TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas Board of Education has approved new standards for teaching science in public schools that critics say strips evolution from its accepted place at the center of biological studies.

What have we done!?!?!

Is any body else here (blessed with some intelligence) troubled to hear this?

MaTTo

To be honest, I think it is the beginning of the end, once you cross the line between church and state the way to the churche-state lies open ! What they are doing in effect is preferring the teachings of one religion above all others and thus undermining the fundamental principle of freedom of religion.
Evolution theory is based on facts only and admids that there are some parts that still need further examination like any scientific theory. Creationism is mainly based on the bible which is a religious book and speaks of a certain truth that is now hold (in Kansas) in more esteem then the truth found in Boeddism for example.
I hope that this dissision can be turned on federal level. In Europe the American school system isn't looked upon with high regards but if we hear things like that our opinion drops even lower !

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

As much as I hate to come to their defense, the decision of the board of education does not directly impact the schools. Evolution was merely removed from required state-administered proficiency tests. This does not stop evolution from being taught in the classrooms, nor does it ban textbooks that include chapters on evolution from public schools. In fact, Texan schools would be rather stupid to exclude evolution from their curricula, since it would put their graduates at a disadvantage in higher educational institutions.

That said, the entire incident is rather sordid, and I heartily agree that it drops the image of American primary education down to unprecedented lows. But, I am sorry to lament, this is a decade of conservative triumph in a country that has always been at the avantgarde of innovation. The growing pace of change must be too much for the staid old coots in power.

What bothers me even more about the present American situation is that the political forces at large are defocusing social welfare and beginning once again to overemphasize egotism and the supposed virtues of Laissez Faire capitalism. It is the growing social inequalities and disproportionalities in allottment of power, and most importantly, opportunity, that especially concern me at this time.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 17, 1999).]

Geez, get a clue. You guys think that religious people are so bad. Listen to yourselves. You're freaks! How about this theory...that evolution, as a theory for creation, should not be taught as "religion", or as fact, because it can't be proven??????????????????? Excuse me Boris, but aren't you the one who's sooooooo into proving everything? Then prove that humans came out of a pool of slime then. They're smart for not teaching it, because it hasn't been proven. Could be taught as a theory, though. And what are you guys freaking out about anyway. It's not like they are teaching Divine creation in the schools, they're just not refuting it now. Wimps...can't take any of your own damn medicine can you?

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

My dearest Lori,

Allow me to pause a minute while I roll-up my sleeves. The hypocritical statements of your last post are way beyond reason.

Number one. You challenge the validity of evolution and call it only a theory. However, the criticisms you put forth are the same tripe that many churches put forth. Did you swallow these ideas whole-or did you think about them at all?

Number two. Fact: evolutionary biology has been observed at many levels by many independent and seperate groups. The fact that you wish someone to 'prove' something not only shows your complete misunderstanding of science and scientific philosophy, but is also hypocritical because creationism (by definition) must accepted on faith.

Number three. While evolution is a fact, the origin of species is still quite a matter of hot debate. Therefore, whether humans evolved from slime is not a question of evolution, but of speciation.

Lastly. For someone whose signature is 'God loves you and so do I', you show little respect for opinions that differ from your own. Is this following the tenets of your respective religion?


------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Last time I checked, Evolution has never been taught as religion. It has always been explicitly cast as a scientific theory, on par with Newtonian mechanics or inorganic chemistry which are also part of grade school curriculum.

The fact that some Texan board of education dropped evolution does not phase me a bit; it is certainly no threat to the science. However, I am quite ashamed that a group of supposedly educated citizens of my country would pull such a politically-charged and exquisitely boneheaded move when it comes to public policy at the core of our country's future.

I think Plato has a very important point about separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. Both of these principles have been trampled in this case.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Hey Pookums,

Get a grip, ok? If I had a nickle for everytime I had to convince someone on this board that, YES, I actually DO put thought into what my beliefs are, I'd be able to retire by now. How arrogant of you to assume that I don't. Not every Christian is spoon-fed. As a matter of fact, most are not. You're being incredibly naive.

Now, as far as the teaching of evolution is concerned, yes, evolution does exist, and it does take place every single second of every day of life on this planet. Natural selection and survival of the fittest and all that good stuff are very valid concepts to be teaching in school. So let me ask you, what the hell does that stuff have to do with religion at all????? What does that have to do with creation???? Nothing. All of that happens AFTER creation. All I'm saying is this. FACT: THE MISSING LINK HAS NOT BEEN FOUND, AND NEVER WILL BE FOUND, SO QUIT TEACHING OUR KIDS THAT WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS, WHEN YOU KNOW DAMN WELL YOU CAN'T PROVE IT. Just like you say, don't go teaching my kids that we were created by God if you can't prove it. GET IT??????????? DUH!!!!!!!!

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Dear Lori,

If I had a nickel for every time somebody had such a weak stance that they had to revert to direct attacks of the person and not the issue, I could also retire. From your previous post, as well as your reply, I see that there is little use discussing with you further since your anger and aggresive behavior are counterproductive to a useful discussion.

Have fun storming the castle!

-Pookums


------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Pookums,

May I ask what the hell you're talking about??? What personal attacks??? Don't be such a wimp. If you can't stand the heat...you know what they say...

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Pook,

don't let yourself be taken by Lori's way of arguing, that is just her but in time you will come to see what a darling she really is.

Lori,

you 're rocking again, aren't ya ? Ok, you are right that the so called missing link is not found, to clear away all opposition of evolutionism. But you must agree that this decision is against freedom of religion. Suppose a buddist wants to send his/her children to school then these will learn the christian version of how humans came to walk the face of this planet. This would make it more difficult for him to raise his/her children to be good buddists.
Ok, in the US live more then 99% christians and perhaps in Kansas even more, but there is still something like the constitution, isn't there ?

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

A darling? How sweet! Thanks, honey-bun. Maybe I misunderstood, but all they're doing is taking out Darwin's theory. They're NOT replacing it with the Christian creation. I mean, Darwinism wouldn't be anymore helpful to the Buddist parents, would it? So, it's not like they're cramming creation down kids throats, they're just not cramming Darwin down kids throats anymore. What's wrong with the school saying "we just don't know at this point, since nothing has been PROVEN. Here are the different theories...blah, blah, blah"? It just cracks me up, the paranoia regarding religion. What are you people afraid of anyway? Oh yea, that's judgement, right. LOL! Don't worry. TRUE Christians know very well that judging is not for US, but only for HIM. And besides, the Bible tells us that Christians are in no way, shape , or form going to "take over". As a matter of fact, the Antichrist is going to take over, with support from the aliens and all of the new age hippies. We Christians are going to disappear, remember? And you guys will be stuck here having to make a choice. Antichrist or Christ? Hmmmm....seems easy enough to me, but then again, some new age bufoon may have a gun to your head while you're trying to make it. My advice...be a martyr.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

I'm not a pure "Creationist" as the Evolutionists would define it.I have hno problem with God producing man through the process of evolution. I have spoken to this issue before. It's not any mortal's place to tell God how to do His work.
But I will say this: I will protest the teaching of Creationsim in the schools the very nanosecond that people like some of the above stop using their false god "Science" as a means and excuse to aggressively promote atheism to vulnerable children in our schools.

Lori,
First thing, you are the hypocrit--you mock science, and you can't even prove God created the earth. There is no proof that he did except for some old papers written by the ancient man.

And science is NOT a religion. It is based on facts and not on faith on ancient old scriptures by our brainless ancestors.

Observation: In some weird way all who oppose the theory of evolution have a bizarre way of promoting their ideas through their own ignorance.

And Lori, even if God did make "chosen people", do you really think he'd make people like you, who hurl away all blessed logic at every chance they get? I don't think so.

MaTTo
"God may love you, but I don't."

[This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited August 19, 1999).]

There is no freedom of religion, how can there be.
If there is only one god there can be only one religion, so simple, even someone as stupid as I can understand that one.
All other religions are false, ask Babylon, he/she knows.
What was it your god said - Thou shalt not take up any other god but I. Something like that.
Anyway, who gives a toss, god does not exist.

Wow, Matto. Struck a nerve, huh? I can't for the life of me figure out what you're so all-fired pissed off about? Oh well, maybe you're just an asshole???? I want you to explain yourself though, Mr. Asshole, in that how am I being a hypocrit exactly? All I said is that until you can find the missing link, then don't ASSUME that the theory of evolution is valid. How can you possibly argue with that? You know as well as I do, that it hasn't been proven, so what's the problem? It seems that YOU are the one being a hypocrit, as you are sooooooo down on Christians for believing creation without being able to prove it. You are doing the same thing with Darwin's theory. That very well may get to your ego, but I think I speak for everyone here when I say, please try to keep your temper tantrums to a minimum. Second question...how am I "mocking" science? I am a big fan of science. I've always taken an interest in it, and to me, it is basically the study of what God already knows and created. I'm not mocking science by simply stating that Darwin's theory hasn't been proven. And you're acting like I've cut your penis off or something. Wassup with that???? You say that I can't prove that God created earth? You're right. And you can't prove that He didn't can you? Oh, would that make you a hypocrit by chance? 3rd question, how am I promoting ideas through ignorance? Here's the idea...Darwin's theory has NOT been proven. Do you know something that the rest of the world doesn't??? What "chosen people" are you talking about? The only "chosen people that God has are the Jews, and obviously I'm not Jewish, so what the hell are you talking about? All God's children are "chosen", it's just that most are too ego-fied to realize it. *S*

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited August 20, 1999).]

Lori, it's obvious from M's last post he/she is not a rational adult capable of constructive discourse or debate. Ad Hominem is, as it is with all who can't reasonably persuade, his/her tactic of last resort. M is not an asshole. Just a person who can't handle the heat of honest debate without resorting to getting nasty.A lot of them on the other side. That's why they tend to shy away from things that challenge their myopic preconceived ideas, like (my other post, "Occam's Razor and the Shroud of Turin") taking an honest look at the evidence for the miraculous origin and authenticity of the Turin Shroud. They can't explain it, it threatens to disembowel their prejudices, so they ignore it.

Maybe the topic should be clarified...

As Lori even stated in a previous post, evolution has been observed to exist in many studies. However, the sticky point is the origin of the species (which is a theoretical extension of the observations).
Specifically, can the observed evolutionary events lead to speciation and the diversity currently seen in the world? This is a hard pill even for evolutionists to swallow and is the subject of many debates.

For the record also, Darwinism (in its original state) is generally not accepted. The current evolutionary theory is coined 'neo-Darwinism'; actually a compromise between the theories of Darwin and LeMarck with modifications.

However, science is based on hyptheses that may be further supported by experiments or not. The current hypothesis is the best answer we have going (at this time) for the origin of the species. However, Lori is correct that there are little data directly supporting this hypothesis. This why this is a 'theory' and not a law (such as the law of gravity).

I think it is irresponsible not to teach the current hypotheses in science of how science works. However, it should be emphasized that these are theories and not laws. Perhaps this is a healthy compromise?

-Bitsy

------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Science does not consist of compromises. An idea or theory must be subject to controlled tests. I'm sure Darwin would be more than willing to put his theory to the test. Where is god to put his to the test? No divine guts?

