<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, the evidence could have been planted by evil time traveling pixies, but the more plausible explanation is that the theory of evolution is more or less accurate<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's be rational, I respect your opinion, you respect mine. Remember, debating is supposed to provoke thought, not be a proving fields for trying to make people wrong.
And also, I believe in small genetic change, that's a genetic pool, that only proves that it's possible for small changes in variety, not entire changes of species. That's just variation, not evolution.
Believing science is an inaccurate phrase. It's whether or not you believe the current theories of science, and after that, it's whether you understand it.
Science is the best explanation for natural phenemenon. Believe it or not, (pun not intended) science is completely theoretical and is not meant to be believed. It is meant to understand, or be understood.
You can say "I don't believe this theory," but what you really mean is "This theory is an inadequate explanation for natural phenemenon," or "This theory has been proven wrong." Science is based on proof, not belief. Things are proven or not proven, if you don't trust a proof and can't explain why, then you are an idiot.
Believe implies trusting the validity of something without undisputable proof. This means that anyone should be able to observe the same phenemenon and come across the same conclusion. Theories are based on hard, tangible proof, and whether the proof is inccorect or incorreect is up to the discretion of others. 1+1=2 is hard tangible proof. If you have one tree, and then another tree, there are two trees. There are not three trees, there are not 1.6 trees. Thus we can trust that 1+1=2 because anyone can come across one of anything and another one of the same, and conclude there are now two of that object.
Gravity is what an observed phenemenon is called. Objects have been observed to "come together" without outside force, this phenemenon is gravity. Others observe the same thing, and whether they understand what it or not doesn't matter. It simply is. Why it is may be up to argument, and this is what I believe you are arguing about.
(it's sad this thread degenerated into an evolution contest. I will counter the bogusity (word?) of evolution in a later post.)
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Aug 29 2003, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Aug 29 2003, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> edit. Dr.D I can drop something and see that gravity is true. Now, what if you were not able to do that ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Youy see there you are wrong, you cannot SEE gravity, you do not know what it is, No one does, no one even knows if gravity in tyhe sense we think of it trulky exists, but based on the observations we have made it is easily assumed that there is some force drawing objects down. We invented a force called "gravity" to satisfy the situations we observed. We cannot direstly measure or view this force, but because gravity satisfies all of the observations we see, it is considered to be the truth, and for all intents and purposes it is. Simply because it is stunningly obvious does not mean there is absolute certainty as to what it is and how it works. We see the same thing with evolution, we have invented a system called "evolution" to fill the criteria and meat the observations we make, that makes it, for all intents and purposes, true.
And that's the way science works, when one gets down to it, science is not the art of finding the facts, but merely proposing solutions to problems until one of them works and fulfills our observations. That is the way things have always been, that is the truth.
zooby, you did a great job in putting this thread in perspective. Currently, I bet everyone here thinks I'm a religious zealot who's a complete moron and completely subjective and emotionalistic.
I think this helps. I do believe in science, but I do not believe in theoretical science.
Edit. AllUrHive. First of all, my point is that it can be observed, so by all means, its a validated theory. And <i>please</i> stop arguing semantics. It's neither relevant, if you want to discredit what I'm saying please do so, but don't do it by trying to discredit my interpretation of gravity.
Sirus, do you believe that gravity varies according to distance between the objects? How do you KNOW? It's not like you can get on a really tall ladder and measure the effects of Earth's gravity from a million miles up. Sure, you can test it out on small scales, but that doesn't mean it works on larger scales.
You brought up the definition of philosophy, but didn't provide the definition of science. Here ya go, from that same site:
1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
The theory of evolution is a product of observation, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of the phenomenon of variation between and within species. Bango.
Now, riddle me this: do you have any reason to believe that evolution couldn't result in one species diverging into two? What exactly is it?
