics seems to be one where you could say there is a micro-plate tectonics as witnessed by earthquakes and volcanoes, events that happen within an observable human time frame, and a macro-plate tectonics leading back to the idea of a supercontinent millions of years ago that has fractured and the pieces drifted out to where they currently are. I'm not a physics or an astronomy major but I am aware of the experiments showing the existence of atoms and subatomic particles. Although I hadn't heard about detecting neutrinos and would be interested to know more about that. Why I cited atomic theory though is that like macro-evolution it is something that can't be observed directly and atoms and subatomic particles can only be detected through indirect means. This is the same as the process of say fish eventually becoming turtles since that process is one that is beyond human timescale and is deduced from other evidence than direct observation of the process. String Theory is a very controversial scientific theory yet in the wider public there is far less controversy over it than Evolution which has far more evidence supporting it. My point regarding citing that is that many Evolution opponents have cited what they believe as bad science regarding Evolution and pointed out scientific problems with it. While I understand most of opposition to Evolution is religiously based but does someone who also believes it is bad science is also as troubled over something like String Theory? If you take the Bible literally and follow the Biblical generations to get a young Earth only a few thousand years old then the idea that millions of years ago there was a supercontinent would be a problem. Also regarding the Biblical account of Genesis and the generations that follow there are descriptions of actual locations and the idea that the Continents haven't always been where they are would also challenge a literal readign of the Bible.
The "certainties" I meant could be considered a personal code, belief or principle. Everyone generally knows right from wrong. There's general moral ambiguities that are more inconvenience than ambiguities themselves such as theft of intellectual property or colluding with another party to pad an insurance claim. **** we know is wrong but we're convinced other people do it, so it's fine. It shifts more into a probabilistic game based upon the risk of getting caught or facing negative consequences. I am guilty of this a lot, through things like speeding or downloading music. It happens so often that sometimes I even forget it's wrong. I'm not saying that God is the only result of one's certainty. It can be faith in one's own beliefs, as it is to many.... Let's assume on the meta level, that sensible probability is better than no explanation (though some would consider it a death of imagination). What are the results of that sensible finding, and how would an individual apply it? In other words, what have you applied from Evolution, and how has it affected you? I could say it doesn't matter, but this debate and many others like it seems to be about the search and conquest of Truth, not about what is personally better. Yet the application of that truth does affect us. Differences can be subtle, but it does add up. A fundamental is where or what we place our faith.
I don’t think that is the point this thread was trying to make. The OP was talking about the theory of evolution and in particular the part of the theory that suggests that higher/more complex forms of life evolved from lower forms. The question is essentially about whether this theory has been “proved”, and perhaps also whether it should be considered the one and only theory that can be discussed with respect to our origins. What I believe we’ve found out is that there is in fact very little solid evidence to support the theory. This doesn’t mean that it’s not a valid theory, of course, or that it shouldn’t be pursued. It just means that, from a scientific standpoint, it’s very far from being proved to any high degree of certainty. For some reason a large group of people are very significantly overstating the degree to which the evidence supports the theory, however. We’re also finding that this group of people tends to have a strong aversion to alternative theories, something that runs counter to the basic principles of science. In other words, I think we’re seeing that this allegiance to the theory is for many people faith based rather than science based. I might even say that its exclusionary elements could be described as somewhat cult like.
No, evolution does not occur with any preconceived plan to produce anything, fitter or even different. The changes in species result from an alteration in their genetic code; from cosmic radiation, cross pollination, enviromental agents, and even simple mistakes in DNA duplication during reproduction. The changes that happen to result in higher rates of survival and procreation become the more prevalent examples of the species or new branches of the species.
Where did anyone say they having aversion to alternateive theories? If there is another scientific theory out there that is better than evolution, I am sure all the scientists will be pretty happy to have it. Oh ID is not a scientific theroy.
The fact that this thread has, yet again, gone back to talking about creationism I think illustrates why many people overstate the theory of evolution. I think that for many of these people it’s done as a reaction to their perception of creationism, and perhaps to religion in general. Even though those are completely separate issues, they always seems to be a major issue for the overstaters, and that I think is colouring their response to this issue and diverting them away from good scientific practice.
There are a number of other theories, some of which have been discussed in this thread. There are also a number of different scientific theories that could fall under the general description of "intelligent design". You seem to have a very narrow position on this, and if so that's not good science.