Science is not about faith, either. Science is about finding the facts, You ask a question, come up with an answer, then test that answer. If your answer doesn't hold up, then it's back to the old drawing board.

I would like to propose this, and hopefully we can keep the name-calling out of it: Let the evolutionists post their arguments and evidences, and let the creationists post theirs. Both sides should be prepared to cite sources. Only empirical evidence would be allowed, i.e., something that can be proven by anybody with the proper resources. No mysticism, no "because god said so", and no "I saw a friend who did this once". State your case and be prepared to prove it. Of course, we'll need a panel of judges. It would be preferable to have three judges of neutral disposition who aren't just trying to be peacekeepers.

If anybody wants to set this up and see what happens, let me know. I'm pretty good at organizing these things and I will not be automatically posting myself as a judge.

Feel free to e-mail me at eagleone@california.com and let's try to settle this like civilized human beings.

Good post Oxygen.

Be careful Odysseus, free thought is a sure way to kill religious belief system. Once you start compromising the exact teachings of your religion and turn from faith, it is a short path to having no choice but to not believe. This comes from someone raised Roman catholic, with all 12yrs of CCD, and was up to date on his sacraments. It is a tough and unsettling path to realize no matter how hard you try to believe you can't force yourself back into it once you take a rational look at the claims of religion and the obvious inaccuracies contained within. I'm still scouring these places for a ray of light that I may be wrong, however from my experience it's not a promising future.

The greatest problem I see with the posts I have been reading, is the vast amount of mis-information, on both sides of the fence. It seems as though everyone talks alot about how they "feel" about their own point of view, or throw out debunked or disproven theories as fact. As Oxygen suggested, it would be an interesting idea (for a change) to enter a debate with actual facts and evidences.

Of course, this would put those who are convinced of a benevolent creator at a disadvantage. Any evidences of supernatural or personal experiences would be highly subjective and their very nature makes them open to dispute and casts doubt on their veracity.

The key here seems to be in the dissention between:
1)those who believe that life as we know it "evolved" from a chaotic universe instigated from a "big bang" of cosmic material and
2)those who believe that life as we know it came into being form a "special creation" at the direction of "prime mover"(call it God if you will)

It has long been the contention of the "evolutionists" that there is sufficient evidence to show that the probability of life(and the knowable universe) emerging naturally and constratined by the laws of physics is much greater than the probability that it was wished into being by some great power. And the great debate is centered about these two points:

Evolutionists: Based on facts and evidence, any logically thinking individual can't help but see this and if they don't, it's because of some blind, religious fervor that has completely crippled their ability to comprehend rational ideas and communicate on an intellectual level.

(Special)Creationists: Seeing the complexity of life in all of it's forms, it is ludicrous to think that it all happened by accident. If people could only look beyond their own intellectual limitations and explore their spiritual existence, God could easily be seen.

So the question still remains: does one have a greater probability than the other. I believe there is ample evidence that one DOES have a greater probability than the other.

The two things that would have to be avoided in a debate of this nature is:

1)Evolutionists must accept facts as they are, and not avoid any fact which does not support their position.
2)Creationists must not invoke emotionalism or submit subjective evidence as fact.

Any takers?

So the question still remains: does one have a greater probability than the other. I believe there is ample evidence that one DOES have a greater probability than the other. --heh heh Socrates would be proud of you (Socratic truth).


Interesting idea, though. How would we tally the evidence?? Number of points won or depth of the point?? I assume arguments from the creationalist side would have to be backed by proven theries? What amount of evidence would it take to consider something a Fact on the evolutional side?

Lori--

My apologies from that last message. My personal feelings got in the way with the real reason I'm here, but as I look back on messages in the past, I see that I am not the only one guilty of this atrosity.

I'm here to make you question reality, not just accept it like everyone else believing that there is a God and everything is just going to be peachy for the rest of humanity's existance (which most religions believe is going to be "forever").

I, unlike many, combine the qualities of emotion with logic -- indeed call it error if you like, you could be right, but none the less I remain what I am.

It is my own personal believe that logic is pointless if it is just to be made for it to stand alone, and for this I appologize because this is how it is sometimes.

But, Ody is very wrong. I do have the ability to rationalize and think logically.

And I'm not in favortism of repeating ... everything written in the past with the similiar context of debate should have been read and I don't feel like typing anything over again, whether the argument had been one of my postings, or someone elses. I refuse to take part in the continual nonsense of cutting and pasting old arguments.

I at least have the ability to skepticize what is before my eyes and question what people try to teach me day in and day out.

To simply put it ...

I take a rational and logical look at everything that surrounds myself, and I don't see a God, or anything of the sorts that I could call "logical explanations."

When I say God -- by this I mean the modern day monotheistical veiwpoint of a God. The idea that we are his "children" to serve him and do his bidding and become his servants in heaven. This I find illogical and rediculas, in all respects, of course..

MaTTo

MaTTo,

You are proving the very thing I proposed was the problem with these posts. You claim that your beliefs(knowledge) is founded in logic and based upon facts.

You are mistaken - and the very logic you defend is missing.

You have accepted evolution without any basis in fact, in the same way most theists believe what they believe without fundamental understanding.

This is a foundational argument - let's find a foundation!!

This is reminiscent of a post by BORIS in which he laid out several "facts" concerning evolution - I believe the entirety of which was based on debunked theory. Perhaps my next post should highlight some examples . . .

Say, Int Party,

all very nice and noble of you but we are communicating here with a medium who doesn't really allow any 'hard' evidence that you are talking about. The Net doesn't allow us to exchange e.g. a skull of a Homo Habilis or something.
We just have to use the tools we have : our own words and references to other peoples work who we trust to be experts in their fields.
Ay there's the rub for ultimatly everything is based on faith !

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Matto,

I appreciate your "toned down" response, and agree that these debates can get unnecessarily heated. It's just because these are BIG questions that we are asking each other, and the answers carry a lot of weight. But it is a good thing to challenge what is accepted, and different viewpoints, as that is how we all learn new things. I must say though, that you MUST get out of the hyper-arrogant mindset that you are in. Do you HONESTLY believe that I would commit my entire life to Christ without questioning anything about Christianity first? Don't be so naive and arrogant. Please understand what I'm saying, because THAT assumption that you are making about me pisses me off more than anything else you could possibly say. And it does for a reason. That reason is that I am an extremely intelligent person, with the education and accolades to back that up, and my journey to faith was a LONG one, filled with MANY learning experiences. Those which I AM SURE, by listening to you, that you have yet to experience. That is if you can get over yourself enough to be able to. Let me show you what I mean...

You say, "I'm here to make you question reality, not just accept it like everyone else believing that there is a God." Ok, and my sarcastic response is, Oh thank God I've finally found you! For without your world renown deductive abilities, I would surely never be able to make any decisions on my own whatsoever! My non-sarcastic response is, GET OVER YOURSELF!!!! Are you honestly soooo arrogant that you would possibly assume that I do and have not questioned reality???? HELLO??? Honey, I've been questioning reality longer than you have probably been alive. What do you think, that I'm some toothless holy-rollin' hillbilly that was spoon-fed religion by my grannie in some back-woods shack??? I would bet every cent I own that I have questioned MORE about this world and this life than you have ever even THOUGHT about questioning. Please, please, please, do not assume things about me which you do not know, and please stop being so f'ing arrogant, YOU'RE MAKING MY WANT TO PUKE!

Oh, and I LOVE this one, "I UNLIKE MANY combine the qualities of emotion with logic." Oh, well aren't you just sooooo special. Maybe you should deserve a trophy or something for your exemplary efforts in the area of logic. LOL! Listen, I know that there are SOME people who do not use a hell of a lot of logic, or are not intelligent or motivated enough to question ideas, BUT I don't think you will find many of these people out here posting on this forum. Do you know what the key to "getting religion" is? Humility. Apply some of your logic to that.

And lastly, you say, " I take a rational and logical look at everything that surrounds myself, and I don't see a God." And I say, "I take a rational and logical look at everything that surrounds myself, and I UNDOUBTEDLY DO see God. Everyday, and all around. Everywhere I look. God communicates with me directly through prayer as a matter of fact." So I guess the question to you is this...are you sure that you have looked hard enough? Are you sure that you've questioned everything that is relevant to this issue? Are you sure that you've looked in the right places, or in a wide variety of places? And have you searched with an OPEN mind? It seems that you may have not. Especially the open mind part, as you seem to be particularly blinded by arrogance, and the assumption that you know it all already. You know, sometimes it just takes some time and life experience. That's what it took for me, and you just can't argue with real life experience.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

IP,

While I can't speak for Matto, I'd have to disagree that his knowledge has no basis in logic. Science has demonstrated its ability to accurately predict and describe certain phenomonon in the past. So to only look breifly at a notion that appears to have a large scientific backing and believe that it may harbor some truth does not seem to be illogical. I pretty much believe the orbit of the Pluto is elliptical, even though I have not personally seen the planet orbit, nor had the instruments to take measurements of its orbit, many other credible people who have demonstrated their ability to predict this information in the past have spent several hours on this problem. All else being equal if I were to choose something to believe I'd choose their studies over someone who has not demonstrated their abiliy(including myself). I think these people have a higher probability of being correct than myself or someone who has not demonstrated this skill or had knowledge in this area.

What beliefs that you hold can you truly say you have addressed every possible question regarding them and have complete up to the second knowledge in every single argument and question put forth?? I seriously doubt anyone here can say that about any belief they hold, unless somehow they are all-knowing. Maybe, if one of us steps forth some of us will have a new deity to consider :)

Sort of a catch 22, if we must be God in order to disprove him.

I am of the belief that anything the public school touches, it works tirelessly to destroy. Our plummeting test scores, as relating to those of other countries, over the past decade, can attest to that. I could respect their desire not to pick sides if they were to teach that some belive A, some belive B, and some belive C. Of course, they could only take the time cover what is found in major ideals in America. If you are not aware, I am for creation. In actuality, this whole thing can be either a win or a loss for those that belive in creation. Sure, the story of creation may be told. The only catch is that it could be taught by someone, such as myself, whom it is that holds dear the story of God's creation. It might also be taught by the staunchest agnostic with even more destain in his heart for the Word of God than all of the agnostics here put together. Anyone having attended public school knows that there is no such thing as a set in stone curriculum. It is also known that a teacher, standing tall and in front of the classroom, wields incredible power as an authority figure. The emotion and zeal, the simple tone of voice, or perhaps, a flip comment here or there, or even, a role of the eye, can all have greater impact than the message being broadcast. I have rarely encountered an atheist or an agnostic without also having to engage with that person's hostile bravado. The aspect of allowing creation to be taught in this manner is something akin to how D.C. has a delegate with no power to vote. Therefore, I would place no faith in the decisions of any public school system. I will, though, I'm sure, foolishly in the eyes on many here, simply continue to pray for God's workings in individual hearts. Only from there will families, the single smallest building block of any nation, be properly built and re-built. Only from a nation of Godly families can towns, even trailer parks, have real success and security. From towns to cities to counties to states to a country. Yes, I know. That's just foolishness to most here. I just need something to cling to,... huh? I'm a former U.S. Marine. I know all about security and insecurity, how to cause and how it feels to be face to face with death. Like Peter, I have a violent streak in me that must be dealt with. There's little fear to be felt when you are face to face with death. To be truthful, I've always gotten curious at that point. It almost increased my odds on at least one occasion. Though self reliant I may be, I am not so arrogant as to think that I am the pinnacle of all there is and must answer to no one. Something I can tell you that I have learned in my time of practicing in the arts of death is that the things you don't see can hurt you. God, the thing you don't see, can also help you. He has done so for me on several occasions. Moreover, as I practice what is in His Word, I find the exact outcomes as they have ben promised. The same is true when I do sin. None of you have to accept His ways. You seem to spend an awful lot of time arguing against them though. Now, I wonder, who here isn't affirming a religion?