Sirus, you're just being stubborn. Is there and scientific evidence to back what you believe has brought us to where we are today? Probably not. I don't believe God works with a magical wand.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited August 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Aug 29 2003, 06:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Aug 29 2003, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Edit. AllUrHive. First of all, my point is that it can be observed, so by all means, its a validated theory. And <i>please</i> stop arguing semantics. It's neither relevant, if you want to discredit what I'm saying please do so, but don't do it by trying to discredit my interpretation of gravity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You still don't get it. GRAVITY ITSELF CANNOT BE OBSERVED.
Amd since you say that since evolution itself cannot observed it is false, I have provided a counter-example, something else which cannot be directly observed, and therefore according to you should not exist.
There is as much evidence foir evolution as there is for gravity, we see the effect of these two principles, and we see that the affects fit in with the theories we have made, therefore we have found the correct answer.
Heh. It's really hard to be a Christian on these boards, as it seems that everytime I try to open my mouth it seems like everyone likes to try to immeaditely dismiss nearly everything I say.
Samwise, yes it can be theoretical and observed at the same time, when AllurHive was taking the time to more accurately define gravity for me he did a great job of giving more information on your statement.
However, when I bring the case to evolution, it's not observed, but theoretical.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You still don't get it. GRAVITY ITSELF CANNOT BE OBSERVED. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are arguing still arguing semantics. I believe in the wind if you didn't also know. Evolution can be seen if true, give me evidence that it exists ! Give me evidence otherwise than proof of small genetic change, and fossils ! Because I can easily dismiss that the fossils are just animals that have some commonalities, that is very <i>reasonable</i> ! The gene pool, it proves of variation in species ! Not the change of species into other species !
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm' target='_blank'>Bosnian, upon request.</a>
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Aug 29 2003, 06:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Aug 29 2003, 06:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You are arguing still arguing semantics. I believe in the wind if you didn't also know. Evolution can be seen if true, give me evidence that it exists ! Give me evidence otherwise than proof of small genetic change, and fossils ! Because I can easily dismiss that the fossils are just animals that have some commonalities, that is very <i>reasonable</i> ! The gene pool, it proves of variation in species ! Not the change of species into other species ! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Alright, going by your own logic, I believe that all objects simply happen to fall towards larger objects simply by coincedence, because if I can only view the affects of a force then the force itself does not exist. prove me wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Aug 29 2003, 03:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Aug 29 2003, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You are arguing still arguing semantics. I believe in the wind if you didn't also know. Evolution can be seen if true, give me evidence that it exists ! Give me evidence otherwise than proof of small genetic change, and fossils ! Because I can easily dismiss that the fossils are just animals that have some commonalities, that is very <i>reasonable</i> ! The gene pool, it proves of variation in species ! Not the change of species into other species ! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sirus - genetic mutation is observable on a small scale. And it's established that sufficient genetic variation between two organisms renders them inable to produce fertile offspring, and hence separate species.
WHY is it so hard to believe that over a long period, mutation could lead to sufficient genetic drift to produce independent species? Just saying "I can dismiss it" and "I don't believe it" isn't good enough for us. Give a REASON. That's what science is all about.
The nature of evolution is that it can't be observed just like that. Did you see the American Civil War happen? How do you know it happened if you haven't seen it?
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 29 2003, 03:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 29 2003, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The nature of evolution is that it can't be observed just like that. Did you see the American Civil War happen? How do you know it happened if you haven't seen it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The American Civil War was a conspiracy between our government and the evil pixies. Everyone knows that.
Please see my edited post for more eloquent, and better written examples and evidence written by much more accredited people in a more accurate manner.
In addition, there are blatant offenses of our guidelines, if you cannot follow them please leave, the evidence that you cannot remember a few rules only makes me further question the validity of your statements. Sorry if I come off as authoritative, it's only that it bothers me when someone would do so much as discredit by beliefs by making it synonymous with <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The American Civil War was a conspiracy between our government and the evil pixies. Everyone knows that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sirus, it'd really help if you summarized the arguments and then provided links. And did it in your latest post instead of editing earlier ones. But despite the obstacles you placed in my way, I still clicked through some of those links. And they didn't answer my question.
