Evil Genius

Starnum wrote:Last I checked, evolution wasn't a fact, just a theory. I've heard lots of convincing arguments against it, that have nothing to do with religious belief. *shrugs*

Newp, evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.

The trick is, how does it happen? We are still trying to explain how gravity works, and it has been 300+ years since Newton.

So, if evolution is a theory then so is gravity, then so is pretty much everything else we take for granted and there is no such thing as fact.

Starnum wrote:I don't think so. I can't really agree with that line of thinking at all, and to me Gravity has clear and evident proof, whereas evolution does not. I throw an apple in the air, it comes back down. Meanwhile, Alligators are still alligators, or some such, heh. Although, I'm an existentialist anyway, so I'm more likely to believe that we can't really discern facts anyway.

It doesn't matter if you agree, because Evolution is a fact on the same merits as Gravity is also fact.

Gravity: An apple falling from a tree.

Evolution: Virginia Tech (VPI) courses that studies fruit flies to the point that they are no longer fruit flies but several other sub-species but are all derived from fruit flies.

How about Cows? Surely god created Cows right? Wrong. They where breed from Aurochs, the modern cow is different species.

The Aurochs is currently extinct, then you may ask 'how is it extinct, we have cows!' and that is the point, the domestic cow is sub-species by one derived from the other.

Common Ancestry.


note: subspecies is not a dirty word, it doesn't mean lesser. it just denotes that from the species we are talking about is just derived from it. akin to how we breed dogs for example, over time features develop that we like and we try to breed them true. Once the features mature and no reproduction snafus happen, it is a new sub-species!

example of this is the new Serval cat hybrid. It is not longer a 'domestic cat' just as it is no longer a Serval cat, but a mixture of two species or what we call interspecies breeding (aka cross breeding).

This happens in the wild too, Polar Bears mating with Grizzly Bears which is becoming more common in Canada. At some point both Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears will co-exist with a 3rd Bear species that is derived from both of them.

psi29a wrote:Evolution: Virginia Tech (VPI) courses that studies fruit flies to the point that they are no longer fruit flies but several other species but are all derived from fruit flies.

What? How does their study of fruit flies cause them to evolve? I fail to see your "proof". Besides, I thought evolution took some kind of absurd amount of time. Could you perhaps provide something with a bit more substance to it, a link of some kind perhaps? If you're trying to convince me anyway. Regardless, I don't claim to understand how God works.

Starnum wrote:

psi29a wrote:Evolution: Virginia Tech (VPI) courses that studies fruit flies to the point that they are no longer fruit flies but several other species but are all derived from fruit flies.

What? How does their study of fruit flies cause them to evolve? I fail to see your "proof". Besides, I thought evolution took some kind of absurd amount of time. Could you perhaps provide something with a bit more substance to it, a link of some kind perhaps? If you're trying to convince me anyway. Regardless, I don't claim to understand how God works.

The study is not that it 'causes' evolution, but that it happens in front of their eyes and is significantly measurable and testable.

Evolution can take a long time, doesn't mean it has to. It is a process. It can be measured in many thousands of years, but it can also happen in the time span of a month.

Fruit flies just happen to breed and die in a matter of hours, which is orders of a magnitude faster than humans or other mammalian life.

You should catch yourself up on the current scientific literature. Science also evolves.

God gave us a brain, why not figure out how God works? Free will ftw!

Thing is that I don't give one wit out super-natural causes. Science concerns herself with only natural causes. Hence, the only real explanation that has mountains of data, testable data, and more importantly peer-reviewed data. There is currently no other theory that explains the same thing that is natural in nature. So far the only competition comes from super-natural causes which can't even be consider a scientific theory because it defies the definition of science.

Popper 1959, p. 3 wrote:Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

* Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena, including biological life;
* Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies

These fields are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.

psi29a wrote:It doesn't matter if you agree, because Evolution is a fact on the same merits as Gravity is also fact.