May God Bless you all with His wisdom.

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

By the way Blower,

"Sort of a catch 22, if we must be God in order to disprove him."

If you had any idea of what you just said you would be in complete awe . . .

Plato,

You say:

"all very nice and noble of you but we are communicating here with a medium who doesn't really allow any 'hard' evidence that you are talking about. The Net doesn't allow us to exchange e.g. a skull of a Homo Habilis or something.
We just have to use the tools we have : our own words and references to other peoples work who we trust to be experts in their fields."

I say:

I agree a hundred percent!! It's the references to which I speak - haven't seen much of that except as a third party who overheard somebody say something like that who was repeating what his hair-stylist said she overheard from a . . . .yadda, yadda, yadda . . . and I believe it!!

Most of what is repeated in these posts is tripe, accepted as being fact without any justification. While I concede that we can't pass a real skull over this medium, we can pass information such as:
"the archeological find commonly referred to as 'Lucy' is evidence of an evolutionary intermediate linking apes to man" and pinpoint the references to justify it.

Then that notion can be countered by the references to the archeologist who discovered 'Lucy' later admitting to falsifying his findings.

You said:

"Ay there's the rub for ultimatly everything is based on faith !"

What I spoke of above isn't faith it's fact. A useful faith can only rest on evidence that has some reality to it, not dreamt up or believed because "it's always been that way" or because "I heard it was true" or "because scientists told me so" or "because I read it in the Bible"

Evolutionists in particular believe that science is protected from the abuses of egomania and emotionalism - To believe that is the most dangerous faith.


Blower:

You said:

"Science has demonstrated its ability to accurately predict and describe certain phenomonon in the past."

I say:

Yes, but not about all things, particularly where evolution is concerned.

You said:

"So to only look briefly at a notion that appears to have a large scientific backing and believe that it may harbor some truth does not seem to be illogical."

I say:

But to believe that it harbors ALL truth is illogical. And to ignore the large scientific backing of the opposing view is denial. The most insipid aspect of a "white lie" is that it contains a hint of the truth.

You say:

I pretty much believe the orbit of the Pluto is elliptical, even though I have not personally seen the planet orbit, nor had the instruments to take measurements of its orbit, many other credible people who have demonstrated their ability to predict this information in the past have spent several hours on this problem."

I say:

Granted. Nothing wrong with that.

You say:

"All else being equal"

I say:

Ay, THERE'S the rub!
All things are not equal. A plethora of information, known by reputable scientists (not of the theistic bent, by the way) has been completely ignored or passed over.

You said:

"if I were to choose something to believe I'd choose their studies over someone who has not demonstrated their abiliy(including myself).I think these people have a higher probability of being correct than myself or someone who has not demonstrated this skill or had knowledge in this area.
"

I say:

Agreed, why mix into the fray the musings of the ignorant. But, at the same time don't throw out evidence you don't like that is proffered by the same men of science you revere.

You said:

"What beliefs that you hold can you truly say you have addressed every possible question regarding them and have complete up to the second knowledge in every single argument and question put forth??"

I say:

I never made the claim. However, I am NOT inclined to throw out evidence just because it doesn't happen to fit my prejudiced viewpoint - We call that being objective.

You said:

"Maybe, if one of us steps forth some of us will have a new deity to consider"

I say:

I am stepping forth. And you just may . . .

At the risk of repeating myself, how did that happen?

------------------
The method employed I would gladly explain
while I have it so clear in my head
If I had but the time,
and you had but the brain . . .
yet much remains to be said

Lori,

what in the hell was that? just who exactly who is it that contained their maturity and dignity in that message after mine?

I thought your religion preached about love and forgiveness and all that crap you're _supposed_ to follow? You really bring those elements into shine whenever someone disagrees with you whether it be directly, or even indirectly. Keep up the holyness...

Now to clear something up -- I wasn't bragging at all. You've question why we come here, and it's because we want to make sure that you people aren't
NUCKING FUTZ. I wasn't bragging.

You question my ability to reason, and I tell you that I am human, and that my intelligence comes mixed with emotion, but somehow, you've been able to turn this fact into none-sense like everything else. Looks like you were born gifted afterall!!! Who knows maybe it was even God himself who blessed you with this wonderful annoying gift?

I was hoping I'd resolve this feud that seems to have spawned between us, but I guess an apology just isn't good enough for a Godly women, now is it?

...as if I could give a care in the world.

---------------

Lori writes: What do you think, that I'm some toothless holy-rollin' hillbilly that was spoon-fed religion by my grannie in some back-woods shack??

My response : Everything but the part about living in the back-woods shack ... I don't think they have internet connections there.

Lori writes : are you sure that you have looked hard enough?

My answer : You'll always find what you are looking for when you look hard enough, even if it isn't really there at all.

Isomov once wrote, that you can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason if you pick the proper postulates based on assumption and adhered by faith.

Tell yourself something enough times, and you'll start believing it.

Now Lori, it's my turn to ask a question...

Have you ever gotten the idea that maybe people just don't want to be religious in fear of that they may become JUST LIKE YOU?


MaTTo
"God May Love You, But I Don't!"

P.S. -- Does anyone else here find it humorous that Lori bitches out everyone with an opposing veiwpoint only then at the end of each message to put her nice little quote "God loves you, and so do I!" ?!?!?!?

[This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited August 25, 1999).]

Congrats Plato!

I FINALLY got to see someone else post the obvious...Science, as much as Religion, is fundamentally based on leaps of faith---faith that there is order to be observed, faith that our senses can tell us truths about what's "out there," etc., etc.

And I repeat for the millionth time, it seems---there is nothing inherently more "logical" in the assumption the cosmos sprang into being and order out of nothing, a completely random happening, by dumb brute chance, than there is in assuming the existence of an extra-cosmic creator.In terms of human intelligence and psychology, perhaps even less. Either thesis MIGHT be true, or even some other totally unimaginable. But Science no more has a lock on the answers to this ultimate question than any shaman from a stone age society.

Matto,

Please, please, please, get a clue, would you? I'm not bitching you out for your viewpoint, I'm bitching you out because you made the assumption that the only reason I am a Christian, is because I just haven't put enough thought into it, which is absolute hogwash. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry, but your assumptions are unfair, unfounded, and extremely arrogant. Period. And another thing that you seem to be misguided about...Christians aren't perfect, honey, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Being a Christian doesn't really have anything to do with your personality, it has to do with your beliefs. Did you really think I was just going to roll over like some submissive puppy-dog when you say things like the only reason I'm a Christian is because I just haven't applied any logic or thought to the issue? Please. And I do love you, as a human being and a child of God, and I am no better or worse than you. That doesn't mean I have to like everything that you say, silly.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

IP,

You said:

Yes, but not about all things, particularly where evolution is concerned.

I'd Say:

Agreed. I don't believe science has a complete definition about the process of evolution, no question. Most obviously, they have not found the "missing link" yet. There are many, many things that science does not hold a completely bulletproof theroy but IMO this does not mean an un-biased person can discount these theories without better evidence. I'm not quite sure what evidence you have shown in other posts as I am relatively new here, but the only evidence that I am aware of is from one chapter a book which, admitedly, was written by human hands. I can point to several books written by human hands that claim that evolution has is the most likely possible manner we came to be. Beyond that, I think we can visually observe species adapt to their surroundings and have their physical characteristics change in order to advance their chances of survival. Would it not seem plausable that this has happend in the past and that there would be greater variations proportional to the time involved? We seem to have a puzzle with at least some portion of it accounted for by fossils found in the ground. Have we found everything? Of course not, but I don't think anyone is calling it the Fact of Evolution just yet.


You also said:

But to believe that it harbors ALL truth is illogical. And to ignore the large scientific backing of the opposing view is denial. The most insipid aspect of a "white lie" is that it contains a hint of the truth.

My personal belief is that it is only a THEORY at this time, not that it harbors all truth. I can't believe anyone who is logical could claim differently, and I don't believe I have seen anyone do this(again I am fairly new here). From the evidence I have seen(admittedly I am no expert, which is why I choose to debate so that I might have a chance to learn), evolution appears the most likely explaination to me at this point in time. I would like to see what evidence others have in support of creationalism.


Judging (only) by the remainder of your post your view seems to be largely focused on pointing out holes in the theory we propose. I will remind you that it is your job to come up with a better theory if you wish to replace the current theory. One can visit a site where a crew is in the process of building a home and easily exclaim "hey, there aren't any windows in that house" or "no carpet has been laid. You call yoursleves house builders??". Hardly a fair assessment to make such comments when the crew is still in the process of building the house. Even after assembling many pieces the crew has not said, "there, finished." because there is still much building and truing to be done. I don't find this a fair practice, especially when the other side (to my knowledge, which I admit, has not had its finger on the pulse of the latest creationalist facts put forth) appears only to have the hole dug for the foundation on their site.


You also said :)

I am stepping forth. And you just may . . .


I would answer:

If you are all-knowing, I'd like to come meet you as I have many,many questions. But first could you give me the winning lotto numbers so I know you are for real :)

Philosofically the discussion between evolutionism and creationism is in fact the difference between empirism (the believe that there is an actual universe behind our senses) or idealism (the believe that our senses can make us believe all they want, we have no way of being sure)
Countrary to my alias (I should have taken an other one, darn) I am more inclined to empirism because I think true idealism is the same thing as madness. A lunatic also lives in his own universe but that cuts him away from all the other persons that surround him in the other universe (that I like to call real).

Idealism also has no real boundaries to what can and can't be true. For example one could believe in the bible and accept the fact that an absolutely powerfull being created the earth in seven (methaforical?) days. But you might as well believe that this same superbeing created everything we know, including ourself and the bible just one second ago. Suppose God created the universe as we see it at this instand with everything on it (believers, non-believers, earth, stars, aliens, ufo's, ufo-sightings, this messageboard, our memories of having all ready written something on this messageboard,...) as a static image and then just put it in motion (let time begin as it were) just a second ago. How are we supposed to know ?
Truth is a very tangible thing if you think along idealistic lines therefor I prefer the somewhat more substantial thinking of empirism.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

For grins only:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3530/wdyt_3530.html


<A HREF="http://www.theonion.com/onion3530/wdyt_3530.html">Evolution Fun?</a>

Frankly, I do not understand what terrible harm it would cause children to learn that Homo Sapiens descended from some ape-like pre-cursor. It certainly did not inflict any incurable wounds on me, or on any other 'gullible' and 'vulnerable' child out there. Just ask all the hundreds of millions of children that went through public schools and nevertheless chose to cling to whatever their religion was.