The links focus on the issue of whether life arose spontaneously. That is in fact outside the scope of evolution. Evolution does not disallow the existence of God as the creator of life. The theory of evolution simply states that organisms can change in boundless ways given sufficient time. Creation doesn't enter into it.
So, can you either: 1) Explain in your own words why one species CAN'T evolve into another? or 2) Provide a link to ONE article that does, and label it appropriately?
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Aug 29 2003, 03:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Aug 29 2003, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Please see my edited post for more eloquent, and better written examples and evidence written by much more accredited people in a more accurate manner.
In addition, there are blatant offenses of our guidelines, if you cannot follow them please leave, the evidence that you cannot remember a few rules only makes me further question the validity of your statements. Sorry if I come off as authoritative, it's only that it bothers me when someone would do so much as discredit by beliefs by making it synonymous with <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The American Civil War was a conspiracy between our government and the evil pixies. Everyone knows that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sirus, I take offense at your disparagement of my evil pixie theory.
(You compared evolution to ridiculous moon landing conspiracy hypotheses. Don't get high and mighty with me, mister.)
Click through all of them. If they still don't answer your questions I'd be happy to find for you.
And sorry about the editing. But, as you know, people are very anal about double posts.
Bosnian - <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->.: Always consider the possibilty that you are wrong and the other side is right. Stay open minded to other peoples points: Ignoring the other side and insisting on a few own arguments won't get you - or anybody else - anywhere. It's very much to ask, but try to consider other peoples argumentations, as opposed to ways of beating them.
2.: Never, ever, be judgemental towards the other side. Blanket labelling of another opinion as "stupid", "naive", "short sighted", "racist", "communist", "socialist", "liberal", "conservative", or what have you is often so close to flaming that it takes experts to find a difference. If you wish to express your personal opinion about another persons notion, try to stay away from valuing terms, and try to be as rational as humanly possible - you're treading on thin ice, and insulting the other side by calling it what it is not can't be in your interest. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright this has developed into a evolutionairy flamefest - and Sirius is in need of a serious hand.
First off - you mutations. There has never EVER been a HELPFUL mutation that actually ADDED genetic information to an organism. Think about that fellas. Sure beetles have lost their wings which helped them, but that REMOVED genetic information. You dont go from amobea to man by subtracting genetic information.
Something people obviously fail to realise these days is the evolutionairy scientist no longer consider evolution to be a theory. In their mind it is concrete fact. When they get results the contradict their belief, thats right, their FAITH, they discard it.
I think you are suffering from a serious case of not having seen or heard the other sides arguements here. How many of you have actually read serious defence of the creation theory? There are many scientist who dont believe evolution - but they keep their trap FIRMLY shut. To denouce evolutionairy theory these days is like buildin a sens chamber on a res node in 1.0x. You are instantly bashed from all sides.
One Christian scientist once had the gall to suggest that light was faster in the past, and perhaps thats how the light from starts got to earth in 6000 years. That man suffered so much ridicule from the scientific community that he retired in disgrace. LAST year some evolutionairy scientist comes up with the same idea without the attack of evolution and he is lauded as a genius. The media hates any opposition to evolution as well.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 07:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 07:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First off - you mutations. There has never EVER been a HELPFUL mutation that actually ADDED genetic information to an organism. Think about that fellas. Sure beetles have lost their wings which helped them, but that REMOVED genetic information. You dont go from amobea to man by subtracting genetic information. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's unadulterated nonsense. How do you think we are inadvertently breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria?