Well, you know, I'm not so easy to believe something, just because some guys on the internet say its true, and before you start listing off credited studies and all that jazz, know that I don't know anything about them. I don't normally keep up with the research into evolution, but I'll see what I can dig up.

Also, cross-breeding isn't really evolution. When a horse and a donkey produce a mule, it's still an equine. You don't see anyone crossing some bears and coming out with a bird, which is what some people believe happened to the dinosaurs.

Anyway, I never said there was anything wrong with trying to understand God, or even questioning your beliefs. As you say, evolution isn't precise, and that's what makes it hard to accept as a concrete fact.

Starnum wrote:Also, cross-breeding isn't really evolution. When a horse and a donkey produce a mule, it's still an equine. You don't see anyone crossing some bears and coming out with a bird, which is what some people believe happened to the dinosaurs.

Actually, cross-breeding is in fact a change over time. In some cases interspecies breeding leads to steril (unviable) offspring, but that isn't the case with some other species. Just because the mule can't breed doesn't mean other hybrids cannot. There are records of onager/ass, onager/horse and zebra/horse (zebroids) crosses that do have viable young. On an interesting note though, the female mule (hinny) does have a chance in not being steril. This is common in all hybrids, like the Savannah Cats (Serval Hybrdi), however the male has a 1/8th chance of being viable.

It is actually quite silly to say that breeding two dissimiiar species will produce you a bird. Logical falicy on your part for suggesting because no scientist 'believes' that either.

Interestingly enough,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18075420/from/RS.5/

For the first time, researchers have read what they say is the biological signature of a tyrannosaur — a signature that confirms the increasingly accepted view that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs.

The signature doesn't come from studying the shape of the 68 million-year-old dinosaur's fossilized bones, but from analyzing the organic material found inside those bones. It's not DNA — despite what you've seen in movies like "Jurassic Park," that genetic material couldn't be recovered. But researchers say it's the next-best thing: collagen proteins that were isolated using techniques on the very edge of what's possible today.

...

The tale of the T. rex began with Horner, back in 2003: He and his team found the tyrannosaur's massive leg bone beneath 1,000 cubic yards of rock at the Hell Creek fossil site in Montana, but had trouble fitting the bone inside their helicopter for the airlift back to the lab.

After analyzing the tissues under a microscope, Schweitzer reported in 2005 that they looked similar to the cells and blood vessels found in ostrich bones.

The data just keeps coming in. How Evolution happens is still being worked on, but the shear amount of data is awe inspiring to say the least, and it keeps increasing.

What would it take to convince you that Evolution happens?

psi29a wrote:It is actually quite silly to say that breeding two dissimiiar species will produce you a bird. Logical falicy on your part for suggesting because no scientist 'believes' that either?

It was just an example. If you ask me, dinosaurs and birds are pretty dissimilar, but I'm no scientist.

psi29a wrote:What would it take to convince you that Evolution happens?

That's a good question. I'll have to think about it. It's not like I don't accept cross-breeding and adaptation, which it seems to me you've been talking about, but aren't those things different than evolution? Lets say that evolution, as you've described it, is true. That's not so hard for me to swallow. However, it's the thought that humans evolved from primates, that gets me. Mainly because it contradicts what I've come to believe theologically, and that's where I'm torn. Do you believe that man was derived from primates? I don't claim to know what the truth is, but I hope to someday truly learn.

Also, I'd like to add, that making fun of someone for not believing in evolution is far less offensive to me, than making fun of someone for believing in Christianity. So that makes me feel a little better about this thread. I mean, I'm still up in the air on evolution, but I definitely believe in God. As long as there's no conflict there, its cool with me. I mean, I believe that God created the Big Bang, why not, right?

Starnum wrote:

psi29a wrote:What would it take to convince you that Evolution happens?

