Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:07 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 848 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 29  Next

Pick the response that most accurately applies.
I believe in evolution and I am not an atheist. 19%  19%  [ 15 ]
I believe in evolution and I am an atheist. 44%  44%  [ 34 ]
I am a young earth creationist. 13%  13%  [ 10 ]
I am an old earth creationist. 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
I believe in Intelligent Design. 5%  5%  [ 4 ]
I don't know what to believe. 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
Other. 8%  8%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 78
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am
Posts: 6245
True, I forgot about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:40 am
Posts: 612
Location: Trying to come back.
Beyond the Grave wrote:
Not to take anything from the conversation, but where are the Creationists on here. I know there are a few on here. We need them in this conversation. This one-sided conversation is getting boring pretty quickly.


Alright, ya caught me. I'll debate. (I haven't debated in this thread since... 2004.) My belief is that the science that is trying to prove Evolution (or, at least, macroevolution, since microevolution exists -more on this later) has subsequently disproven it [Evolution] and reinforced the idea that a creator, or at least intelligent design, was the only cause for the beginning of life. Now, I've probably opened up a can of worms (eww) and will likely start a brouhaha (ha ha) over this.
@Kef: I'm BAAAcck! Did ya miss me? Huh? Well, I've been educated and armed with the book The Case for a Creator which, through at least seven interviews with experts in the fields of molecular biology, astronomy, anthropolgy, neuroscience and others makes a very forceful point for a creator.

furrykef wrote:
I would say the strongest argument in favor of both natural selection and evolution is statistics. If you start with the premise that species mutate over time -- which is known to be true and has even been empirically observed -- then the ideas of natural selection and evolution naturally follow.

Do elaborate on mutation. Don't forget about the Cambrian Explosion.

furrykef wrote:
It's hard to really explain unless you're already familiar with statistics and randomness. But consider a weighted coin, one that comes up heads 51% of the time in the long run. That 1% difference seems insignificant, and indeed it truly does not matter if you just want to flip a coin to decide what you're going to have for lunch. But if you add up these coin flips over millenia, that 1% is going to make a huge difference. If you flip that coin one billion times, you will get 10,000,000 more heads on average than if the coin were fair.

Survival of the fittest is like a weighted coin in that respect: small differences aren't so small in the long run. This is a very imperfect example, but the idea is to get the idea across that small differences are not small.

Granted, natural selection takes place. I see that around me. The bird with short wings that can't fly too high will get hit by a car and his genes will be removed from the pool.
I don't think a weighted coin is a good illustration. I don't think a weight would really influence the actual motions of the coin too too much.

furrykef wrote:
Now consider that these not-really-small differences also accumulate, combining with each other... how could a species not evolve over time? If you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, maybe that argument doesn't seem so important, but then you have to figure out how to refute all the evidence that points to the planet being 4.6 billion years old -- or, at least, older than 6000 years.

Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. I can't exactly say when I believe Earth was created. I had to say more that 1 billion years ago, though. I'd have to ask you to elaborate though: are you referring to micro or macro evolution?
furrykef wrote:
Did he sell eggs? wrote:
(Another mistake of a lot of evolution people: Natural Selection has been basically proved wrong by people who believe in evolution.)


By whom, exactly? This is certainly not scientific consensus.

- Kef

Agreeable on Kef's point. May Eggs meant to say something else. I don't know. But I shortly explained Natural Selection earlier. I won't argue over that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 2713
If you feel like you have a spare two hours, you could check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am
Posts: 6245
fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
Alright, ya caught me. I'll debate. (I haven't debated in this thread since... 2004.) My belief is that the science that is trying to prove Evolution (or, at least, macroevolution, since microevolution exists -more on this later) has subsequently disproven it [Evolution] and reinforced the idea that a creator, or at least intelligent design, was the only cause for the beginning of life. Now, I've probably opened up a can of worms (eww) and will likely start a brouhaha (ha ha) over this.
I've been educated and armed with the book The Case for a Creator which, through at least seven interviews with experts in the fields of molecular biology, astronomy, anthropolgy, neuroscience and others makes a very forceful point for a creator.


Any evidence? To my knowledge, evolution is backed up with more facts than ever.

Furthermore, if you believe in natural selection, how do you not believe in evolution? I've always thought they go fairly hand-in-hand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
...I've been educated and armed with the book The Case for a Creator which, through at least seven interviews with experts in the fields of molecular biology, astronomy, anthropolgy, neuroscience and others makes a very forceful point for a creator.


