Evolution thread.

That's kinda how it works. If a set of evidence doesn't hold up to testing, then it isn't evidence. Scientists can't just laugh off others' ideas and make them go away. They can laugh, but solid science will win if tested and challenged appropriately.

 

Everything should be questioned - it's how we learn...

The issue with evolution is that people act like there are no holes in the theory, when there are holes and these holes need an explanation other that stupid stuff like "gene mutation" - that concept can easily be proven wrong based on probability alone...... These "scientists" are try to discount anomalies while using an anomaly to justify evolution...

 

No that isn't how it works, you don't reject evidence just because it makes your theory sour... When there is alternative evidence you need to reexamine your theory..

All evidence is evidence not SOME....

We either have a full puzzle or no puzzle at all...

 

In fact the culture of asking questions must be respected since both types, creationists and evolutionists come up with mountains of evidence and steer clear of our doubts. There are people of both opinions in the world and denying the right to them to discuss is unwise. let the discuss go on spontaneously.

 

As i understand it, there are many different elements that fall under the theory of evolution. The potential role of gene mutation is speculative. We have no clear proof of exactly how species have evolved

But it seems pretty clear that lots of different species have arisen, and in most cases gone excinct. New species have arisen after mass extinctions. There seem to be relationships between many of these species... Like primates, or canines, or cats. And there seems to be a progression of these species families over time. And it seems fairly well documented that these species families shift in response to specific environmental factors... Like darwins finches

Is there some better explanation that is proposed, or is your point that we know nothing?

 

You just said what I was saying, so we agree. I meant once proposed evidence is disproven, it's not evidence. If it's accurate, then theories have to be reconsidered. All evidence has to be tested, considered, theories reexamined, etc. Scientists love challenging theories.

 

Most of the bases on which evolutionary theories remain are fossil studies and based on these premises many ideas have been speculated and all that have been said and built around evolutionary theories are therefore yet to be proved. Creationism is however not a scientific idea and it is totally based on faith. However we must not criticize them with our preconceptions since the mystery about the origin of the universe is yet to be solved.

 

And i think there is not much chance it will be solved in our lifetime
Classical creationism does not make much sense... Dinosaurs do not fit into the Adam and eve story..
NOr do stars that are many light years away fit into the young earth scenario


Maybe there is some creator god.... Who knows. But i see no evidence that we know anything about that gid or how he created the universe.. Maybe what we call evolution was part of his plan. But simply postulating a by an obscure creator does not exclude evolution

 

Yes we all are skeptics of some kind. But if there is a God what that maybe is the question. It is not a God or Gods. It is consciousness, not singulars or plurals. It is ubiquitous, and a little bit of this characteristics is stated in Vedanta, particularly in Adwait Vedanta.

 

You know what I find crazy? people will accept ideas like the Big Bang or String or M theory but will reject the idea of God.... Why?

What makes the idea of God any less insane than any of those theories?

I'm not preaching here - so to those that want to jump on the "you're really a creationist" hate bandwagon can go follow the sheep...

How can one dismiss God but accept such an idea that is just as insane and out of the box as the Big Bang or ideas of a bubble universe? or strings? but believing in God is crazy?

 

String theory is a THEORY.

Big Bang Theory is a THEORY.

Belief in God is an absolute.

Can't help you if you don't see the difference in this. Perhaps if you remember science is a process it will help.

 

There is lots of evidence supporting the Big Bang, from redshifts to CMB. Can you tell me one bit of evidence for the existence of God?

 

Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.

 

True to some extent but there are hypotheses too which are yet to scientifically experimented

 

What hypotheses would those be?

 

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested.
Debates within the scientific community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred.

 

Maybe you are right, I have yet to study evolutionary theories in detail. I believe in evolution but I am not sure whether we really got evolved from apes. Though the study of DNA endorses this fact I am not 100 % sure. That said, however I do not believe in creationism and yet I am a little bit skeptic.

 

I ask that you re read my post
I did not reject the idea of god
Although i personally see no evidence of such a being
And agree with you that the idea of god is as speculative as string theory
And just as i do not wish our public policy to be shaped by string theory
I also do not want our public policy shaped by anyones idiosyncratic belief in god

I think god is possible
I cannot disprove god
And have no interest i doing so
Nor in impinging upon those who believe n god
As long as their beliefs impact me to no greater extent than
Those who believe in string theory

What i do claim is clearly tru about god is....

Lots of people have lots of different ideas about god

And that there is no evidence based way of choosing between these different conceptions

And that the most specific conceptions of god and creation seem to be at odds with what we know....
Like dinosaurs, and the enormous, and enormously old universe

And that the less specific views of god become so general that they are undifferentiated from string theory in having any real meaning for our lives.... If string theory is true, it changes nothing. If god initiated a big bang and worked through evolution to create life... Again that has no impact on our lives as far as i can tell

If on the other hand god means a specific culturally limited view of god where the universe was created in a few days 6-10000 years ago and god revealed himself only to the jews, who he selected as his chosen people, and who governs the daily affairs of each human being .. Then there is a lot of explaining that needs to happen

 

Then maybe this should be in a religion thread, and not the science one?

 

Uh no, Hovind was arrested for structuring and defrauding FICA. Read his case, the workers paid there own taxes so no money was lost. Just becuase he was proven guilty in court doesn't make him so. Was Jesus guilty of the crimes pitted against him?

Certainly they didnt do it on porpose. What they did was take money out of the account in less than ten thousand dollars. How often you take 30 dollars from the bank to pay for something?

You show me where he lied and why is it a lie. Also that verse says "give unto Ceasor what is Ceasor's" not "give unto John what is Ceasor". We should all pay the taxes what we owe.

Show me why he's a crook.

There are other sources, just look for it.

- - - Updated - - -

We're not discussing the beginning of the universe. We are discussing micro and macro evolution.

- - - Updated - - -

So without macro evolution doctors can't operate, we can't find cures to germs and viruses, and we can't study the human body?

- - - Updated - - -

For awhile Harvard wasn't acredited too until the 1920s.

 

Thank you, however I don't care what the pope says. All I care about is what does the evidence leads. And I do believe in micro evolution, just not macro.

 

Doctors go through massive amounts of education where evolution plays a foundational role.

And, yes, evolution is a foundational principle in our approaches to viruses, other microbes, and disease in general.

Remember that our study of the human body includes work we do with living organisms that are NOT human, and the reason for that includes the relationship we have with these other living organisms.

 

Your idea that there can be micro evolution but not macro evolution would require there to be some barrier between the two.

What could possibly limit evolution like that?

After all, macro evolution is no more than the numerous microevolutionary events over larger time periods.