Actually, I think the gullible children are indoctrinated with religion by their caring parents so persistently and from such a young age, that by the time they grow up and can think independently, their minds are no longer flexible enough to absorb the 'blasphemous' scientific theories. Perhaps that is why America always had to import its scientists from all over the world -- because its own crop of God's lambs is much better suited for managing corporations or defending criminals, than for empirical forays into the unknown. Perhaps American math and science scores are plummeting because the Christian culture made math and science the domain of the nerds and the geeks, and enthroned football as the ultimate human achievement. Or maybe it's because our Christian overlords deem it more important to return our taxes to us rather than provide decent public funding for our schools. I personally graduated from a public school that couldn't afford to buy chalk for its blackboards, and teachers had to buy their own out of their meager salaries. Did you know that American teachers earn less than American truck drivers? Would you at all be surprised that all the talent in America is therefore not devoted to educating the next generation, but to making a quick buck on the corporate stock options, or to greedily participating in the health care mafia? :(

One last thing. The biological similarities between humans and apes are so astounding, one would have to be very blind, or else very ignorant, not to acknowledge a blood relationship somewhere down the line.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

To all you Americans on the board:

The division between religion and state is in America indeed a bit less severe compared to Europe. May be its because you guys never had the bloody religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Your ancesters simply left the warring factions in the old continent and searched a new life where there was enough place to practice any kind of religion they liked.
For example we couldn't imagine our Prime Minister or King saying something in the line of "...and may God bless Belgium !" while the American presidents and other statesmen plead on a regular bases for the divine blessing. I mean, religion was the reason most of your ancesters came to America in the first place, asking you guys now to give that up would be unthinkable.
Therefor, I think you guys will keep on struggling with this fundamental christian heritage. It will be interesting to watch this growing discripancy between the technological wonders that you keep producing and makes America to the superpower that it is, and the religious longings of a people searching for their god.


------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Blower,

I appreciate your response but I do differ on a few key points:

You say:
I don't believe science has a complete definition about the process of evolution, no question. Most obviously, they have not found the "missing link" yet.

Me: Not only that, but science has failed to find even ONE intermediary between ANY animal or plant family. There is NO mechanism for evolution to occur.

You:
There are many, many things that science does not hold a completely bulletproof theroy but IMO this does not mean an un-biased person can discount these theories without better evidence.

Me: Exactly - better evidence exists but evolutionists refuse to look at it.

You:
I'm not quite sure what evidence you have shown in other posts as I am relatively new here, but the only evidence that I am aware of is from one chapter a book which, admitedly, was written by human hands.

Me: I can enlighten you. Noted scientists are accepting the realization that since there is no mechanism for evolution, and since the environment thought to exist at the time life supposedly began was actually destructive to life, not nurturing to it, that a "special" creation is more likely than evolution.

You:

Beyond that, I think we can visually observe species adapt to their surroundings and have their physical characteristics change in order to advance their chances of survival.

Me: There is a difference between MACROevolution and MICROevolution. Microevolution deals only with hereditary changes based on genetic recombinations - and scientists have long recognized that this is NOT a factor in the Macroevolutionary mechanism necessary to cause one animal family of phyla to transform into another.

You:
Would it not seem plausable that this has happend in the past and that there would be greater variations proportional to the time involved?

Me: It was proven by Mendel that there were limits to the amount of variations possible -this has been born out by breeders and biologists around the world. Not to mention that at no time has new genetic information been created in these genetic reshufflings.

You:
We seem to have a puzzle with at least some portion of it accounted for by fossils found in the ground.

Me: Not just some - ALL!

You:
Have we found everything? Of course not, but I don't think anyone is calling it the Fact of Evolution just yet.

Me: You are mistaken. Carl Sagen, a highly respected Physicist/Cosmologist has stated so on more than one occasion, most notably, in front of millions of viewers on the Tonight Show several years ago. That alone is enough to show him to be a kook in the scientific world. But the greatest number of viewers wouldn't know any better.
Not to mention, most of the posts here approach evolution as a fact that only an idiot could not see.

You:
My personal belief is that it is only a THEORY at this time, not that it harbors all truth. I can't believe anyone who is logical could claim differently, and I don't believe I have seen anyone do this(again I am fairly new here). From the evidence I have seen(admittedly I am no expert, which is why I choose to debate so that I might have a chance to learn), evolution appears the most likely explaination to me at this point in time. I would like to see what evidence others have in support of creationalism.

Me: I have a great deal of evidence. You might have to get out a pencil and paper . . .


You:
Judging (only) by the remainder of your post your view seems to be largely focused on pointing out holes in the theory we propose. I will remind you that it is your job to come up with a better theory if you wish to replace the current theory.

Me: All in good time . . .

You:
One can visit a site where a crew is in the process of building a home and easily exclaim "hey, there aren't any windows in that house" or "no carpet has been laid. You call yoursleves house builders??". Hardly a fair assessment to make such comments when the crew is still in the process of building the house. Even after assembling many pieces the crew has not said, "there, finished." because there is still much building and truing to be done. I don't find this a fair practice, especially when the other side (to my knowledge, which I admit, has not had its finger on the pulse of the latest creationalist facts put forth) appears only to have the hole dug for the foundation on their site.

Me: I think a better analogy would be that a group of tailors say they are sewing the finest clothes, fit for a king. I'm merely pointing out that there are no clothes.

Considering your analogy: I'm not pointing out flaws in the house - I'm saying there is no house.

You:
If you are all-knowing, I'd like to come meet you as I have many,many questions. But first could you give me the winning lotto numbers so I know you are for real

Me: I never said I was stepping out as a diety, only as an information provider - but you may be lead to one!

IP,

Thanks for the reply. I did not realize there was a whole movement out there regarding evolution. I am now more aware, thanks.


So many points I think that the big one that you mentioned was that there is no mechanism for Macroevolution to occur. Are you saying there is no evidence of say (reaching back to elementary school :) ) the evolution of Amphibians to first reptiles or species to species link or what? I was wondering if you would mind being more specific on that point (unless you feel another point is more damning of evolution). I am still admitedly ignorant on the subject and would like to hear more about this idea.


Thanks

Interested Party:

Where do you get your 'facts' from? It's not some radio show, I hope?

You have made an absolutist claim after claim in your last post, practically every one of which is dead wrong! Are you deliberately trying to confuse people, or are you just confused yourself? (Before you start gushing with more 'facts' at me, browse the old <A HREF="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000006.html">Evolution vs. Creation</A> thread.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 27, 1999).]

Blower and Boris,

Nice to hear from you. And, no Boris, I prefer to get my facts from the scientific world. You should try it sometime.(OOohh, sorry, I'm starting to sound like you (OOohh, damn, I did it again!))

O.K. , I'll cut with the crap. . .


Now, let's start with someone you may never have heard of. Name's George Wald - Nobel Prize winner(phisiology, medicine), formerly of Harvard University - not a lightweight I don't think; on the origin of life . . . .

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position."

He goes on to say. . .

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is IMPOSSIBLE. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneus generation."[emphasis mine] George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, Vol 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Hhhmmmm, I don't seem to find THIS in any textbooks . . .

So scientists are believing in the impossible - heavy on belief, light on facts - sounds like a religion.

Let's look a little deeper at the mechanism of evolution . . .

"Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, . . ." Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

"Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation." Ernst Mayr, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, April 25 and 26, 1966.

"The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution . . . The mutants which arise are with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters." Theodosius Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology," American Scientist, Winter, December 1957, p. 385

"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific principles." Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, p. 129.

"There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species." N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, 1953, pp. 1144-1147.

"IT IS, THEREFORE, ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD A CURRENT EVOLUTION ON MUTATIONS OR ON RECOMBINATIONS."[emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 1186.

Let's see where we stand:

Reputable scientists have said that: spontaneous generation is impossible, that mutations are the only possible way for (macro)evolution to occur, that mutations at best leave the carrier only the same as before, but more likely to be dead or hurting(which flies in the face of "survival of the fittest") and that you can't build an evolution on mutations. (let's see 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = . . . . . I get 4) How about you?

Now we come to two points:
1) Are you going to throw this out because it doesn't fit your beliefs?

2) How is it possible that a theory on such shakey ground as this one is being taught as fact in school?

If this isn't enough, I've got more.

I applaud the School Board for (perhaps) coming to their senses, however, I doubt they did it for reasons anywhere near as noble as these.

This is for you Boris:

You Said:
Frankly, I do not understand what terrible harm it would cause children to learn that Homo Sapiens descended from some ape-like pre-cursor.

Me: No more harm than telling them that they sprang from the same turd someone spied on a steak(if I remember the post correctly)

You:
It certainly did not inflict any incurable wounds on me, or on any other 'gullible' and 'vulnerable' child out there. Just ask all the hundreds of millions of children that went through public schools and nevertheless chose to cling to whatever their religion was.

Me: Incurable? No. Wounds none-the-less. The greatest evidence is the endless droning of the evolutionist evangelists that evolution is fact.

You:
Actually, I think the gullible children are indoctrinated with religion by their caring parents so persistently and from such a young age, that by the time they grow up and can think independently, their minds are no longer flexible enough to absorb the 'blasphemous' scientific theories.

Me: Look at my last post and then think real hard about this one and see if it applies to YOU. Any indoctrination there?

You:
One last thing. The biological similarities between humans and apes are so astounding, one would have to be very blind, or else very ignorant, not to acknowledge a blood relationship somewhere down the line.

Me: There is a relationship, only you can't see it.

I have read the "Creation vs. Evolution" thread and that's why I am commenting here. It seems Boris that it was actually you who were confusing people through your ignorance. It's O.K., you can't help it. While you are busily spouting about the phisiological changes in embryos, I'll be busily quoting scientists who threw that theory out in the 1920's. (Actually, I think THAT was the straw that made me even start posting, so I should thank you.)

Interested Party -

Two small things:

First, and I believe this is greatly appropriate, "Even the devil can quote scripture."
:)
Second, one major flaw with the conclusion you make based on those quotes is that you don't understand the significance of the term "relatively rare". Some people seem to think that evolution is a tangible event. However, evolution takes far longer to show the slightest difference than our short lifetimes can observe. Rare is rare. But you must keep in mind the scale; Billions of years, and Trillions of lifeforms. Billions. Trillions. Nothing more than abstract concepts to our minds, but simplifiable with the help of math.
One or several lifeforms in a herd may share a phenotype that was caused by a mutation. If that gives them a distinct advantage over the rest of the herd, eventually their genes will dominate it through the process of natural selection. Several hundred or thousand years later, you have a new species. That is the basis of evolution. "One in one thousand" may be rare, but a thousand is an insignificant number of creatures when looked at over time.

FyreStar

FyreStar,

The flaw is in what you choose to look at and what you choose to ignore.

You took one quote and found one small thing to argue, but you missed something in your own eagerness to defend: He stated that mutations are rare - BENEFICIAL mutations are unheard of. I don't care how many billions of years pass, if the mutations aren't beneficial, nothing evolves.