I wouldn't call that being educated. The "experts" Strobel interviews for his book are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute in some way. Wells, Gonzalez, and Behe are the only interviewees with actual graduate degrees in the sciences, and all three are Discovery Institute members. If you'd like to see a point-by-point refutation of Strobel's book have a look here.

A few days ago we were discussing the Where Does the Evidence Lead? video. Does anyone see a pattern emerging with this Intelligent Design media? A collection of academics from various disciplines take a "scientific" look at evolution and declare it fatally flawed, concluding that only the intervention of a creator can explain the issue. Upon closer inspection, however, all of the academics turn out to be affiliated with the Discovery Institute, and none of their theories can be found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
Do elaborate on mutation. Don't forget about the Cambrian Explosion.


I'll happily elaborate, but I need to understand what needs elaboration.

I also have to admit I have not heard of this "Cambrian explosion" before, but I don't think it actually proves anything against evolution. It could simply be that conditions for more advanced life suddenly got better, just as they had suddenly gotten worse for the dinosaurs millions of years later.

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
I don't think a weighted coin is a good illustration. I don't think a weight would really influence the actual motions of the coin too too much.


I'm not sure I understand. The point was that even a 1% difference in probability can make a mountain of difference in the long run. Small differences add up.

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
furrykef wrote:
Now consider that these not-really-small differences also accumulate, combining with each other... how could a species not evolve over time? If you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, maybe that argument doesn't seem so important, but then you have to figure out how to refute all the evidence that points to the planet being 4.6 billion years old -- or, at least, older than 6000 years.

Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. I can't exactly say when I believe Earth was created. I had to say more that 1 billion years ago, though. I'd have to ask you to elaborate though: are you referring to micro or macro evolution?


Well, my argument is that macroevolution logically follows from microevolution. If you add up a lot of small differences over a few million years, the sum of those differences is not going to be small.

I'd explain more, but I have to go now, so I'll just hit "submit" for now...

- Kef


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
OK, now that I'm back...

What I want to know is how would it even be possible for microevolution to exist without causing macroevolution. If the Earth were really young, again, I could see an argument there, that we haven't been around long enough for macroevolution to take place, but you readily stated that you think it's at least older than 1 billion years.

Specifically, my point is: what would keep macroevolution from happening? If you have mutation after mutation after mutation for millions of years, and some of these mutations keep propagating throughout the gene pool, how can you possibly end up with the same species you started with? Not all mutations cause only superficial changes, and even seemingly superficial changes can be not so superficial when they accumulate.

- Kef


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:11 pm
Posts: 949
Location: Underneath a big clock at the corner of 5th Avenue and 22nd Street...
Whats really been bothering me, is the use of the terms macroevolution and microevolution. Its just pain evolution. "Macroevolution" is caused by small changes over a very long period of time, so its all just evolution.

_________________
Wow, It's been like three or 4 years since I've last been here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: not that hard, espestialy for MY God.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 326
Location: >You are in a dank dungeon, possible exists are just Dennis
Here is what I believe:

It is entirly possible that we were once "monkeys" to put it so cudly. This does not contradict the bible, nor the idea of God. Evolution is just a tool used by God to allow for the natural and free development of speciese. According to my beliefes: God created the Earth and everything else in 6 "God" days. Being a supreme being, a day in human time is only a briefe moment. While God is fully capable of creating a crude, rather wonkey universe in a second, God took 6 "God" days to make the universe. "God-days" implies an unmeasurable amount of time according to human capabilities. This idea allows for the billions of years that scientists keep telling us about. God took his time in creating this univerese. He wanted everything perfect. He had the forethought to creat a certain "beast of the feild" that would eventually come to the result of his image (just give a "Hail" for God's glory there for a moment). Because of God's perfect foresight, he created us in his image over the course of millions of years. Being fully capable of such things, God provided the proper aspects of life that would eventually result in the image of humanity. We became his image, because he laid-down the right foundations.
As you can see, I like to think God is behind everything that can be called"random" or "natural". If you truly believe in God's almighty power, is it all that hard to believe that he created us from simple origins and shaped us into his image over time?

_________________
Ragnarök is coming: Cthulhu is on your side!
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: not that hard, espestialy for MY God.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
Steve wrote:
It is entirly possible that we were once "monkeys" to put it so cudly.


That makes you a theistic evolutionist. It's a growing school of thought.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 326
Location: >You are in a dank dungeon, possible exists are just Dennis
Oh, thank ... I though I was crazy! Or rather, that Others thought I was crazy. But these are my beliefs.