If you understood how they got that resistance maybe you wouldnt have been so quick to say that. They dont gain genetic information for that resistance. Its merely sideways adaption.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 07:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 07:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One Christian scientist once had the gall to suggest that light was faster in the past, and perhaps thats how the light from starts got to earth in 6000 years. That man suffered so much ridicule from the scientific community that he retired in disgrace. LAST year some evolutionairy scientist comes up with the same idea without the attack of evolution and he is lauded as a genius. The media hates any opposition to evolution as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That was not called a crock because it is an insane idea, not because it suggests evolution is wrong.
For light to have slowed down enough in 6000 years to make it seem as if the universe is several BILLION years old it would have to be slowing down at such a rate that there would be a noticeable change in the speed of telecommunications a very long time ago, or at any rate a noticeable change at this very moment.
He suggested that it slowed down in a curve, exponentially. IE heaps fast at the start, slower in the middle, and as you start to get to the end very slowly indeed.
Anyway just was just a side note he made, the original premis that light slowed down is now accepted, but was reject by them based not on his experiments but on his "possible effects".
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
I really havn't read up on the subject, but if that's true then it basically throws every single concept of madern physics out of whack, so until I see it more accepted by the scientific community then I'm gonan just stick with Einstien on this one.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 04:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 04:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First off - you mutations. There has never EVER been a HELPFUL mutation that actually ADDED genetic information to an organism. Think about that fellas. Sure beetles have lost their wings which helped them, but that REMOVED genetic information. You dont go from amobea to man by subtracting genetic information. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Mutation takes many forms. Typically, genetic information is neither added nor subtracted - it's simply shuffled around in new sequences. Removing genes can actually result in NEW features being added, and vice versa. For example, during development, there are various proteins that tell different parts of your body to stop growing and sprouting. Cut out one of those proteins, or change its timing, and instead of sprouting two arms as an embryo, you sprout four. (This might sound ridiculous, but it's actually really easy to end up with extra limbs and whatnot if your prenatal development goes awry in the right ways.)
Helpful mutations? How about the commonly cited case of the pepper moths that Sirus brought up? One moth has a slight mutation that darkens the color of his wings, and he propagates more than the other moths, hence increasing the occurrence of that mutation in the next generation. Further small mutations make the coloration yet darker, and eventually an equilibrium is reached when the moths are at the most advantageous coloring (that which matches the soot-darkened trees they sit on). It doesn't take a lot of imagination to conceive different types of mutation that would result in far greater changes (for example, filling an as-yet untapped ecological niche), ultimately leading to the emergence of new species.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Aug 29 2003, 05:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Aug 29 2003, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I really havn't read up on the subject, but if that's true then it basically throws every single concept of madern physics out of whack, so until I see it more accepted by the scientific community then I'm gonan just stick with Einstien on this one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wouldn't it be Maxwell? The whole inspiration for Einstein's theory of special relativity was that if you solve Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, you end up with a figure for the speed of light that's a constant (not relative to any particular inertial frame). This then leads to all sorts of interesting conclusions regarding the effects of high relative velocities on the passage of time. And as it turns out, it's verifiable by experiment (speed of light verified by astronomical observations, relativity verified by space shuttle experiments with atomic stopwatches).
Mad props to Maxwell and Einstein. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Oh my Lord - not the peppered moths fraud again. You will not find a self respecting scientist still using that example today. Most people dont realise the man that did that experiment was a scientific fraud. Moths dont even rest on tree trunks during the day.
EDIT Dont believe me? <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4105.asp' target='_blank'>Clicky</a>
First off - that pigmentation difference isnt a mutation adding genetic info. Its merely a small variation within species. Kinda like you have blue eyes and me having brown. That proves nothing to the case of evolution. It is very helpful to natural selection (which I do believe in), but not to the creation of new species.
Doesnt take much imagination to get to a new species? Yeah right. Biological organisms are incredibly complicated. One small thing out of whack and they die quicksmart.
Removing genes can lead to new things, but its almost always fatal for the organism, and never helps them in life at all. Either that or it takes away one of their features that they already had which helps them short term, but at the end of the day they have still not "gained" anything.