You also seem to be saying that evolution is an intangible event. If its intangible, what are we arguing?
Next, you proceed with the assumption that a gene mutation giving a herd a decided advantage etc., etc. - sorry, genetic mutations are not advantageous. Prove they're advantageous first, then proceed with your argument.
Here's the score so far:
Disadvanagous mutations - millions
Advantagous mutations - Big Fat Zero

FyreStar, be careful how you choose to interpret what someone says - your own prejudice will shine through. I don't say that to be sniping - you took "rare" mutation to mean "rare beneficial" mutation without blinking an eye, and this is where we get trapped in logic that isn't there.

And FyreStar,

I disagree with your assessment that "even the devil can quote scripture" is appropriate.

Since when has the information I quoted ever been a part of the evolutionists scripture?
If it WAS a part of your scripture I doubt many folks would be as apt to buy evolution (which probably explains why it's left out of the textbooks .)

This is just some thought's I had a couple of nights ago, before I read any of these posts.
Evolution and Creationism could live together, two sides of the same coin if you will. Take the scientific point of view, on how everything we see in the universe today evolved. Fast forward to the point in time where we think man evolved from. Now if the evolution of the world was indeed like our science books say, we would now be at a time between apes and the missing link. Now if God looked down at the Earth and decided to create Man by tweaking the ape's genes, and now suddenly there is Man created by God, then there was never a missing link.

Evolution and the scientific method are our best ways to explain the physical universe we live in.

God's creation is our own personal belief that our religion and others share.
If you believe in God, then I think there is room for evolution. It all depends on how you think about it.

I had thought about this on 8/26, before I read any of these posts. Some of the posts are pretty interesting I think. I also find it weird that I had thought about this subject and then found this message board.

IP,

It's nice that you put some quotes from scientists behind your claims. You accuse of scientists selectively referencing and ignoring data. However, I noticed the MOST RECENT reference you listed was from 1978 and the majority were over 40 years old! We should put into context this time-frame. Specifically, all your references predate any experimental data supporting the hypothesis of that selective pressure can drive intra and inter-species variation. These data now exist.

How can you use references on evolution that predate the work of the Grants and their finches and say that it is correct? If you don't know who the Grants are, I would recommend you do some more literature searches (Peter Grant et al.).

In modern science. 5 year old references are often outdated, not only in methods, but also hypotheses. Indeed, 1978 also predates the techniques that allowed evolution studies to enter the molecular level (PCR, gene-mapping, etc.).

You do a great diservice to the debate when you pull stunts like that.



------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Are we talking science or software here? Why should the truth be outdated within 5 years?

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

IP,

You dissapoint me, for a while you had me thinking that you were actually going to wage to pro's and contra's of evolution in the scientific community against each other but what do I see ? You only quote those people who support your cause and even take only those quotes that fit you the best. You don't say anything about where those people stand in the debate nor do you state how they look upon these issues now since, let's face it your quote are on the average 30 years old. That is not a true scientific way of debating, it's more like a medieval way of saying that this and that church father said this so evolution is crap and god created the earth and everything in it.
I'm sorry but we are not living in those times any more.

ISDAman,

You use the term truth ! Do you know how much this term has been abused all through history ? We are dealing here with something more tangible then steel, truth can be what ever you make of it, therefore it is of utmost importance to explain what you say and put it in a broader context. Quoting the pro's and the con's.
Besides in the scientific community truth is something that is constantly searched for, never really reached. Each 'good' theory tries to be just a better model then the last one. Therefor theories can be even faster outdated then software, if research goes well that is.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Interested Party -

I apologize for not being clearer on this point. Firstly, beneficial mutations do occur. They may be rare mutations, but they do occur nonetheless. However, "beneficial" mutations are not the driving force of evolution. Rather, it is the mutations that aren't immediately useful, perhaps even hindering until something changes that causes it to become a means to stay healthier. Hence the usage of adaptation.

FyreStar

FyreStar,

Let me address you first:

You:
I apologize for not being clearer on this point. Firstly, beneficial mutations do occur.

Me: Let's see. The scientific community says they don't, but FyreStar says they do...hmmm .... yep, I'm going to throw out what those silly little scientists say and listen to FYRESTAR. I know I'm being glib, but I hope you can see my point.
I don't want your opinion any more than you want mine. I want scientific evidence. Give me evidence. So far the evidence I've seen says that there are no beneficial mutations, and I'm not about to throw it out just because YOU say otherwise.

You:
They may be rare mutations, but they do occur nonetheless. However, "beneficial" mutations are not the driving force of evolution.

Me: Again, the scientific community says otherwise. Evolutionists have concluded that mutations are the ONLY mechanism of evolution. I'm not going to repeat the references. I will not throw it out because YOU say so - give me evidence.

You:
Rather, it is the mutations that aren't immediately useful, perhaps even hindering until something changes that causes it to become a means to stay healthier. Hence the usage of adaptation.

Me: Wrong again. Natural selection demands that useless and hindering mutations are selected OUT of the herd.

"even if we didn't have a great deal of data on this point{and they do!}, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random chnge in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin) "Genetic Effects of Radiation," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, 1958, pp. 19-20.

Pookums,

You're next:

You:
It's nice that you put some quotes from scientists behind your claims.

Me: It would be nice if you could do the same that contradict those claims.

You:
You accuse of scientists selectively referencing and ignoring data. However, I noticed the MOST RECENT reference you listed was from 1978 and the majority were over 40 years old! We should put into context this time-frame.

Me: Why, so we can selectively ignore them?
You are being guilty of the very thing I have accused you of.

You:
Specifically, all your references predate any experimental data supporting the hypothesis of that selective pressure can drive intra and inter-species variation. These data now exist.

Me: Where? And does it contradict the assertions already made? I don't have a problem with variation, it exists - there is OVERWHELMING data that variation exists.
It is typical of evolutionists "when grinding the evolutionary axe" to use examples of micro-evolution(genetic variation) to explain or defend macro-evolution(the mechanism for crossing family, class or order lines)

You:
How can you use references on evolution that predate the work of the Grants and their finches and say that it is correct? If you don't know who the Grants are, I would recommend you do some more literature searches (Peter Grant et al.).

Me: I admit that I don't have specific references to the Grants(like you) and I will gladly research. But I do recall hearing of his research and the outcome was the same - inter-species variation not a mechanism for macro-evolution. If their work proves otherwise, CITE IT!

You:
In modern science. 5 year old references are often outdated, not only in methods, but also hypotheses. Indeed, 1978 also predates the techniques that allowed evolution studies to enter the molecular level (PCR, gene-mapping, etc.).

Me: And evolution studies at the molecular level have not turned up any evidence of a mechanism for macro evolution. Period. If anything, the evidence gives more rigorous support of the claims already made.

You:
You do a great diservice to the debate when you pull stunts like that.

Me: Who is really doing the disservice.
You claim that methods and hypothesis over 5 years old are outdated(by which you imply they are also useless) But that logic we can throw out Darwins Hypotheses(they're over a hundred years old), Neo-Darwinists( they're over fifty years old) and much of the work ever done in genetics, mathematics, biology, palentology and just about every other scientific discipline. Should we throw out the Pythagorian Theorem because it's 2000 years old? Or Euclidean Geometry because Non-Euclidean Geometry was invented?

Get a grip. This is a foundational argument. Hypotheses are founded on some kind of assumption, then that hypothesis is tested, results are measured and the hypothesis is modified to account for the new inormation, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

I could have a hypothesis that typing hummingbirds can type and fart at the same time. I can test that hypothesis and find out that typing hummingbirds CAN'T type and fart at the same time. I can then form another hypothesis that typing hummingbirds can type and sing at the same time . . . . etc., etc. The problem is, I'm not questioning the very foundation(assumption) of my hypothesis, and that is that hummingbirds can type!

Now, if that assumption is wrong, whether the assumption was made yesterday or 100 years ago, it's still wrong. And whether the evidence that the assumption is wrong was found yesterday or 100 years ago, doesn't mean "the evidence is useless, and therefore the assumption is right."

Somebody show me the EVIDENCE!! of a mechanism for macro-evolution to occur!
And quit talking around it.

Plato,

Yours is the last to respond to and, as well, the most disappointing:

You:
You dissapoint me, for a while you had me thinking that you were actually going to wage to pro's and contra's of evolution in the scientific community against each other but what do I see ?

Me: Well, Plato, if you don't know what the pros are for the evolutionist argument, I suggest you read some of the other threads. (Particularly Boris' Evolution vs. Creation) I certainly am not willing to take up precious time and messageboard space reiterating what has already been said a dozen or more times over.
The pros of evolutionism are resounding through the halls of every institution on the face of the earth, if you don't know them you are way behind.

You:
You only quote those people who support your cause

Me: I don't have a "cause" in the way you infer it. I don't have some religious agenda to fulfill. My only "cause" is truth. But the fact of the matter is, evolutionists abhor the truth. If an assumption is proven to be wrong, then by God we'll just come up with another assumption(based, of course on the preceeding one tha was proven wrong), and another, and another, and another - and if real scientists are discovering the assumptions to be wrong - THEN BY GOD WE"LL COME UP WITH ANOTHER ONE BASED ON IT!!!

You:
and even take only those quotes that fit you the best.

Me: The quotes don't fit me, they fit the argument.
By your reasoning, if I'm going to argue the case for kangaroos I need to make sure I refer to bat stool samples in Rangoon. Brilliant.

You:
You don't say anything about where those people stand in the debate

Me:
Plato, this is the most telling of YOUR agenda. Let's find out where they stand, so we can condemn THAT. Let's find out what their childhood was like, so we can condemn THAT. Let's find out about their lifestyle so we can condemn THAT.

ANYTHING but face the issue!!

You:
nor do you state how they look upon these issues now since, let's face it your quote are on the average 30 years old.

Me: Nor do I care. Where they stand has nothing to do with it. Science has shown that there is NO mechanism for evolution to happen. I don't care if they wax their parakeets and eat dung for breakfast. The evidence is the same.

You:
That is not a true scientific way of debating, it's more like a medieval way of saying that this and that church father said this so evolution is crap and god created the earth and everything in it.
I'm sorry but we are not living in those times any more.

Me: Apparantly we are because you're hip deep in it. Again your trying to drag what I asserted (actually, scientists have asserted it) into some kind of religious debate. It's really pretty sickening.

You:
ISDAman,

You use the term truth ! Do you know how much this term has been abused all through history?

Me: Particularly by scientists (and yourself)who refuse to look at it.

You:
We are dealing here with something more tangible then steel,

Me: O.K., looks good so far . . .

You:
truth can be what ever you make of it,

Me: WHAAAAAT!!!!! First you say its tangible, then you say its whatever you make of it, which implies intangibility

This is just the kind of barking insanity typical of your ilk.

You:
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,

Me: Remember, these giants to which he was referring were the great men of thought who came before. You know, the same ones you and the rest of the evolutionists want to throw out because their thoughts are more than 5 years old.
Hypocrite.

Well, I was going to reply. IP already did it all though. Good thing this is only print. IP has got to have one dangerously sharp tongue.

You Go IP!!!!!!