That's a good question. I'll have to think about it. It's not like I don't accept cross-breeding and adaptation, but to me those things seem different than evolution. Less say that evolution, as you've described it, is true. That's not so hard for me to swallow. However, it's the though that humans evolved from primates, that gets me. Mainly because it contradicts what I've come to believe theologically, and that's where I'm torn. Do you believe that man was derived from primates? I don't claim to know what the truth is, but I hope to someday truly learn.

Take your time and think about it a bit, because this how we bridge divides.

Your question seems straight forward enough, but let me say this first. I do not believe we are descended from Monkeys, however the data indicates that we do share a common ancestor with other primates though.

Humans are by classification, bi-pedal primates. So I can't answer your question in a meaningful way because if our parents are primates, then so are we.

I think what I shared with you above is the more common theme I hear which is: "Man is descended from Monkey? None sense!" which is pretty similar in vein to the bird from the alligator scenario above.

Does this present a challenge to modern theology? Yes it does, much in the same vein as Caprinicous' studies of the heavens. The good news is that theology adapts and has done so over the ages, however the more we learn about the natural world the more we no longer need super-natural reasons.

"Daddy, why is the sky blue?"

"Because God made it that way."

the above gets replaced with

"Because the light from the sun hits the Earth's atmosphere which our rods and cones in our eyes pick up as blue in color."

Starnum wrote:Yeah, I meant the whole thing about being descended from monkeys. It's like I've always said that I could believe in evolution, as long as it didn't try to convince me that God doesn't exist. I can accept that evolution is real, but by the same token, I still believe that God created man. I see no reason both can't be true. I guess that's about as far as I'll ever be able to go with it. So no, I don't out-rightly reject evolution.

My wife is an evolutionary biologist, she is also believes in God. As does my mother. There really isn't any barrier to entry, and Evolution doesn't disprove God, because frankly, Science's job isn't to disprove or prove anything super-natural in the first place.

psi29a wrote:There really isn't any barrier to entry, and Evolution doesn't disprove God, because frankly, Science's job isn't to disprove or prove anything super-natural in the first place.

definitely agree with you there (well at least your wife ) nice lil convo btw

All creatures are evolved from jelly fish. So yes evolution is fact!

psi29a wrote:There really isn't any barrier to entry, and Evolution doesn't disprove God, because frankly, Science's job isn't to disprove or prove anything super-natural in the first place.

Exactly. I have no problem with people believing that evolution was a concept created by God. This just shows how incredible God is, to be able to plan for this huge scheme. However, my main problem is with religious people not accepting evolution because it is not written in the bible, or because they figure it challenges their 'faith', even though the facts are presented on the table. Like that moron Zoddsno1fan, who pops in to say something that makes a complete fool out of himself, and runs when challenged.

Here are some Family Guy videos that I think are appropriate.

Starnum wrote:Making fun of rednecks, funny. Making fun of God, not so funny. Anyway, the bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs, and you can't really disputes that they existed, so there you go.

The bible doesn't talk about monkeys either, but they exist.

Also, fossil evidence support their existence. There's a skull of a T-Rex.

Satan put that skull there obviously

The importance of semantics. I see this distressingly often.

Starnum wrote:Last I checked, evolution wasn't a fact, just a theory.

A theory is basically a hypothesis that has withstood any and all rational arguments posed against it. There's no such thing as "just a theory".

Is not a fact nothing more than a social consensus on an opinion?
Just like for some people evolution is a fact, for other people intelligent design is a fact (and no I am not speaking of personal opinion).

Hmmm. No. A fact is unavoidably true. Is it that difficult to look up a word?

MrFelony wrote:Satan put that skull there obviously

No silly. Satan is dead. Remember, he got shot with a shotgun, by an Eagle Scout.

arke wrote:Hmmm. No. A fact is unavoidably true. Is it that difficult to look up a word?

And who came up with the definition?
It did not just randomly occur without any alternative motives for defining a word. Quite hard asking these questions huh?

Facade19 wrote:And who came up with the definition?

Latin. Which means it was Caesar's fault. Incidentally, if you translate it a few times, it happens that some dude named "Eldo" really coined it. QED.