Evolution

[victor meldrew]

Epigenetics suggest that such vestigial organs etc can be switched on and off to order seemingly. As more studies on the double helix of DNA take place the more Darwins' theory is justified . Detractors previously suggested that his theory didn't stand, seeing that some adaptations occurred too quickly for his theory . Now we know that previous knowledge was limited and the likelyhood being that of switches being brought into play ?
VM

 

[Joseph]

Detractors previously suggested that his theory didn't stand, seeing that some adaptations occurred too quickly for his theory . Now we know that previous knowledge was limited and the likelyhood being that of switches being brought into play ?
VM

Absolutely! Read this from Darwin in the Origin.

"As far as instinct alone is concerned, the wonderful difference in this respect between the workers and the perfect females would have been better exemplified by the hive-bee. If a working ant or other neuter insect had been an ordinary animal, I should have unhesitatingly assumed that all its characters had been slowly acquired through natural selection; namely, by individuals having been born with slight profitable modifications, which were inherited by the offspring, and that these again varied and again were selected, and so onwards. But with the working ant we have an insect differing greatly from its parents, yet absolutely sterile; so that it could never have transmitted successively acquired modifications of structure or instinct to its progeny. It may well be asked how it is possible to reconcile this case with the theory of natural selection?"

Darwin gives his own answer, but, well, in 2010 we found another answer, DNA methylation, i.e. epigenetics! Darwin himself believed - originally for theological reasons (he was a Deist when he wrote the Origin and only later considered himself agnostic), that evolution must be slow, he says God does a better job than does man when the sterile mule is made in artificial selection. See God's Magnificent Law: The Bad Influence of Theistic Metaphysics on Darwin's Estimation of Natural Selection. John F. Cornell.

 

[REDWOOD]

Last question, in the beginning evolution, has any scientist re created this ?

 

[BeeJayBee]

Isn't the Peppered Moth still used as an example of fast evolution in action?

 

[Joseph]

Last question, in the beginning evolution, has any scientist re created this ?

Re-created what? evolution itself? as in seen evolution occur in the lab? yes as per William Rice and G.W. Salt with fruit flies who could no longer breed with each other after Speciation.

But I suspect you mean something else. Evolution is not an explanation for the big bang and not for abiogenesis. It does not attempt to explain how life came about in the first place. It is only an explanation for how diversity of life came about once there was the original single life form

As for true Abiogenesis, that has not been recreated by scientists and it took an estimated 3.5 billion years for it to occur naturally. Synthetic life has been "created" by Craig Venter depending on what you mean by synthetic life.

 

[Joseph]

Isn't the Peppered Moth still used as an example of fast evolution in action?

Yup, it has survived and is strong despite the controversy regarding the way some of the experimentation was done originally. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/selective-bird.html

 

[meetballuk]

There is scientific evidence for evolution, but there is NO scientific evidence that disproves the theory, or to prove creationism.

Plenty of evidence to disprove 6 day creation and young earth creationism.
Which the majority of the world hold to be true
and you can never prove it as "God" is a supernatural entity and has no recordable effect on our reality.

Pointless debate as they creationist can always wave the god did it magic wand to remove convenient facts to their argument.

Example:
Creationist: God flooded the world and noah really took all modern day animals on it.
No lunatic: but if the would was flooded it would have killed all plant life and all sea life and raising the sea level that high would have caused noah and all his animals to as fixate and Die. and damaged the earth eco system forever. (sea vital for life)
Creationist: oh well god must of protected them all, he created everything he can do that!


Also some one asked before where they think the water went and came from.
Common creationist theory’s: had a big water dome above earth which collapsed and some from underground. after flood was flung into space.

 

[Ely]

I believe in logic and fact. That is what makes me feel comfortable in life. If someone finds comfort in creationism because that is what they were brought up with and it helps them be a good person then that is great too. Although, the two beliefs should never be argued about as there is only ever one winner. It is like someone arguing with a scientist that the moon is made of cheese. We all know scientists have done extensive studies on the moon and it isn't made of cheese but there will always be stubborn people that will desperately hold onto the cheese belief because it was indoctrinated so much as a child that it is rooted into their whole personality.

They need that belief to be able to function. It is what makes them who they are and they have no other option but to hold onto that belief no matter how ridiculous it may seem. They have no vested interest in educating themselves otherwise. As long as it helps them get through life without massacring innocents then that is ok

 

[Skyhook]

Yup, it has survived and is strong despite the controversy regarding the way some of the experimentation was done originally. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/selective-bird.html

Great link!

