Evolution

[Mzungu]

+1
So far I have gotten any death threats for being a gay, hispanic, agnostic, democratic, evolutionist...who believes in dinosaurs.

Uh-oh...have, or haven't?

[Nickintex]

Uh-oh...have, or haven't?

fixed.

[nacra99]

So you're going to pre-emptively NOT produce any back-up evidence from fear of what someone might call you? Don't worry about that, nacra. Traci has very specifically stated that if someone starts personal attacks, they're out of here. So never fear, this place is being watched closer than the paintings in the Louvre. I personally would love to see/read some evidence of the young earth theories. We got your back, man. We may agree to disagree, but we're not gonna start puttin' each other down.

Mark

Thanks for the courtesy.
I'm just sick of all the times during debates when i open my mouth and say "you know.. there is some good evidence out there supporting the young earth theory" and people roll their eyes, turn away and say... 'psheeshhh' ". As if to say "i can't believe that anyone ignorant like that still exists."

Perhaps Old Earth vs Young earth should have it's own tread? it might derail this evolution thread.
I'll start one when i get home tonight if nobody has done so already.

Marc

[nacra99]

+1
So far I have not gotten any death threats for being a gay, hispanic, agnostic, democratic, evolutionist...who believes in dinosaurs.

What??!!
You're hispanic??

[myjohnson]

In deed, Nick is Hispanic....but he looks Asian.

[nacra99]

"irreducibly complex systems" ....

It may just be because it's a term put out by proponents of Intelligent Design, but I think it also has to deal with the fact that if one thinks something is irreducibly complex, then they're just not looking hard enough.

Actually, as far as i can tell, "irreducible complexity" is not in debate. It is actually a re-naming of of an earlier concept put forth by Nobel recipient Herman Muller under the name "interlocking complexity". It is widely accepted by both evolutionary & creation scientists. If it were a simple matter of "not looking hard enough" then the evolutionary scientists would have jumped all over that. However, what they did in fact was to come up with other theories as to how "irreducible complexity" may have come about.

IMHO, as far as i have read up on all these theories, the closest anyone got to disputing how "irreducible complexity" works against evolution is from John Mcdonald (U of Delaware) with his "mousetrap" illustration (easily googled). However he makes a flaw in assuming conceptual precursors with physical pre-cursors (also easily googled) which IMHO, weakens his argument.

[nacra99]

I think it will be impossible to observe macroevolution in the laboratory or anywhere else in one lifetime, or even the entire lifetime of the human species. Simply because it happened over millions, even billions of years, as Mark touched on....... Seeing microevolution in our lifetime is for some reason not enough to be able to view that in larger terms, which is completely understandable but, like I said, unfortunate.

My point exactly....
In any other field of science, hoping or even expecting to see a result is not acceptable as positive confirmation of the scientific method.
ACHIEVING or SEEING a result IS however acceptable in determining a positive confirmation in the scientific method.

If a million years from now, someone manages to SEE this in a lab, then by all means, i welcome Evolution into "law-hood" with open arms. Until then, by the scientific world's own standards, it should remain as a Theory.

If the scientific community refused to accept Einstein's theory until he was able to conclusively prove it through solar eclipses, then I say be consistent and use the same standards here to judge evolution. Otherwise "science" may well be known to perpetuate a double standard. If that is the case, how will we know what "science" to trust anymore?


btw... as you may have already deduced... yes... i have mis-spent most of my childhood and pathetic life pondering the hard questions of life.... the only thing keeping me sane is talking to my fish...

[Nickintex]

In deed, Nick is Hispanic....but he looks Asian.

I get that a lot. Once a waitress at a sushi restaurant tried to speak to me in Japanese! I even had the experts fooled!

[wesleydnunder]

You know, i can't help but think that the concept that morality evolves is quite disturbing. That means to say that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Which means morality is nothing more than an opinion, that changes with the opinions and needs of people. If that is the case, then nobody has the right to say that anyone else's morality is absolutely wrong. Which means that Hitler's morality is no more right or wrong than say...Ghandi.

Here's what i am getting at... You say "What is moral to us is what society accepts as a whole as being right and good for us."
The problem is that when we look back at the moralities of past cultures that may be socially acceptable then compared to now, the question is are those cultures absolutely wrong?

Take for example it was very common for ancient greek MEN to have intercourse with very young pre-pubecent boys. Is it wrong for them to do so?
If the answer is YES, then morality cannot be relative (i.e evolving).
If some say the answer is "NO it is not wrong to have intercourse with pre-pubecent boys: , then i very sincerely question their moralities of those who can even say that it is not wrong to have intercourse with pre-pubecent boys..
If the answer is "I think it's wrong now but its ok back then because that was their society's culture to have intercourse with children, and who am i to impose my morality on their culture", then this is extremely dangerous because in that case we should also condone Hitler's actions because "who are we to impose our morality" on the nazi culture (who we know was very predominant in german society at that time.)

Here's the rub... Evolution is amoral (different from immoral). Evolution makes no distinction on morality. If, morality as you said is nothing more than a product of social - biological evolution, then it is not absolute (i.e it is relative). If that is the case, then nobody has the right to disagree with the morals of other cultures. It is not absolutely wrong for hitler to try to wipe out the jews, it is not absolutely wrong for Iran to demand that israel gets wiped off the face of the earth, it is not absolutely wrong for radical religions to behead our citizens and it certainly is not absolutely wrong for Saddam Hussein to wipe out the minority kurdish culture from his land. After all, who are we to impose our western morality on another culture?