How do you explain variation within species if not genetic mutation happening at some point? I mean, suppose Adam had brown hair and Eve had red hair. How do we get blonde people?
Comments
It also is directed towards your reply.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, the evidence could have been planted by evil time traveling pixies, but the more plausible explanation is that the theory of evolution is more or less accurate<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's be rational, I respect your opinion, you respect mine. Remember, debating is supposed to provoke thought, not be a proving fields for trying to make people wrong.
And also, I believe in small genetic change, that's a genetic pool, that only proves that it's possible for small changes in variety, not entire changes of species. That's just variation, not evolution.
Science is the best explanation for natural phenemenon. Believe it or not, (pun not intended) science is completely theoretical and is not meant to be believed. It is meant to understand, or be understood.
You can say "I don't believe this theory," but what you really mean is "This theory is an inadequate explanation for natural phenemenon," or "This theory has been proven wrong." Science is based on proof, not belief. Things are proven or not proven, if you don't trust a proof and can't explain why, then you are an idiot.
Believe implies trusting the validity of something without undisputable proof. This means that anyone should be able to observe the same phenemenon and come across the same conclusion. Theories are based on hard, tangible proof, and whether the proof is inccorect or incorreect is up to the discretion of others. 1+1=2 is hard tangible proof. If you have one tree, and then another tree, there are two trees. There are not three trees, there are not 1.6 trees. Thus we can trust that 1+1=2 because anyone can come across one of anything and another one of the same, and conclude there are now two of that object.
Gravity is what an observed phenemenon is called. Objects have been observed to "come together" without outside force, this phenemenon is gravity. Others observe the same thing, and whether they understand what it or not doesn't matter. It simply is. Why it is may be up to argument, and this is what I believe you are arguing about.
(it's sad this thread degenerated into an evolution contest. I will counter the bogusity (word?) of evolution in a later post.)
Youy see there you are wrong, you cannot SEE gravity, you do not know what it is, No one does, no one even knows if gravity in tyhe sense we think of it trulky exists, but based on the observations we have made it is easily assumed that there is some force drawing objects down. We invented a force called "gravity" to satisfy the situations we observed. We cannot direstly measure or view this force, but because gravity satisfies all of the observations we see, it is considered to be the truth, and for all intents and purposes it is. Simply because it is stunningly obvious does not mean there is absolute certainty as to what it is and how it works. We see the same thing with evolution, we have invented a system called "evolution" to fill the criteria and meat the observations we make, that makes it, for all intents and purposes, true.
And that's the way science works, when one gets down to it, science is not the art of finding the facts, but merely proposing solutions to problems until one of them works and fulfills our observations. That is the way things have always been, that is the truth.
I think this helps. I do believe in science, but I do not believe in theoretical science.
Edit. AllUrHive. First of all, my point is that it can be observed, so by all means, its a validated theory. And <i>please</i> stop arguing semantics. It's neither relevant, if you want to discredit what I'm saying please do so, but don't do it by trying to discredit my interpretation of gravity.
You brought up the definition of philosophy, but didn't provide the definition of science. Here ya go, from that same site:
1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
The theory of evolution is a product of observation, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of the phenomenon of variation between and within species. Bango.
Now, riddle me this: do you have any reason to believe that evolution couldn't result in one species diverging into two? What exactly is it?
You still don't get it. GRAVITY ITSELF CANNOT BE OBSERVED.
Amd since you say that since evolution itself cannot observed it is false, I have provided a counter-example, something else which cannot be directly observed, and therefore according to you should not exist.
There is as much evidence foir evolution as there is for gravity, we see the effect of these two principles, and we see that the affects fit in with the theories we have made, therefore we have found the correct answer.
Samwise, yes it can be theoretical and observed at the same time, when AllurHive was taking the time to more accurately define gravity for me he did a great job of giving more information on your statement.