_________________
Ragnarök is coming: Cthulhu is on your side!
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: not that hard, espestialy for MY God.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:52 pm 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
Mike D wrote:
Steve wrote:
It is entirly possible that we were once "monkeys" to put it so cudly.


That makes you a theistic evolutionist. It's a growing school of thought.

Mike


Is that any different from intelligent design? I ask because that's what I thought I.D. was about.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: not that hard, espestialy for MY God.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
StrongRad wrote:
Mike D wrote:
Steve wrote:
It is entirly possible that we were once "monkeys" to put it so cudly.


That makes you a theistic evolutionist. It's a growing school of thought.

Mike


Is that any different from intelligent design? I ask because that's what I thought I.D. was about.


Not necessarily. From what I understand, ID can range from Theistic Evolution to strict 6-Earth-day Creationism. I myself believe in Theistic Evolution, though with the concept of a more Deist (i.e. "clock-maker God") Creator, one that simply set up all the necessarily laws and pressed the start button.

The main thing with Evolution itself is that the science shows what it sets out to show without the interpolation of any God--it doesn't mean that it proves that God doesn't exist, it simply means that it can show the necessary steps for Evolution without needing to resort to God anywhere...so you're left with either rejecting the science and sticking with strict 6-Earth-Day Creationism, or accepting the science and adding in God at your own discretion. As long as you acknowledge the science, God becomes a neutral option.

Oh, and we come more from apes--not monkeys. Just FYI.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:27 pm 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
I was thinking about the "God pushed go" type evolution the other day. It's pretty much what I believe, as I see evolution being, more or less, credible.

The one thing I don't like about the idea is that it seems terribly inefficient. I mean, if I were all powerful, I'd just put everything the way I want it instead of using a lot of unneeded steps. It doesn't seem logical to use evolution. Then again, God is not necessarily logical. Also, maybe God likes Rube Goldberg machines...

There you have it, Evolution: God's Rube Goldberg machine.. :p

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I know
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 326
Location: >You are in a dank dungeon, possible exists are just Dennis
I was trying to put it so crudly...apes is the more appropriate.

_________________
Ragnarök is coming: Cthulhu is on your side!
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:40 am
Posts: 612
Location: Trying to come back.
Mike D wrote:
fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
...I've been educated and armed with the book The Case for a Creator which, through at least seven interviews with experts in the fields of molecular biology, astronomy, anthropolgy, neuroscience and others makes a very forceful point for a creator.


I wouldn't call that being educated. The "experts" Strobel interviews for his book are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute in some way. Wells, Gonzalez, and Behe are the only interviewees with actual graduate degrees in the sciences, and all three are Discovery Institute members.


I don't see how this is relevant. Obviously, the book would be biased. It makes a CASE for a CREATOR.

Furthermore, I would expect people affiliated with one profession/belief/etc. to join an organization that supports that. There are unions for metalworkers, auto workers, truck drivers, etc., why should this be any different?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
StrongRad wrote:
Is that any different from intelligent design? I ask because that's what I thought I.D. was about.


The major difference is that theistic evolutionists support the theory of evolution as science currently presents it. ID seeks to undercut and disprove evolution and present itself as an alternative theory. Did any of you watch the Ken Miller video that DukeNuke posted above? It sheds a lot of light on the whole issue. Miller's lecture only takes up the first hour of the video (the rest is a Q&A session), so if you're pressed for time you can at least watch the first half.

The Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2005 firmly established that ID is essentially repackaged creationism. After the Edwards v. Aguillard decision in 1987 the Supreme Court determined that teaching creationism as a science violated the Establishment Clause; ID was essentially born from this decision. Example: Of Pandas and People, the ID textbook that its proponents have tried to shop to school systems, was originally written from a Christian creationist standpoint. After Edwards v. Aguillard all references to God and creation were removed and replaced with "designer," "design," and similar terms.

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant. Obviously, the book would be biased. It makes a CASE for a CREATOR.


Ties to the Discovery Institute were considered relevant in the Dover trial; in the courtroom it's called character evidence. Discovery has certain stated aims and it can be concluded that its members share those goals. Unlike, say, metalworkers' unions, one of these goals is to change the science curriculum in this country by inserting ID into the classroom. This is in spite of the rather glaring problem that ID is not science. (Once again, Michael Behe himself has admitted that ID cannot be scientifically demonstrated. He was quoted saying so by Time magazine, August 15, 2005.) The theories of ID, including the ones presented in Strobel's book, have not withstood scientific scrutiny.

