Just A Crazy Thought

[Mattnxtc 0]

None what-so-ever

haha

I am pointing out that it is not a science. It will never be one. It is impossible for it to become one by definition of what a science is...

do you forget the trial and error that has been done with the evolution theory in order to get the current definition of it? If we stick to the original definition then the theory is dead wrong, we can assume that women are a lower species then us and that eyes are miracles

[timwakefield 68]

Is this the book where you got the theory for how the eye was made?

Yes. Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" is also a major work of evolutionary theory, and was written first.

[Petoria 0]

hehe i wouldnt call this science crow...Id call this people takin fossils and tryin to figure out what we should find so that we can claim evolution...science is something that can be tested....lookin at old fossils and making assumptions about what shoudl be there isnt exactly science

The scientific method:1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.(lookin' at old fossils)2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (dinosaurs existed long before humans)3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. (if we found these fossils here, then we should find identical fossils in similar areas and we should never find human remains near those)4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.(we find similar areas, and find fossils, but no human remains.)If these all support the original hypothesis, then we have a theory.I'm sorry, but what you described is exactly science, and it's the way science has been approached for 100's of years

[Mattnxtc 0]

The scientific method:1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.(lookin' at old fossils)2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (dinosaurs existed long before humans)3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. (if we found these fossils here, then we should find identical fossils in similar areas and we should never find human remains near those)4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.(we find similar areas, and find fossils, but no human remains.)If these all support the original hypothesis, then we have a theory.I'm sorry, but what you described is exactly science, and it's the way science has been approached for 100's of years

I like this one..who performs the actual evolving? Not you, not I, not any scientist. Scientists cant actually even do the experiment b/c then "all things arent equal" and the experiment though fun wouldnt be a valid look at this natural evolution. So as you said, they look at fossils, run tests and then make judgement calls as to whether they "think" they could show a relationship to current species. So we are left with who or what is doing the "natural evolving" if it occurs

[mrdannyg 274]

WWFSMD

i would love a bracelet saying that.and even though i wholly disagree with him, i gotta say mattxnc is pretty brave arguing like this. the fact we haven't heard "have fun in Hell" or anything like that from him is pretty commendable.I do think though that the Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins) as wakefield pointed out would really resolve a lot of things you are "confused" about. (i know confused doesn't describe it, but couldn't pick a better word).Daniel

[Mattnxtc 0]

i would love a bracelet saying that.and even though i wholly disagree with him, i gotta say mattxnc is pretty brave arguing like this. the fact we haven't heard "have fun in Hell" or anything like that from him is pretty commendable.I do think though that the Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins) as wakefield pointed out would really resolve a lot of things you are "confused" about. (i know confused doesn't describe it, but couldn't pick a better word).Daniel

Hehe..i am studyin up for a possible career in apologetics so I am merely using this to continually educate myself on all the theories and arguments. I like to hear different ideas on life and contrary to what crow loves to think. I am very open to all options...I personally have a belief in God and so yall know what all that entails if im right...but im not naive to the massive amount of knowledge left to be discovered. Is "Blind Watchmaker the book that Tim used to make the theory about the evolution of the eye?

[Farnan 0]

I like this one..who performs the actual evolving? Not you, not I, not any scientist. Scientists cant actually even do the experiment b/c then "all things arent equal" and the experiment though fun wouldnt be a valid look at this natural evolution. So as you said, they look at fossils, run tests and then make judgement calls as to whether they "think" they could show a relationship to current species. So we are left with who or what is doing the "natural evolving" if it occurs

What about gene mutation--which, i believe, is the basis of evolution. Are you saying that because we don't know what causes gene mutation, it is God that mutates the gene?I don't get it. No matter where we end with "i don't know how this happens" -- the ID people answer--it's God. It may be so, but who knows. You are free to believe what you want--but don't call it science because it isn't.

[mrdannyg 274]

Hehe..i am studyin up for a possible career in apologetics so I am merely using this to continually educate myself on all the theories and arguments. I like to hear different ideas on life and contrary to what crow loves to think. I am very open to all options...I personally have a belief in God and so yall know what all that entails if im right...but im not naive to the massive amount of knowledge left to be discovered. Is "Blind Watchmaker the book that Tim used to make the theory about the evolution of the eye?

I think Tim said that the book about the eye is called "the Selfish Gene" - don't know, I haven't read that one.The Blind Watchmaker discusses how something so incredibly complicated that it could not come about through a natural or evolutionary process, actually might do so.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I think Tim said that the book about the eye is called "the Selfish Gene" - don't know, I haven't read that one.The Blind Watchmaker discusses how something so incredibly complicated that it could not come about through a natural or evolutionary process, actually might do so.

yeah i missed that post by him...The author is the same..thats why i wanted to know...I had some nice question thought up for it and then i forgot it..doh

[timwakefield 68]

Is "Blind Watchmaker the book that Tim used to make the theory about the evolution of the eye?