I agree that culture and practices can change over time & history, but to say that communism is not absolutely wrong back then as it is now, it is folly.

You hit the naol on the head. What is moral in other places or was moral at other times is entirely relative. Morality has never been an absolute. From our current perspective, based on our own set of what's moral, many things seem wrong to us. But by judging the morality of other systems, we impose our own onto them. Just because we don't believe that it's ok to have several wives doesn't mean that it's wrong for another man to, if his society believes it's the right thing to do. Look back a couple thousand years and further... it was ok in several cultures to have several wives, slaves, concubines. We reject that now but at the time and in those societies it was perfectly fine and accepted.

Three hundred years ago in Japan it was perfectly ok to decapitate a peasant to test the strength of a sword. It was expected for a man to take his own life rather than suffer shame. Sex with other women than one's spouse, young boys or young girls was part of the norm for them. In hindsight, our sense of modern morality is offended by these things.

Is it ok for some of the atrocities you mentioned to happen today? Not by our standards. To someone else, possibly. The fact that many of the practices of the past are no longer moral in places where it once was, is for me evidence that morality does evolve.

Mark

[Mzungu]

Actually, as far as i can tell, "irreducible complexity" is not in debate. It is actually a re-naming of of an earlier concept put forth by Nobel recipient Herman Muller under the name "interlocking complexity". It is widely accepted by both evolutionary & creation scientists. If it were a simple matter of "not looking hard enough" then the evolutionary scientists would have jumped all over that. However, what they did in fact was to come up with other theories as to how "irreducible complexity" may have come about.

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that. But I still stand by my argument, because many "irredicibly complex" systems can be reduced in complexity. Keep in mind, though, that I'm no scientist, and I'm not looking at any sources for my ramblings. Lol.

After googling a bit, I could be a bit more specific, though, and say that the claims that irreducible complexity cannot arise from simple evolutionary steps is silly, and if one looked harder, one could find evidence that irreducibly complex systems can in fact arise from such steps.

Man, I need to find my books! Darn moving...boxes everywhere that are still just sitting in the garage. Sigh. )

[Nickintex]

Interesting article from plesiosaur.com:

Creationism and Truth

I don't like the term 'evolutionist' - would you call a physicist a 'graviationist', or a "weak nuclear force-ist"? I'm a vertebrate palaeontologist, and evolution is an enormously robust theory without which it is virtually impossible to make sense of any of the observations I make in my field. To ask a vertebrate palaeontologist to operate without the underlying principle of evolution is equivalent to asking the designer of a space probe to ignore the effects of gravity in calculating the trajectory of a rocket.
I am not averse to engaging in debate with creationists. I won't call them 'scientific creationists' - what they represent has little to do with science. It is as a simple matter of definition that if you start an investigation stating that anything you discover can only be explained in terms of a literal interpretation of the bible, it isn't science. I live and work in the UK, where creationism is not much of an issue. The situation is very different in the USA. Although it is easy as a European to laugh in a smugly superior way at the antics of the Americans, I think it is a mistake to do so. The growing political influence of Christian fundamentalists in the US, who are closely associated with creationists, is a threat to the rest of the world. Their agenda includes the strict censorship of science as taught in American schools, and the idea of a scientifically illiterate America dominated by religious fundamentalists fills me with horror.
My main objection to the backers of creationism, in particular those who write the books and pamphlets which proselytize the faith (for that is all it is), is that they show a complete lack of honesty in propagating their arguments. It seems not to matter that the arguments they are using have been shown over and over again to be based on invalid data, misconceptions, misquotations and forgeries. They still use arguments current over a hundred years ago, now thoroughly discredited. It may be that they do so from ignorance - which is hardly an excuse - but it seems more likely that it is done with the deliberate intent to deceive. If this is the case, it reflects poorly on their moral character. It seems to me that 'Creation Science' is little more than a cynical ploy to exploit the genuine desire many people feel for spiritual guidance for political and financial reasons.
One of the most objectionable falsehoods peddled by creationists is that it is impossible to be a Christian and the accept evolutionary theory. This is untrue. The great majority of Christians have no difficulty in accepting the observable fact of evolution. Outside the USA it is only a small 'lunatic fringe' who adhere to the creationist view. To most Christians in the rest of the world, the adherence of so many Americans to this notion is a source of bewilderment, especially as so many of its most prominent proponents come across as little more that bombastic charlatans.
If you are a creationist you should consider carefully the following passage from Steve Jones excellent book 'Almost like a Whale' which presents the science/faith dilemma more clearly than I could: "To deny truth on grounds of faith alone debases both science and religion. This point was made by Galileo himself. Summoned to explain his views, and their conflict with Scripture, he argued that the Church had no choice but to agree with the discoveries of science. It would, he said be 'a terrible detriment for the souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that it was made a sin to believe'. Creationists have not yet faced that fact."
Consider this: Your beliefs describe a the model of a small, brief universe in which mankind under God has a central role. The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibility of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God?
Richard Forrest

[myjohnson]

I get that a lot. Once a waitress at a sushi restaurant tried to speak to me in Japanese! I even had the experts fooled!

Not me!

You don't smell Asian.

[Nickintex]

Not me!

You don't smell Asian.

You sniffed me? :P

[myjohnson]

Where do gays fit into Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

[marauder_77868]

I had a small family emergency come up...not a huge deal but it has kept me away for a few days. I had promised to post some links and haven't had a lot of time to recreate the list I had made. I need to catch up reading these threads as well. But in the meantime here are a few links to keep you busy:

http://creation.com/creation-wheres-the-proof

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-old-is-the-earth.htm

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/