I strongly recommend that anyone who is truly interested in this issue check out Dr. Miller's presentation. Here is DukeNuke's link again. Bear in mind that Dr. Miller is a practicing Catholic who wrote a book in 2000 called Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution*. He is the very definition of a theistic evolutionist. In the video he goes over the precepts and origins of ID and deconstructs a number of its claims, including irreducible complexity.

Mike

* I haven't read this book, but after watching Dr. Miller's lecture I decided to order it. I'll let you all know how it is when it gets here.

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:40 am
Posts: 612
Location: Trying to come back.
Mike D wrote:
The Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2005 firmly established that ID is essentially repackaged creationism. [...]

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant. Obviously, the book would be biased. It makes a CASE for a CREATOR.


Ties to the Discovery Institute were considered relevant in the Dover trial; in the courtroom it's called character evidence. Discovery has certain stated aims and it can be concluded that its members share those goals. [...] one of these goals is to change the science curriculum in this country by inserting ID into the classroom.

Once again: So? We're not at the Dover trial, I don't care what the Supreme Court thinks and The Discovery Institute can set its own goals.
Quote:
This is in spite of the rather glaring problem that ID is not science. The theories of ID, including the ones presented in Strobel's book, have not withstood scientific scrutiny.


That comment is in spite of the rather glaring problem that the stance of ID as science is highly contestable. Also, If you plan on using blanket-cover statements, saying that the theories of ID haven't made it, then I'll probably discredit anything you say. Some of the theories have stood up.

However, as with most things is science, it's a theory as is Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Almost everything in science is a theory. We have established some laws in science.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
Also, If you plan on using blanket-cover statements, saying that the theories of ID haven't made it, then I'll probably discredit anything you say. Some of the theories have stood up.

However, as with most things is science, it's a theory as is Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Almost everything in science is a theory. We have established some laws in science.


Not this again. *sighs* "Theory" in science means "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." The important parts there are in bold. "Theory" in ID means "guess that has no evidence to support it." In fact, by scientific standards, what ID calls their own "theory" is in fact no better than a "hypothesis." So no, ID is NOT the same as the Theory of Evolution. And if I'm reading your paragraph right (from before I started quoting), if you don't want to call ID some form of "science," then fine--the funny thing is, the term "Intelligent Design" seems to be fabricated solely to push Creationism into science classrooms where it ought naught belong.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
fahooglewitz1077 wrote:
Once again: So? We're not at the Dover trial, I don't care what the Supreme Court thinks and The Discovery Institute can set its own goals.


The Dover trial is significant because it determined that ID is not science, but is in fact religious in basis. Thus it violates the Establishment Clause, and thus teaching it is unconstitutional. That may mean little to you personally, but it was a landmark decision for this nation and it informs any debate on the topic. Michael Behe took the stand in Dover and argued the case for ID, using many of the same arguments Stobel presented in his book. He and his fellow witnesses failed. How is anyone citing that book going to do better?

Quote:
That comment is in spite of the rather glaring problem that the stance of ID as science is highly contestable. Also, If you plan on using blanket-cover statements, saying that the theories of ID haven't made it, then I'll probably discredit anything you say. Some of the theories have stood up.


Blanket statements? As I cited previously, Michael Behe himself admitted that ID isn't science. That's pretty open and shut right there. In any event, if ID or creationism were real science they'd be in the textbooks by now. They've had years to prove themselves via observation and peer review. They have failed to do so.

We can test this for the record, if you like. Which of ID's theories do you claim has stood up?

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
StrongRad wrote:
The one thing I don't like about the idea is that it seems terribly inefficient. I mean, if I were all powerful, I'd just put everything the way I want it instead of using a lot of unneeded steps.
Well, according to evolution, it's easier for a few cells to form and evolve into many creatures, so it's probably easier for God to just put down a few cells and see them evolve as he planned.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:38 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
The one thing I don't like about the idea is that it seems terribly inefficient. I mean, if I were all powerful, I'd just put everything the way I want it instead of using a lot of unneeded steps.
Well, according to evolution, it's easier for a few cells to form and evolve into many creatures, so it's probably easier for God to just put down a few cells and see them evolve as he planned.

It would seem that, if you had infinite power, you'd just put things down as you wanted them.. It'd be quicker, too. Then again, if you are eternal, what's a few million years?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
I think the idea of what's "easier" for a supposed omnipotent being is a moot question, isn't it? ;)

Maybe the Creator doesn't care about what's easier, he cares about what's fun! I think it'd be fun to design a little universe where life can form on some planets and sit back and watch what happens. Maybe a deity would feel the same way. Maybe we're God's fish tank. Perhaps that isn't a particularly flattering thought, but it may be who we are nonetheless.