Yes, that was from The Blind Watchmaker. I haven't read all of The Selfish Gene yet, but it was a major work when it came out. Watchmaker is a must-read if you are interested in the evolutionary theory....it is entertaining and incredibly interesting, and he goes into great detail explaining how all of his ideas were arrived at.

[Petoria 0]

I like this one..who performs the actual evolving? Not you, not I, not any scientist. Scientists cant actually even do the experiment b/c then "all things arent equal" and the experiment though fun wouldnt be a valid look at this natural evolution. So as you said, they look at fossils, run tests and then make judgement calls as to whether they "think" they could show a relationship to current species. So we are left with who or what is doing the "natural evolving" if it occurs

I suppose you don't believe in atomic theory then either. The existence of atoms. I mean, we can't see them, so they may not exist, right? We can't see evolution, so it doesnt exist. Now who's the doubting Thomas?EDIT: That last statement doesnt make sense.It's mute bc you believe God and I believe science

[Frinkenstein 0]

Hehe..i am studyin up for a possible career in apologetics so I am merely using this to continually educate myself on all the theories and arguments. I like to hear different ideas on life and contrary to what crow loves to think. I am very open to all options...I personally have a belief in God and so yall know what all that entails if im right...but im not naive to the massive amount of knowledge left to be discovered. Is "Blind Watchmaker the book that Tim used to make the theory about the evolution of the eye?

Mattnxtc, you really should do some more reading on this subject.

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[3]An overwhelming majority[4] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science.[5] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[6]A United States federal court recently ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.[50] Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory." There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."[51]Even though evolution theory does not explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force)[52] created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.[53][54] In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and also violates the principle of parsimony. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which does not conflict with scientific theories. An example is Cardinal Schönborn who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory".

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse, and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny, have weighed against intelligent design being considered valid science. To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "God of the gaps" argument, which has the following form:There is a gap in scientific knowledge. The gap is filled with acts of God (or Intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or Intelligent designer). A God-of-the-Gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. The key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.

In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", John Allen Paulos states that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."This argument can be seen as a rebuttal to those advocates of intelligent design who claim that only a sentient creator could have arranged the universe in such a way as to be conducive to life (see for example specified complexity arguments or fine-tuning arguments). In this context, the probability of life "evolving" rather than having been "created" may appear unlikely at first sight, but the evidence that this is the case could be argued to be so widespread, deep, and heavily scrutinized that it would be illogical to conclude that any other (and arguably less scientifically compelling) hypothesis should take its place as the primary theory.

In short, to believe in God/christianity is a personal thing, and that's fine, but to compare intelligent design to science and to think that it answers your questions is simply ignorant. You would be wise to do more research on this topic.Edit: Why is this quote function not working properly???

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Edit: Why is this quote function not working properly???

God rejecting your beliefs.

[Frinkenstein 0]

God rejecting your beliefs.

:lol:Edit: now it seems to work....

[76clubs 0]

I just dont see how anyone can reject evolution.

[Frinkenstein 0]

I like this one..who performs the actual evolving? Not you, not I, not any scientist. Scientists cant actually even do the experiment b/c then "all things arent equal" and the experiment though fun wouldnt be a valid look at this natural evolution. So as you said, they look at fossils, run tests and then make judgement calls as to whether they "think" they could show a relationship to current species. So we are left with who or what is doing the "natural evolving" if it occurs

Note, that evolution has been seen in practice to some degree... New species of bacterium have evolved which are resistant to antibiotics.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Note, that evolution has been seen in practice to some degree... New species of bacterium have evolved which are resistant to antibiotics.

but they are still bacterium...they adapted to overcome the problem...thats micro evolution which everybody agrees happens..but not macro

[Petoria 0]

but they are still bacterium...they adapted to overcome the problem...thats micro evolution which everybody agrees happens..but not macro

Size is relative, and there shouldnt be a difference in any way scientifically.

[Frinkenstein 0]

but they are still bacterium...they adapted to overcome the problem...thats micro evolution which everybody agrees happens..but not macro

More wikipedia:Another misunderstanding is the claim that speciation – the origin of new species – has never been directly observed. This is a misunderstanding of both science and evolution. First, scientific discovery does not occur solely through reproducible experiments; the principle of uniformitarianism allows natural scientists to infer causes through their empirical effects. Second, Darwin provided a compellingly large amount of evidence to support his theory. Moreover, since the publication of On the Origin of Species scientists have confirmed Darwin's hypothesis by data gathered from sources that did not exist in his day, such as DNA similarity among species and new fossil discoveries.A variation of this assertion is that "microevolution" has been observed and "macroevolution" has not been observed. Some creationists redefine macroevolution as a change from one "kind" to another. One of Darwin's key insights was to view species statistically – that is, a "species" is not a homogeneous and immutable thing; rather, it consists of a mass of individuals that vary in form from one another and from their offspring. This view was substantiated with the development of Mendelian genetics, which distinguishes different species in terms of differences in the frequencies of particular genes. "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in gene frequencies. The difference between them is primarily one of scale; that is, qualitative differences between species is the result of quantitative differences in gene frequencies. Commonly, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over a longer timescale. Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to instead describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above.Evidence of the mechanisms for the larger scales of time comes from evidence of the mechanisms for the smaller scales of time. The differences between macroevolution and microevolution are a result of this change of scale and do not necessitate mechanisms of change other than those already found in microevolution.