However, when I bring the case to evolution, it's not observed, but theoretical.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You still don't get it. GRAVITY ITSELF CANNOT BE OBSERVED.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are arguing still arguing semantics. I believe in the wind if you didn't also know. Evolution can be seen if true, give me evidence that it exists ! Give me evidence otherwise than proof of small genetic change, and fossils ! Because I can easily dismiss that the fossils are just animals that have some commonalities, that is very <i>reasonable</i> ! The gene pool, it proves of variation in species ! Not the change of species into other species !
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm' target='_blank'>Bosnian, upon request.</a>
<a href='http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-006b.htm' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/applecart.html' target='_blank'> Some validation of my feelings.</a>
<a href='http://www.absolutetruth.net/id/page3.html' target='_blank'>Once again Bosnian.</a>
<a href='http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/evolution.html' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://www.rae.org/revevchp.html' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://www.gennet.org/facts/biology.html' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4192msc1-10-2000.asp' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
<a href='http://www.aboundingjoy.com/molecular-fs.html' target='_blank'>Again.</a>
I'll stop there, and there's plenty more. Let me know if you want more, I can do that for you.
Alright, going by your own logic, I believe that all objects simply happen to fall towards larger objects simply by coincedence, because if I can only view the affects of a force then the force itself does not exist. prove me wrong.
Sirus - genetic mutation is observable on a small scale. And it's established that sufficient genetic variation between two organisms renders them inable to produce fertile offspring, and hence separate species.
WHY is it so hard to believe that over a long period, mutation could lead to sufficient genetic drift to produce independent species? Just saying "I can dismiss it" and "I don't believe it" isn't good enough for us. Give a REASON. That's what science is all about.
The American Civil War was a conspiracy between our government and the evil pixies. Everyone knows that.
In addition, there are blatant offenses of our guidelines, if you cannot follow them please leave, the evidence that you cannot remember a few rules only makes me further question the validity of your statements. Sorry if I come off as authoritative, it's only that it bothers me when someone would do so much as discredit by beliefs by making it synonymous with <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The American Civil War was a conspiracy between our government and the evil pixies. Everyone knows that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The links focus on the issue of whether life arose spontaneously. That is in fact outside the scope of evolution. Evolution does not disallow the existence of God as the creator of life. The theory of evolution simply states that organisms can change in boundless ways given sufficient time. Creation doesn't enter into it.
So, can you either:
1) Explain in your own words why one species CAN'T evolve into another?
or
2) Provide a link to ONE article that does, and label it appropriately?
In addition, there are blatant offenses of our guidelines, if you cannot follow them please leave, the evidence that you cannot remember a few rules only makes me further question the validity of your statements. Sorry if I come off as authoritative, it's only that it bothers me when someone would do so much as discredit by beliefs by making it synonymous with <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The American Civil War was a conspiracy between our government and the evil pixies. Everyone knows that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sirus, I take offense at your disparagement of my evil pixie theory.
(You compared evolution to ridiculous moon landing conspiracy hypotheses. Don't get high and mighty with me, mister.)
And sorry about the editing. But, as you know, people are very anal about double posts.
Bosnian - <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->.: Always consider the possibilty that you are wrong and the other side is right.
Stay open minded to other peoples points: Ignoring the other side and insisting on a few own arguments won't get you - or anybody else - anywhere. It's very much to ask, but try to consider other peoples argumentations, as opposed to ways of beating them.
2.: Never, ever, be judgemental towards the other side.
Blanket labelling of another opinion as "stupid", "naive", "short sighted", "racist", "communist", "socialist", "liberal", "conservative", or what have you is often so close to flaming that it takes experts to find a difference. If you wish to express your personal opinion about another persons notion, try to stay away from valuing terms, and try to be as rational as humanly possible - you're treading on thin ice, and insulting the other side by calling it what it is not can't be in your interest.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off - you mutations. There has never EVER been a HELPFUL mutation that actually ADDED genetic information to an organism. Think about that fellas. Sure beetles have lost their wings which helped them, but that REMOVED genetic information. You dont go from amobea to man by subtracting genetic information.