 

[REDWOOD]

so what has man created, electricity, flight, man on the moon, rockets, nuclear power, all in 100 years, to someone 100 years ago this would be a marvel, might even say magic, and what will we achieve in the next 100 years, Terraforming a distant planet to create a new living world, travel faster than light, DNA computers and the Theory of Everything. Just a few of man's creations, so why can't people see that God might have been a being of super intelligence, knowledge and armed with technology that we might posses one day.

again I must stress I am not a creationist or a evolutionist but a skeptic

 

[Skyhook]

so what has man created, electricity, flight, man on the moon, rockets, nuclear power, all in 100 years, to someone 100 years ago this would be a marvel, might even say magic, and what will we achieve in the next 100 years, Terraforming a distant planet to create a new living world, travel faster than light, DNA computers and the Theory of Everything. Just a few of man's creations, so why can't people see that God might have been a being of super intelligence, knowledge and armed with technology that we might posses one day.

again I must stress I am not a creationist or a evolutionist but a skeptic

Hmmm. Skepticism generally implies taking nothing for granted, requiring proof. There must surely come a point where the evidence is overwhelming, where the case can be taken as being proven.

Of course I can genuinely prove nothing beyond my own existence, and cannot prove the form of that- for example I may be a computer programme, or a fish dreaming that I'm a human- but if I accept nothing as proven, my existence becomes meaningless.

I don't see, though, that this needs to be a god/ no god argument. There may be a god who created everything, in which case what we're talking about is how He did it- in which case I would still rather go with the sum total of human knowledge, rather than what a bronze-age priest said.

.
.

 

[tonybloke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

 

[meetballuk]

Redwood: yes perfectly plausible but not the God majority of People believe in.
Sceptic of evolution? all that evidence and scientific consensus on the subject not enough?
ELY: same could be said for phcis and faith healers (oh it makes ppl happy gives them closure)
Rubbish, its slows the advansment of the race, inhibits social development globaly.
yes i agree there are stubon who will never agree but the sheep masses are the bigger issue.
many convert away from creation and are still able to function.

 

[Ely]

so what has man created, electricity, flight, man on the moon, rockets, nuclear power, all in 100 years, to someone 100 years ago this would be a marvel, might even say magic, and what will we achieve in the next 100 years, Terraforming a distant planet to create a new living world, travel faster than light, DNA computers and the Theory of Everything. Just a few of man's creations, so why can't people see that God might have been a being of super intelligence, knowledge and armed with technology that we might posses one day.

again I must stress I am not a creationist or a evolutionist but a skeptic

It would have to be one hell of a coincidence for man to make up a god and it actually turn out to be true.

 

[REDWOOD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

what a load of rubbish, another religious sect, I wish people would read the bible and not listen to sales men, you don't have to go to church or belong to a sect to worship god

 

[Ely]

what a load of rubbish, another religious sect, I wish people would read the bible and not listen to sales men, you don't have to go to church or belong to a sect to worship god

You don't have to be insane to believe there is a chimp in a space suit on jupiter doing the tango to an audience of umpa lumpas, but it helps.

 

[Suzi Q]

so what has man created, electricity, flight, man on the moon, rockets, nuclear power, all in 100 years, to someone 100 years ago this would be a marvel, might even say magic, and what will we achieve in the next 100 years, Terraforming a distant planet to create a new living world, travel faster than light, DNA computers and the Theory of Everything. Just a few of man's creations, so why can't people see that God might have been a being of super intelligence, knowledge and armed with technology that we might posses one day.
again I must stress I am not a creationist or a evolutionist but a skeptic

That's in the realms of Sci-fi?
I think you can be an evolutionist and a skeptic

 

[Finman]

.
Back to basic

Lets try to start here

http://www.familymanagement.com/literacy/grimms/grimms-toc.html

 

[drstitson]

think goldilocks.

our universe exists simply because we are intrinsically linked to a set of laws that work for it. part and parcel of a one. everything inside; nothing, or rather not even the concept of nothing, outside. even time does not extend beyond confines of universe. we are a self contained, self fulfilling illusion.

 

[victor meldrew]

My view is (I stress my view is) that a superior entity exists . The name God plus all the sacredbooks supposedly the word of god were written by the hand of man! Take the religions of 'the book ', Judaism , Christianity and Islam all basically stem from the moon God Allah of ancient Egypt . This is why the various feast/holy days in all three occur and vary with the varying phases of the moon .
All religions are political in that they are a blue print for the adherents of each, to live in social harmony !therefore they are perfectly valid !
Trouble occurs when the mixing is rapid and the ethos of each is perverted by vested influence .
There is plainly too much going on in the universe for there not to be an orchestra leader somewhere/level!
I am a creationist firstly (it had to start somewhere) and an Evolutionist secondly . I will hold these beliefs until they are proved incorrect .
VM