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

Interested Party -

The scientific community does NOT say that beneficial mutations don't occur. You are making a rather broad and erroneous generalization based on a quote from one or two scientists. Looking back at the quotes you posted, several of them are opinions. (Such as the ones from George Wald and Arthur Koestler). Nilsson's quote is obviously in reference to a particular example, but without further information on that example, it is useless as a source. Dobzhansky's quote leads in to what I said in my last post about how mutation facilitates adaptation to new environments.
In your second paragraph, you demonstrated that you completely missed my point. Mutations *are* the driving cause of evolution, however, beneficial mutations are not. Note the adjective. In case this is still unclear, I will give an example.
A species of bird lives in a forest with a plentiful supply of berries, which they utilize for sustenance. For a period of a few years, disease or some other such catastrophe wipes out the berry population. However, a variety of shelled seeds and nuts are still available. Most of the birds must struggle to crack the shells, and some starve because their beaks are not strong enough. However, one bird that had a strong beak due to mutation (remember, this was not beneficial when there were berries around) is able to crack the shells and survive still with ease. This bird now has an advantage over the others and will be able to produce young who share the mutation, and the advantage over the rest of the flock. Over a long period of time (or at least as long as there are no berries around), the mutants will begin to dominate the gene pool, and eventually you will have a new species. End example.
In most cases, the mutation taking place is either harmful or neutral - however, when circumstances change, it may be infinitely useful.
In reference to your first paragraph saying that beneficial mutations do not occur I will say two things; First, it is a blatant disregard to the laws of probability to say that beneficial mutations do not occur. Or is it that you simply do not understand DNA? Most harmful mutations do not even come into play; a denatured protein or replaced amino acid will cause fetal death much more quickly than a change in body shape. Second, an common example; A lizard, or insect, or other creature that is often prey to another is born with a different skin/feather/fur color than others of its species. This coloring allows it to hide from predators with greater ease.
And as long as we're talking about the scientific community, here is a quote from one of the most highly respected 1st year Biology textbooks in print:
"A mutation that alters a protein enough to affect its function is more often harmful than beneficial....On rare occasions, however, a mutant allele may actually fit its bearer to the environment better and enhance the reproductive success of the individual." (Biology, 4th Ed., Dr. Neil A. Campbell, p. 427)
One more thing - natural selection is the survival of the fittest, not the suppression of the differences. Or, more accurately, "Differential success in the reproduction of different phenotypes resulting from the interaction of organisms with their environment." (Same source, glossary)
Oops.. one more.. just to point out a couple keywords in your final quote: "usually" - line 2, "almost" - line 5. Also, the quote was in reference to radiation which is far from the only or most prevalent source or mutations.

FyreStar

IP,

My, my you do LIKE to quote a lot don't you ? You even managed to quote nearly every line I've written in my previous post.
I think in your eagerness you've only proven that you don't know the difference between quotations and proof.
I could quote for example Pythagoras saying that the square of the hypothenusa of a right angled triangle equals the sum of the squares of the other sides, and subsequally say that it must be so because Pythagoras was a brilliant mathematician so he must have known what he was talking about.
I hope you concur that this is no proof in a scientific way.

Furthermore you say you don't have a religious agenda, I could believe the religious part but you certainly do have an agenda because you talk to much onesided talk. You even use CAPITALS (so I assum you are annoyed) to debunk evolutionism.

You see, that is why I'm disappointed in you. You claim to be the neutral party who is interested in our pitiful debate and who is going to set some standards to our childish bickering. You make some high claims about only looking at the evidence and always referring to your sources and even wait a little to enter the debate to create a sort of climax. I'm afraid it's an anti-climax in a very sad kind of way.
Tell me, did you get those quotes out of those magasines of the Jehovan Witnesses ? Or did you actually read those articles ?
If you did, good for you but did you also read the articles about evolution and it's mechanisms ? You see if you want to debate a subject it is best to know both sides their story.

Further more you didn't say way your precious sources were so outdated ? Is it because you lost interest in science after '78 or because your magasines simply didn't state any others ?

But what saddens me the most is that you seem to claim that there is irrefutable evidence against evolution theorie which proves there is no such thing. That is as stupid as saying that scientists have actually grown a living cell starting from basic carbonchains in some lab. I hope you realise that.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato



[This message has been edited by Plato (edited August 29, 1999).]

I.P.

I was going to address your posts one by one, but you manage to spew things out faster than I could possibly react. So forget that strategy; I'll just provide 'evidence' against your main points and let everyone else connect the dots.



So far the evidence I've seen says that there are no beneficial mutations, and I'm not about to throw it out just because YOU say otherwise.

...

Evolutionists have concluded that mutations are the ONLY mechanism of evolution. I'm not going to repeat the references. I will not throw it out because YOU say so - give me evidence.

...

Natural selection demands that useless and hindering mutations are selected OUT of the herd.


1)

Whatever their monikers, antibiotics, by inhibiting bacterial growth, give a host's immune defenses a chance to outflank the bugs that remain. The drugs typically retard bacterial proliferation by entering the microbes and interfering with the production of components needed to form new bacterial cells. For instance, the antibiotic tetracycline binds to ribosomes (structures that make new proteins) and, in so doing, impairs protein manufacture; penicillin and vancomycin impede proper synthesis of the bacterial cell wall.

Certain resistance genes ward off destruction by giving rise to enzymes that degrade antibiotics or that chemically modify, and so inactivate, the drugs. Alternatively, some resistance genes cause bacteria to alter or replace molecules that are normally bound by an antibiotic--changes that essentially eliminate the drug's targets in bacterial cells. Bacteria might also eliminate entry ports for the drugs or, more effectively, may manufacture pumps that export antibiotics before the medicines have a chance to find their intracellular targets.

Bacteria <u>can acquire resistance genes through a few routes</u>. Many inherit the genes from their forerunners. Other times, <u>genetic mutations, which occur readily in bacteria</u>, will spontaneously produce a new resistance trait or will strengthen an existing one. And frequently, bacteria will gain a defense against an antibiotic by taking up resistance genes from other bacterial cells in the vicinity. Indeed, the exchange of genes is so pervasive that the entire bacterial world can be thought of as one huge multicellular organism in which the cells interchange their genes with ease.

Stuart B. Levy, The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance (feature article), Scientific American, March 1998.


Levy is "professor of molecular biology and microbiology, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at the Tufts University School of Medicine", and "president of the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics and president-elect of the American Society for Microbiology"

2)

Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully. As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural--and indeed quite common--response to changing environmental conditions. <u>When species do evolve, it is not out of need but rather because their populations contain organisms with variants of traits that offer a reproductive advantage in a changing environment</u>.

Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution. For example, <u>the lower jaw in vertebrates shows decreasing complexity, as measured by the numbers of bones, from fish to reptiles to mammals. (Evolution adapted the extra jaw bones into ear bones.) Likewise, ancestral horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single toe with a hoof</u>.

Evolution, not devolution, selected for those adaptations.

Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Colo.


3)

It is widely believed that introns are remnants of genetic sequences that once served as spacers between the stretches of DNA that coded for specific, comparatively simple proteins. During the evolution of complex proteins, <u>regions of the genetic code (known as domains) may have been shuffled and brought together to generate new sequences that code for novel protein structures that took on new functions</u>. This hypothesis is based on the observation that <u>the relative positions of introns in genes remain largely the same in organisms as diverse as Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly), Caenorhabditis elegans (a widely studied nematode), mice and humans</u>. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University has laid out many of the details of this hypothesis.

Ashok Bidwai, an assistant professor in the department of biology at West Virginia University.


4)

Recently it has been shown that it is possible to form RNA from monomers on the surfaces of clays, which can catalyze, or chemically assist, the polymerization reaction. Experiments done in test tubes (in vitro) have shown that <u>RNA with one type of catalytic activity can evolve to an RNA with different catalytic properties</u>. These two sets of experiments suggest that it may be possible to demonstrate how clay minerals could have permitted the formation of <u>complex RNA molecules that are capable of evolving in form</u>.

James P. Ferris, a researcher in the chemistry department of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York.


5)

<u>From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution</u>. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes. The notion that humans might regress or "devolve" presumes that there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function--say, that legs with feet are better than legs with hooves or that breathing with lungs is better than breathing with gills. But for the organisms possessing those structures, each is a useful adaptation.

Nonetheless, many people evaluate nonhuman organisms according to human anatomy and physiology and mistakenly conclude that humans are the ultimate product, even goal, of evolution. That attitude probably stems from the tendency of humans to think anthropocentrically, but the scholarship of natural theology, which was prominent in 18th-and 19th-century England, codified it even before Lamarck defined biology in the modern sense. Unfortunately, anthropocentric thinking is at the root of many common misconceptions in biology.

Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully. As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural--and indeed quite common--response to changing environmental conditions. <u>When species do evolve, it is not out of need but rather because their populations contain organisms with variants of traits that offer a reproductive advantage in a <large>changing environment</large></u>.

Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution. For example, the lower jaw in vertebrates shows decreasing complexity, as measured by the numbers of bones, from fish to reptiles to mammals. (Evolution adapted the extra jaw bones into ear bones.) Likewise, ancestral horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single toe with a hoof.

Evolution, not devolution, <u>selected</u> for those adaptations.

Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Colo.


My comments: Note the highlighted word 'selected'. It is indeed the view of evolutionists that gene pools diversify spontaneously, that mutations which are not seriously harmful are retained, and that natural pressures (such as 'changing environment', disease, evolving predators, geographical migration, emergence of new species, natural disasters, etc, etc, etc.) then SELECT particular traits from the smorgasbord of GENETIC DIVERSITY ACCUMULATED VIA MUTATION.

6) And in case you object to the immediately preceding comment,

Years ago millions of people died from smallpox, and their genes were not passed on because many of them died before reproductive age. The human gene pool was then missing the genes of those people. But now, since smallpox has been wiped off the planet, people who normally died of the disease now live, probably have children, and thus contribute to the human gene pool. In another example, the birth rate always goes down the more developed, and economically affluent, countries become. Today the highest birth rates are in Latin America, Africa and Asia. People in these places are now the major contributors to the human gene pool. In many generations, the human species will be more composed of genes from those groups than from developed countries.

Meredith F. Small, associate professor in the anthropology department at Cornell University


Try and argue with <u>this</u> self-evident analysis. Evolution is not about mutations in individuals; it is instead all about shifting compositions of GENE POOLS. Individual mutations do not vanish; they are added to the gene pool and often spread to many individuals in active or dormant forms. Contrary to your claims, "useless mutations" are NOT "selected out of the herd". If they are not harmful, but merely useless, they are in fact propagated throughout the herd. That is because selective pressures do not exist for non-harmful mutations.

But in case you claim that there is no such thing as a non-harmful mutation, I would like to ask you where genetic variability comes from in the first place. If there are no non-harmful mutations, then genetic variability is doomed to steadily decrease until it completely vanishes in every single species. But that is not what we observe. And in case you wish to dispute my words because I am not authoritative enough for you,
7)

All living things slowly accumulate mutations, changes in the string of chemical units in the famous DNA double helix that may in turn alter the form and function of a protein. A mutation that does affect a protein, if passed on to an offspring, might improve the progeny's chances in life--or, more likely, harm them. Deleterious mutations, which can cause genetic diseases, are unfortunately more likely than beneficial ones, for the same reason that randomly retuning a string on a piano is likely to make the instrument sound worse, not better.