Well, I suppose I ought to toastpaint myself.

fahooglewitz, I don't want to pressure you or anything, but I would like to see your response to my reasoning that macroevolution must logically follow from microevolution. :)

- Kef


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
I think there is a fine line between macro and micro evolution. For one, since not every living thing has the same number of chromosomes, at some point some creature had to have completely lost or gained 2 chromosomes all at once - no matter how many micro-evolutionary changes happen, the total number of genes doesn't change. I've never really heard a good explanation for this. When we know so little about things in evolution, I don't see how everyone can just proclaim it as fact. I'm not using this to say I think evolution is false, I just think it is okay for people to believe in micro evolution but not macro.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 1809
Location: lol.
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
I think there is a fine line between macro and micro evolution. For one, since not every living thing has the same number of chromosomes, at some point some creature had to have completely lost or gained 2 chromosomes all at once - no matter how many micro-evolutionary changes happen, the total number of genes doesn't change. I've never really heard a good explanation for this. When we know so little about things in evolution, I don't see how everyone can just proclaim it as fact. I'm not using this to say I think evolution is false, I just think it is okay for people to believe in micro evolution but not macro.


Mutations can cause more genes to be added. Parts of chromosomes can split off, in some cases forming new chromosomes. Now, generally this will cause the organism to die, but it's possible that it will be silent, or in rarer cases beneficial.

For instance, look at a chromosomal comparison of humans and some apes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
For one, since not every living thing has the same number of chromosomes, at some point some creature had to have completely lost or gained 2 chromosomes all at once - no matter how many micro-evolutionary changes happen, the total number of genes doesn't change. I've never really heard a good explanation for this.


Dr. Miller delves into this issue, as it relates to humans and the great apes, in the video linked above. Whether it's the explanation you want or not I'm unsure, but the info he presents is a compelling argument for human evolution.

Of course it's fine for people to believe in micro but not macro, or whatever they want, really. However, I should mention that evolutionary scientists don't "believe" in evolution; they accept it as the leading scientific theory. There's a world of difference.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:26 am
Posts: 164
Location: leagues away from Stu's backyard.
This is an uber-long thread, and I haven't absorbed it all yet. But I would encourage you to look at >this< in forming/changing you opinion on this. The site is laid out very simply, by a personal friend of mine, Steve Rudd; and it has far more depth than its un-glitzed surface will lead you to believe. As for me, I am not a slouch(see the last paragraph in the link) in science; I am therefore a young earth creationist -- because of evidence.

When I catch up with the thread, and I have time to form a good article, I'll post here again.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
I'm sorry, but "creation science" or whatever you want to call it is not science. I won't go over the website now (I've got a cold and am in no mood for research), but I can tell you that so many scientists have pored over all the evidence for evolution that claims are not easily debunked. Individual claims might be debunked, the Piltdown Man being a famous example, but when they're debunked, scientists stop using them as evidence. So even if there are forgeries and such, we can be pretty sure that most of the evidence for evolution is not forged and the scientists know what they're talking about.

I do intend to discuss this in detail rather than dismissing all the claims out of hand; I just don't want to do it just yet.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 1809
Location: lol.
Heck, I'm offended that it's even called creation science.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
Mike D wrote:
However, I should mention that evolutionary scientists don't "believe" in evolution; they accept it as the leading scientific theory. There's a world of difference.
Yes, but it's pretty much the only scientific theory. Someone could go out and find all the evidence he wanted that the history of living things was divinely guided and that random evolution couldn't have happened, but it still wouldn't be considered a scientific theory.
As for me, I probably wouldn't call myself a 'young-earth creationist', but certainly not an evolutionist either.
Quote:
Mutations can cause more genes to be added. Parts of chromosomes can split off, in some cases forming new chromosomes. Now, generally this will cause the organism to die, but it's possible that it will be silent, or in rarer cases beneficial.
The reason it will always cause the organism harm (and the reason I say 'always' instead of 'generally' is because I'm pretty sure this being harmless has never been witnessed) is because chromosomes go in pairs. If one splits off, it doesn't have another to pair with, unless the egg or sperm of another organism happens to have had the exact same mutation with the exact same number of genes in each new chromosome so they can mate. And if that all somehow happens and the resulting child is not screwed up... it still has no one to mate with.

Oh, and Barwhack, I didn't really get into the site yet, but I thought the animated gif in the corner was funny - not because I totally agree with it, but because it's a perfect 'response' to those stupid 'God is an imaginary friend for adults' pictures.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 848 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group