[Mattnxtc 0]

More wikipedia:Another misunderstanding is the claim that speciation – the origin of new species – has never been directly observed. This is a misunderstanding of both science and evolution. First, scientific discovery does not occur solely through reproducible experiments; the principle of uniformitarianism allows natural scientists to infer causes through their empirical effects. Second, Darwin provided a compellingly large amount of evidence to support his theory. Moreover, since the publication of On the Origin of Species scientists have confirmed Darwin's hypothesis by data gathered from sources that did not exist in his day, such as DNA similarity among species and new fossil discoveries.A variation of this assertion is that "microevolution" has been observed and "macroevolution" has not been observed. Some creationists redefine macroevolution as a change from one "kind" to another. One of Darwin's key insights was to view species statistically – that is, a "species" is not a homogeneous and immutable thing; rather, it consists of a mass of individuals that vary in form from one another and from their offspring. This view was substantiated with the development of Mendelian genetics, which distinguishes different species in terms of differences in the frequencies of particular genes. "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in gene frequencies. The difference between them is primarily one of scale; that is, qualitative differences between species is the result of quantitative differences in gene frequencies. Commonly, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over a longer timescale. Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to instead describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above.Evidence of the mechanisms for the larger scales of time comes from evidence of the mechanisms for the smaller scales of time. The differences between macroevolution and microevolution are a result of this change of scale and do not necessitate mechanisms of change other than those already found in microevolution.

I am sorry but if you are tryin to argue micro and macro are the same thing you are mistaken. An economics majors readin will agree with me after taken multiple years of both. Microevolution is more about adapting to yoru surroundings in that area...but you in fact dont evolve...

[Petoria 0]

I am sorry but if you are tryin to argue micro and macro are the same thing you are mistaken. An economics majors readin will agree with me after taken multiple years of both. Microevolution is more about adapting to yoru surroundings in that area...but you in fact dont evolve...

What does economics have to do with biology?Maybe I'm mistaken, but when you were claiming that microevolution is different than macroevolution, I thought microevolution was evolution of microbacterial organisms. Here you use microevolution as more of a subtle change. Even so, my argument still holds.Adapting to your surroundings is what evolution is all about. When Darwin noticed different variations on the same type of birds, he questioned why. For example, there was a bird that had a longer beak so it could have better access to it's main food source. Since there is survival of the fittest, that type of bird is more likely to be the standard after a certain length of time. Therefore, the bird has evolved.I hope you dont think you have a chicken, then in two generations you have a duck, evolution is more subtle than that.

[Mattnxtc 0]

What does economics have to do with biology?Maybe I'm mistaken, but when you were claiming that microevolution is different than macroevolution, I thought microevolution was evolution of microbacterial organisms. Here you use microevolution as more of a subtle change. Even so, my argument still holds.Adapting to your surroundings is what evolution is all about. When Darwin noticed different variations on the same type of birds, he questioned why. For example, there was a bird that had a longer beak so it could have better access to it's main food source. Since there is survival of the fittest, that type of bird is more likely to be the standard after a certain length of time. Therefore, the bird has evolved.I hope you dont think you have a chicken, then in two generations you have a duck, evolution is more subtle than that.

I was just showing how micro and macro are different and used economics (my major) as the example of how economics consists of micro and macro...

[Petoria 0]

I was just showing how micro and macro are different and used economics (my major) as the example of how economics consists of micro and macro...

Bad example, there are very few parallels between economics and biology, and they are certainly not applicable in this situation.

[herokid7 0]

actually this is an assumption that seems to be made over and over that is wrong. I am not some homegrown christian. I became a christian in the latter part of highschool. ID at the very core says that there is something beyond us that designed things to be what they are. As for the second part..heres the thing that has been bothering meYou see a car, You know that some intelligent thing helped create the car, You would never believe it just randomly came togetherYou see an airplane and know that it just didnt randomly come together, that something created itHeck look at yoru computer...you would be laughed at if you said it just randomly came together. Yet the universe and even more so a human is far far far more complex than those 3 examples, yet it is deemed "natural selection"....do you not see a problem with this?

This is a great point you bring up, Matt. I often wonder why people think Christians are "weird, stupid and/or crazy" because we believe God created us, but yet evolutionists believe we came from a rock that came from absolutely nothing. Which sounds more crazy to you?

[Petoria 0]

This is a great point you bring up, Matt. I often wonder why people think Christians are "weird, stupid and/or crazy" because we believe God created us, but yet evolutionists believe we came from a rock that came from absolutely nothing. Which sounds more crazy to you?

Well, both sound pretty crazy, but one is true and the other isn't.I don't see how having a being that has never been observed or detected, is any more logical than a random assortment of carbon atoms.