Despite the hazard of harmful mutations, researchers until recently had only the vaguest notion of how often they occur in humans. Many mutations are thought to produce no obvious effect, yet they might still represent a subtle disadvantage to an organism carrying them. Adam Eyre-Walker of the University of Sussex and Peter D. Keightley of the University of Edinburgh recently examined the frequency of mutations in humans by studying how many have occurred in a sample of 46 genes during the six million years since humans and chimpanzees last shared an ancestor. The results, published in Nature, were surprising: a minimum of 1.6 harmful mutations occurs per person per generation, and the number is more likely close to three. That number is high enough to pose a challenge to theorists.

Eyre-Walker and Keightley's approach was subtle. They first assessed how many human mutations occurred in the sample of genes that could not have produced any alteration in a protein and so must have been invisible to natural selection. (A fair proportion of mutations, even those occurring in active genes, do not cause any change in the protein that they encode.) They judged which differences in gene sequences between humans and chimpanzees were caused by mutations in humans by comparing discrepant sequences with the equivalent gene sequence in a third primate group. If the third group's sequence matched up with that of the chimpanzees, the change was surmised to have occurred in the human line.

From this observed number of "invisible" human mutations, Eyre-Walker and Keightley could calculate the theoretical number of mutations that should have resulted in altered proteins. The answer was 231. But only 143 such protein-changing human mutations were actually seen in the sample. The missing 88, they concluded, did occur at some point but were harmful enough to be eliminated by natural selection. That number leads to the estimate of perhaps three harmful mutations per person per generation.

The proportion of mutations that is clearly harmful seems lower than most geneticists would have guessed. But the overall rate of human mutations is very high, and as a result the actual rate of bad mutations is disturbingly high, too.

According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced, in order to eliminate the now absent deleterious mutations. Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in Nature on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"

Crow's answer is that sex, which shuffles genes around, allows detrimental mutations to be eliminated in bunches. The new findings thus support the idea that sex evolved because individuals who (thanks to sex) inherit several bad mutations rid the gene pool of all of them at once, by failing to survive or reproduce.

Tim Beardsley in Washington, D.C., <A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499scicit4.html">Mutations Galore</A>, Scientific American, March 1999.


A few more examples of the type of recent developments which you seem to have completely missed:
<A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/0997issue/0997infocus.html"> EVOLUTION EVOLVING</A>
<A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/explorations/072196explorations.html"> Score One for Punk Eek</A>
<A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html"> Evolution and the Origins of Disease</A>
Note I didn't have to go very far or work very hard to obtain these; they all come from the same web site. In fact, we are swimming in information that nothing short of supports evolution; I am amazed how you have been managing to miss it all.

Finally, forgive me for this low blow, but you have earnestly deserved it. Be kind and browse through the following article; who knows you may yet be capable of seeing your own image in this particular mirror: <A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/1999/0899issue/0899reviews1.html"> Creationism Evolves</A>. <u>I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY ELSE ON THIS THREAD TO READ THIS ARTICLE AS WELL</u>.

<hr>

I suggest that before you run around proclaiming to be privy to all the goings-on within the scientific community, you:
1) make an effort and educate yourself on the past half-century of discoveries,
2) try to stay in tune with the current scientific debates,
3) stop proclaiming absolute 'truths', especially when they are not true, and especially since real scientists would never dare to presume a final understanding,
4) try to research and comprehend the nuances of evolutionary theory. If you do not understand the foundations and the details, you will never understand how the whole hangs together.

And before you get in tune with reality, PLEASE SHUT UP. You are wasting everybody else's time and nerves, you are humiliating yourself and all religious people you claim to represent by displaying your ignorance to the entire world, and you are breeding more ignorance and confusion with your authoritative proclamations of utter falsehoods.


------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 29, 1999).]

I.P.:



I don't have a problem with variation, it exists - there is OVERWHELMING data that variation exists. It is typical of evolutionists "when grinding the evolutionary axe" to use examples of micro-evolution (genetic variation) to explain or defend macro-evolution(the mechanism for crossing family, class or order lines)


Crossing family, class, or order lines is a rare occurrence, an exception to the rule, and by far not the primary mechanism of 'macroevolution'. In case you haven't noticed, the aforementioned classifications stem from a tree, where branches come out of common points and then proceed to diverge, hardly ever meeting again. For example, speaking of class: I dare you to demonstrate at least one example where a mammal species over time ceased to belong to the class Mammalia. It is true that the converse has occurred: reptilians in a singular event have given rise to mammals. However, it is only true if you are willing to concede macroevolution, which is something you vehemently argue against. So which is it, professor?

Furthermore I would like to direct your attention, if that can be done, to the fact that kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses and species are only artificial classifications in an effort to tabulate the diversity of life. In no way, shape or form does any one of such categories present in itself some kind of an impenetrable wall that forever guards species defined by it from leaving its boundaries.

And what do you define as 'variation', anyway? Is the case of the 'wolf boys' whose faces are completely covered with thick fur a case of variation? In which event, allow yourself to imagine what happens if they give rise to in-bred families due to their specific (and to many appalling) appearance. This new sub-population would then most likely form a new 'race' (and incidentally, I direct your attention to the existence of races in the real world.) What happens when a breed is isolated all by itself on a segregated landmass such as an island, and finds no way to connect back to the other members of its species? Well, probably it would proceed to gradually splinter into sub-populations of its own, each one with a distinct and unique gene pool. Alternatively, if the segregated region is not large enough for such differentiation, the breed as a whole will undergo a gradual genetic drift; the smaller the population, the faster it drifts. Now, extrapolate that process over a million years. The minor reshufflings and minor mutations gradually accumulate to make different breeds less and less alike. When enough time passes, they are no longer able to interbreed, and thus have differentiated into distinct species. Given more time, they might even join distinct genuses, distinct families, distinct orders, and with many millions of years they may even give rise to a new class or two. Which part of this sounds forbiddingly unreasonable to you?

The distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' is an artificial one; there is no sharp boundaries between the two. The difference is akin to considering one decade of human history versus one millennium. Obviously, a lot more change occurs over a millennium than over a decade - but one has to keep in mind that the millennium itself is composed of decades. In the same vein, the small variations between individuals of a species viewed as 'microevolution', compound with passage of time to produce ever greater differences and thereby underlie 'macroevolution'. The Darwinian/Wallacian theory of 'evolution by natural selection' is built upon three fundamental observations: 1) individuals of a given species are not identical, 2) some of this variation is heritable, 3) not all offspring survive. The crucial inference: the variations among individuals affect the probabilities that they will survive and reproduce. This is all that is necessary to deduce evolution by sheer reason. If you are going to discount evolution, you better tell us which of the three fundamental axyoms is false, or why the primary inference cited above is unreasonable (by the way, nowadays that inference is part of empirical observations, and is no longer a leap of reason but sheer fact). Otherwise, I would like you to challenge the logic through which evolution is deduced, and see how far you can get. Here goes via reductio ad absurdum:

Theorem 1: 'Macroevolution' does not exist. I.e. no new species can appear spontaneously.

[Aside: I must intercede with a little factual background (which should be common knowledge). It is observed that certain plant and animal species have existed on Earth less time than others. This means that as other species already existed, new species were appearing. Since new species cannot appear spontaneously according to Theorem 1, we have to assume that new species appear artificially over time (e.g. through strangely incremental divine creation, or alien genetic experiments spanning billions of years, or whatever else touches the fancy). Now, back to the proof…]

Lemma 1: The set of all genetic variations among all presently living individuals of any species can never acquire new members.
Proof (reductio ad absurdum):
Assume new genetic variations can appear within a species. Let a species be separated by chance into two distinct subpopulations unable to contact each other. Now, with the passage of time new genetic variations appear in the two distinct genetic pools. Because this happens independently, the chance that these new genetic variations are identical is very small. With more time, new genetic variations independently appear within the two genetic pools. Eventually, many new genetic variations have accumulated within the two distinct gene pools, and the chance that all of the new mutations between the two pools are identical is vanishingly small. Therefore, the two breeds of our species now contain distinct, and mutually exclusive genetic information. As they continue to exist independently, the genetic chasm between them grows, until one day the difference becomes too large for one breed to be able to carry children from another. Now, we have two distinct species where before was only one. But this contradicts Theorem 1 which we have set out to eventually prove! Therefore, the initial assumption of this sub-proof cannot be correct, which necessitates Lemma 1. Q.E.D.

Lemma 2: For any particular species, with time all members of the species must exhibit identical genomes.
Given Lemma 1, no new genetic features can ever appear in a gene pool of a species. However, nothing prevents features from disappearing. Genetically selective diseases, vagaries of uneven breeding and mate selection, natural accidents and, in short, environmental pressures all conspire to disturb the balance of the gene pool. With time, the random perturbations must result in certain genetic traits being restricted only to a few individuals within a population. Once that happens, more mishaps, or a massive disaster, can easily obliterate the few individuals sharing a particular genetic trait. With that, a species loses some of its genetic diversity. Hence, by pure statistical chance a species must loose little bits of its original variability with time. Since no new traits can appear due to Lemma 1, given enough time a species must loose all of its original variability, and with time, all individuals must exhibit identical genomes, identical appearances and identical physical characteristics. Q.E.D.

Lemma 3: Older species must exhibit less genetic variability.
This is easy to see given lemma 2.

Fact: Older species are observed empirically to have more genetic variability than younger species!

But how are we to reconcile fact with Lemma 3? Simple: Lemmas 3, 2, and 1 are false. As their single fundamental premise is Theorem 1, we must conclude, that in view of the facts, Theorem 1 is also false. Therefore, older species as a rule have more genetic variability, no species has ever exhibited genetically identical individuals, new features indeed appear within gene pools of species, and new species indeed emerge based on genetic variability and natural pressures - which is what we commonly refer to as 'evolution'. Case closed.

Now, I have shown that evolution is reality. The last point of contention is the source of new genetic features. Is it random mutations or ever-continuing divine tweaking? At this point, it doesn't really matter - because either way the new genetic features are referred to as 'benign mutations' - to which you, I.P., openly deny existence. Perhaps, it's time you reconsidered your stance?


------------------
I am; therefore I think.

I.P.:



This is for you Boris:

You Said:
Frankly, I do not understand what terrible harm it would cause children to learn that Homo Sapiens descended from some ape-like pre-cursor.

Me: No more harm than telling them that they sprang from the same turd someone spied on a steak(if I remember the post correctly)

You:
It certainly did not inflict any incurable wounds on me, or on any other 'gullible' and 'vulnerable' child out there. Just ask all the hundreds of millions of children that went through public schools and nevertheless chose to cling to whatever their religion was.

Me: Incurable? No. Wounds none-the-less. The greatest evidence is the endless droning of the evolutionist evangelists that evolution is fact.


What is so terrible about ape precursors? Half of your (and mine, and everybody else's) very essense has passed through a urine canal before we became whole, and we emerge from the genitals of women! (Talk about excrement!) Just think of the human ape precursors, and the ever-lower lifeforms all the way down to the first primordial goo as part of the conception process through which eventually you, and I, and everyone else came into existence. In fact, our origins are only as depressing or disgusting, as you are willing to make them. If you go far enough, we are all children of the stars, and ultimately the entire universe, which is giving birth to new life even as we speak, and we have the honor of participating in that process in a very direct way. In fact, the realization that we are not the epitome of sophistication, that we are only a stage in development - leaves room for growth, and improvement, and exciting possibilities for our descendants. According to theories of evolution, we ourselves are only precursors to many other species, which must eventually form from our own. In my opinion, that's not all too bad, and certainly not any more traumatic than the traditional truism about 'where children come from'.