Something people obviously fail to realise these days is the evolutionairy scientist no longer consider evolution to be a theory. In their mind it is concrete fact. When they get results the contradict their belief, thats right, their FAITH, they discard it.
I think you are suffering from a serious case of not having seen or heard the other sides arguements here. How many of you have actually read serious defence of the creation theory? There are many scientist who dont believe evolution - but they keep their trap FIRMLY shut. To denouce evolutionairy theory these days is like buildin a sens chamber on a res node in 1.0x. You are instantly bashed from all sides.
One Christian scientist once had the gall to suggest that light was faster in the past, and perhaps thats how the light from starts got to earth in 6000 years. That man suffered so much ridicule from the scientific community that he retired in disgrace. LAST year some evolutionairy scientist comes up with the same idea without the attack of evolution and he is lauded as a genius. The media hates any opposition to evolution as well.
That's unadulterated nonsense. How do you think we are inadvertently breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria?
That was not called a crock because it is an insane idea, not because it suggests evolution is wrong.
For light to have slowed down enough in 6000 years to make it seem as if the universe is several BILLION years old it would have to be slowing down at such a rate that there would be a noticeable change in the speed of telecommunications a very long time ago, or at any rate a noticeable change at this very moment.
Anyway just was just a side note he made, the original premis that light slowed down is now accepted, but was reject by them based not on his experiments but on his "possible effects".
Mutation takes many forms. Typically, genetic information is neither added nor subtracted - it's simply shuffled around in new sequences. Removing genes can actually result in NEW features being added, and vice versa. For example, during development, there are various proteins that tell different parts of your body to stop growing and sprouting. Cut out one of those proteins, or change its timing, and instead of sprouting two arms as an embryo, you sprout four. (This might sound ridiculous, but it's actually really easy to end up with extra limbs and whatnot if your prenatal development goes awry in the right ways.)
Helpful mutations? How about the commonly cited case of the pepper moths that Sirus brought up? One moth has a slight mutation that darkens the color of his wings, and he propagates more than the other moths, hence increasing the occurrence of that mutation in the next generation. Further small mutations make the coloration yet darker, and eventually an equilibrium is reached when the moths are at the most advantageous coloring (that which matches the soot-darkened trees they sit on). It doesn't take a lot of imagination to conceive different types of mutation that would result in far greater changes (for example, filling an as-yet untapped ecological niche), ultimately leading to the emergence of new species.
Wouldn't it be Maxwell? The whole inspiration for Einstein's theory of special relativity was that if you solve Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, you end up with a figure for the speed of light that's a constant (not relative to any particular inertial frame). This then leads to all sorts of interesting conclusions regarding the effects of high relative velocities on the passage of time. And as it turns out, it's verifiable by experiment (speed of light verified by astronomical observations, relativity verified by space shuttle experiments with atomic stopwatches).
Mad props to Maxwell and Einstein. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
So anyone deny the validity of the laws of gravity? Come on I know there's gotta be at least one out there.
EDIT Dont believe me? <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4105.asp' target='_blank'>Clicky</a>
First off - that pigmentation difference isnt a mutation adding genetic info. Its merely a small variation within species. Kinda like you have blue eyes and me having brown. That proves nothing to the case of evolution. It is very helpful to natural selection (which I do believe in), but not to the creation of new species.
Doesnt take much imagination to get to a new species? Yeah right. Biological organisms are incredibly complicated. One small thing out of whack and they die quicksmart.
Removing genes can lead to new things, but its almost always fatal for the organism, and never helps them in life at all. Either that or it takes away one of their features that they already had which helps them short term, but at the end of the day they have still not "gained" anything.