Finally, it is the religious patriarchs out there who are 'droning'. People who actually do their homework come to accept evolution not because they are told to, but because it is a modern scientific theory grounded in observed fact and deductive reason, and certainly does much better as an explanation of natural diversity than any other explanation out there.


------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

Good post(s)! You were so thorough that I have very little to add to the fray. Except..

I.P.

You mentioned in a previous post that there exists no species linking animals with plants. I won't deal with the little issue of divergence, but will just point out blue-green algae. Lastly, I think my signature directly applies to you.


------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

IP,

I know this is nitpicky, but the term data is plural; the singular is datum.



------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Boris,
I solemnly bow to your thourough, but nescessery intervention. I must admit I saw it coming, your silence was like the quietness before the storm... ;)

About a new view on evolutionism:

Why is the theory of the evolution of species looked upon as being atheistic or non religious ? I find it on the contrary deeply religious to know that all living things on this planet are connected through our mutual ancestors. This provides us a new way of finding our place in the universe, we are as much part of this magnificent place then the smallest virus and the biggest star who provides the nescessary heavy elements in its last moments.
All these things are ultimatly governed by four fundamental forces and are constitued out of twelve fundamental particles. If I say fundamental then I mean in resprect to the Standard Model, which until further notice is the best theory we have.
How can such simple constituents give rise to such complex beauty ? That is the miracle most scientist have devoted their lives to.
Saying that this miracle is just an act of some deity is deadly for any original thought, which is what being human is all about...

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Wow. Just plain wow. Boris, apparently you've been involved in this type of discussion before :). Man, I guess I shouldn't take a weekend off from this discussion board. So basically what you guys are saying is that the discussion has progressed slightly onward :)?? After reading some creationalist articles and talk.origins/and the like articles I am much more aware of the issues in this discussion . Thanks to all who motivated me to investigate further.

I was wondering if IP had any more points that have not been addressed by Borris or had evidence against said points/studies?

------------------
"Give me a firm place to stand, and I will move the earth."

Archimedes

Hi All,

To be honest I haven't read all of this lengthly debate as of yet, but wanted to interject a notion for discussion. I was recently reading an article addressing the problems that we've been having with kids nowadays, and particularly the violence in schools. I wish I could remember the site that I read it on, but to no avail. And it was put much more eloquently than this, but here's the basic message...if we teach our children that they are nothing more than animals, then why are we so shocked when they act like animals? This message relates back to something I just posted on the "where's the proof" string, in that, if we really are only animals, you know, like cows and chickens tigers and whatnot, then why not act like them? And why not treat other people like we treat them? We are really not communicating to our children that there is any value to a human life, so why is it again that they should value a human life exactly? What makes us so special exactly, if we are telling them inexplicably that we are not special?

Lori:

Thank you for bringing up the point of self-worth. It is certainly a very important point, and any debate on the vices/virtues of science is not complete without it.

Aside from morality, for a moment let's consider reality. Evolution is just plain fact. One can pretend it's not real, but then one would have to be either ill-informed or delusional. Whatever the consequences of reality are, reality is something we cannot deny. We simply have to learn what it is, and try to live with the knowledge.

That said, the question becomes: "what role should reality play in our morality and life choices?"



...if we teach our children that they are nothing more than animals, then why are we so shocked when they act like animals?


I flatly disagree. You see, Lori, we indeed are animals; that is just plain fact. But, we are not like other animals. We are intelligent, sentient, enlightened beings; that is also just plain fact. We indeed are far more evolved, and to act primitively is to lose dignity.



...if we really are only animals, you know, like cows and chickens tigers and whatnot, then why not act like them?


To act like lower animals is to degenerate far below what it is to be human. It means to loose all sentience and intelligence, all wisdom, and all purpose other than following simple instincts. Why artificially restrict oneself to so much less, when one could instead have so much more? To lose one's human attributes is to essentially condemn and punish oneself; who in their right mind would want to do that?



And why not treat other people like we treat them? ... why is it again that they should value a human life exactly? What makes us so special exactly, if we are telling them inexplicably that we are not special?


If nothing else, evolution speaks volumes precisely of how special we are. In no way is human life devalued by acknowledging its real origins.

We should teach our children to respect each other, and especially respect human life, for only one powerful reason: the Golden Rule. That's right -- do unto others as you would have done unto you. In the interests of peace, happiness, prosperity and a good, fulfilling life -- people must uphold the Golden Rule. That is what we must teach our children, first and foremost. What goes around, comes around. A friend is better than an enemy. It is easier to destroy, but then one must live with the consequences.

And another thing we should stop telling children is that their only purpose in life is to glorify God. They must be told that everyone has a special purpose, and that every person must discover that purpose for themselves. Unless a person searches for a purpose, or has found one, life is empty and emptiness leads to violence and despair.

Finally, let's not loose sight of the big picture. We are only toddlers in the enterprise of comprehension; we have come very far indeed, but most likely we have barely scratched the surface of the truth. To assume that from current scientific theories one can deduce the reasons for life, or lack thereof, is ludicrous. A very important realization that must be made by everyone is that we indeed know so little, that grand mysteries surround us on all sides, and behind every corner, that the future is ours and there's no limit in sight, and that to prematurely form conclusions about human worth or the purposelessness of life is to be utterly short-sighted and dull-witted. What we must teach our children is a sense of humility before the awesome cosmos they inhabit, and a sense of proper pride for their place in it, and the places of their peers.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 30, 1999).]

Boris,

Thank You for posting something worth reading, except your expected BS concerning my motives or claims.
I just got back into town and will slog through it all and get back to you.

Lori,

You bring up some interesting points and, of course, of a major concern. However, it is of interest that when humans engage in violence, it is often UNLIKE animals.

While it is true that intra-species violence occurs, it is usually a motivated action (e.g. defending the nest, vying for the alpha position, etc.) and often does not end in death, but one of combatants backing down.

Humans take this to a different level that is almost unique to our species. We readily kill each other for reasons no other than to kill; I mean motivation could have been there, but it is not quite like what animals do. Under this context, I mean murder and other acts of violence, not war (which could be considered a defense of territory). There have been cases of unmotivated violence in other animal species. However, it is again of interest, because they tend to be 'higher' species with larger brain capacities (old world apes, mostly).

I often think that while humans are more intelligent than most other species on this world, we could learn a lot from them regarding wisdom.

-Bitsy

P.S. I apologize for my previous heated posts to you. I was running low on java.

------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-Mark Twain

Boris,

I don't mean to sound critical, but you sound like you're talking out both sides of your mouth. You go to extremes to delineate that we are no different from animals, supporting evolution, and the thought that there is no God, but now you're saying that we are far more enlightened than any other animal, and preaching about the golden rule. Let me ask you then...why do you think that we are sooooooo different from EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY OTHER ANIMAL ON THE PLANET, and where exactly do you think that the golden rule comes from?

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Lori:



Let me ask you then...why do you think that we are sooooooo different from EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY OTHER ANIMAL ON THE PLANET, and where exactly do you think that the golden rule comes from?


You are allways free to quote me, but please do not put your words into my mouth.

I never said we are "sooooo different form EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY OTHER ANIMAL ON THE PLANET". What I was responding to is your comparison of humans to cows, chickens, lions, etc. From them, we are indeed very different. However, the difference is much smaller between us and chimpanzees for example. What makes us ultimately unique within the animal kingdom is our brain -- the largest and most complex between all animals out there. It is the ultra-sophisticated (by Earth standards) cognitive machine in our skulls that gives us our unique capacities for language, complex abstract thought, and accretion of knowledge far beyond our individual memory capacities.

As for the golden rule, I believe I explained before where it comes from. Among social animals, it comes from emotional capacity for empathy and companionship -- it is an evolved trait. In that respect, the golden rule is a mere accident of evolution. However, it can also be derived on purely sociological grounds as the best policy to maintain peace and equalty.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

It's relative brain size. What that means is, you weigh the brain, and you weigh the
body without the brain; then you divide the brain weight by body weight -- and get the
percentage of body weight devoted to the brain. Humans have the largest
brain-to-body ratio, but not the largest brain (I believe the whales have the largest brains)

just thought i would post this for a little comic relief :D

[This message has been edited by god (edited August 31, 1999).]

Lori -
When people bring up the point about not being able to either not being able to believe that our ancestors were not intelligent in the same way we are or that we are nothing more than animals, it truly shows me how they regard evolution. Your bias is against it, so you see only negative interpretations. Mine is positive towards it so I see positives ones. When I look at our species, I see it as the culmination of billions of years of improvements. Some call it an accident. I see it as inevitable. Eventually, an "advanced" species would develop, with higher powers than anything before them. That species is us. This statement is very similar to the creationist endpoint, however one is grounded in fact, one in faith.

FyreStar

FyreStar,

What, little "g", god had to say about relative brain size is very interesting. We're finding that, at least with some parrots, the old thinking about intelligence does not hold completely true. We've know for a long time that some of these birds can imitate speech. What we have found more recently is that they can verbalize a delineation between number, size, shape, and color. I was surprised when I saw a zoologist asking a bird questions of difference and commonalities in unrehearsed situations. The little critter got it right every time. As we learn more about the function of the brain, we're sure to find more astonishing things than the fact that a bird brain can handle such tasks.
I agree with you that there is a certain amount of cumulative something to humans. That something is learned knowledge and nothing more. We tend to think of people in the past as having been less intelligent or even stupid because, in relation to our own products, theirs were more primitive. Take, for example, any tribe in the rain forest. They display these same primitive aspects. Yet, in less that even one generation, if exposed to other cultures, these people have been know to incorporate and embrace technology hundreds of years ahead of them. More than that, some of these same people will even enter into cities and function without flaw. In this same span, tribes have been known to completely disappear into modern culture. Well, you could take the argument that since these people are in our generation; they must have the same capacity for knowledge. If so, how could you explain the fact until outside intervention, they had not shown any sign of it? I have no doubt that people as far back as there have been people (excluding Adam and Eve -- they were likely smarter before the fall), generally, were as smart as we. Their intentions were quite different from our own and, as such, look to be less advanced than us.

Peace, Love, and Prayers
ISDAMan

P.S. -- I posted an answer to you in your forum on the second page.

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

ISDAMan -
You are correct that parrots and other creatures can be taught what are thought of as "higher" mental capabilities; the fundamental difference in this case is that while they can be taught, they cannot teach themselves. Man teaches man, man teaches parrot, however parrot does not teach man. The similarities between "civilized" folk like ourselves and "primitive" folk is negligible - after all, we are the same species. There should be no difference whatsoever unless you are saying that certain "races" are genetically superior to others in such aspects. In recent history (recent as in since the dawn of civilization, 5000-7000 years ago, man has had basically the same level of intellectual capability. The only difference in how "smart" we are is how we are educated. If you take a broader view with larger periods of time, then yes, we are more intelligent than our ancestors.

FyreStar