Evolution or what?

[Unique]

A recent debate or argument or spouting of belief or whatever you call it on psinet cause my brain to hemorrhage. Now that the bleeding has ceased...

1. I am completely bewildered by the number of intelligent people on OOC who have no idea what the Theory of Evolution really says.

2. I am completely amazed by the number of people who misunderstand what "theory" means.

3. I have to pick these blood clots out of my grey matter.

Anyway, I would like to continue the conversation here in a format more suited to prolonged discussion.

Thank you,

Unique.

[Asha]

I'd rather see the idiocy that was spouted on OOC by the players who thought they knew what it was all about. :yes:

[Bobmuhthol]

If only I wasn't permabanned and force uninstalled....

[Showal]

I love that artpad of Chaddy, Drayal. I had to say it.

[Latrinsorm]

Be grateful you weren't here when Testosterone was. Lordie.

And yeah, post some logs man!

[Unique]

Originally posted by Drayal
I'd rather see the idiocy that was spouted on OOC by the players who thought they knew what it was all about. :yes:

I forgot to log my thought window :(

But... some common issues:

1. The power of chance over long time spans. This pertains more to "where life came from" than "hey look, we're human" part of evolution. However, even something very improbable is bound to happen if given abundant opportunities over large spans of time. I refer to the creation of a self replicating organic molecule.

2. Abuse of dubiously cited "evidence" in favor of whichever view you favored. This refers to ambiguously quoted research or studies that found x and therefore evolution is right/wrong. Generally in this type of reference, the controlling factors and scientific limitations are omitted leaving a statement much stronger than the researchers originally published (if the research happened at all).

3. The improbable fire breathing insect. Specific examples cited by those opposing evolution with the request, "well explain that!" Here is what I mentioned in the first post. Evolution says nothing about fire breathing insects. It merely proposes a mechanism by which any lifeform might evolve.

4. The "I believe" crutch. Great. I believe the sky is blue, and we might agree on that. You or I saying that, however, does not help us learn anything about the sky. It's a null statement. This is not metaphysics. Move on.

5. The omgz Theory of Evolution is just teh theory!!!11 argument. Yes, it's just a theory. And so is Universal Gravitation. As any theory, it competes with other theories that attempt to explain the same process. Evolution has won out over the Theory of Trait Blending, for example. Gravitation has won out over the It's the Nature of Things to Move Downward Theory. The word "theory" does not mean something weak in science.

Hmm... that's all for now.

Unique.

[Asha]

Originally posted by Showal
I love that artpad of Chaddy, Drayal. I had to say it.

Enjoy m'man. You enjoy!

[Warriorbird]

Latrin's fun to argue with about this, Unique. I'd call him a Devil's Advocate extraordinaire, but that might insult his uber Christian-ness.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Unique
Gravitation has won out over the It's the Nature of Things to Move Downward Theory.

Well, crap. Now I have to update my notes.

Jorddyn, old

[Bastard]

>>The improbable fire breathing insect. Specific examples cited by those opposing evolution with the request, "well explain that!" Here is what I mentioned in the first post. Evolution says nothing about fire breathing insects. It merely proposes a mechanism by which any lifeform might evolve. <<

I'm assuming they're talking about bombardier beetles. Here's a link for them to read and then rebuke in the name of the Lord. It gives a possible series of evolutionary changes that explain that particular type of beetle.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

The whole concept of 'irreducible complexity' bothers the hell out of me.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Bastard
>>The improbable fire breathing insect. Specific examples cited by those opposing evolution with the request, "well explain that!" Here is what I mentioned in the first post. Evolution says nothing about fire breathing insects. It merely proposes a mechanism by which any lifeform might evolve. <<

I'm assuming they're talking about bombardier beetles. Here's a link for them to read and then rebuke in the name of the Lord. It gives a possible series of evolutionary changes that explain that particular type of beetle.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

The whole concept of 'irreducible complexity' bothers the hell out of me.

Very nice link, thank you.

Unique.

[Back]

The fact that this debate is having a resurgence shows American devolution in the past 5 years. Religion is a barbaric way to explain something. Its what cavemen did before they knew anything about our universe.

[Warriorbird]

George Bush being President somehow makes this discussion appropriate in lots of people's eyes.

My gut reaction when people talk Intelligent Design is more along the lines of, "So. Explain the appendix?" I don't usually say that in discussions however, because it sends my theologically-imbued opponents off on spouts of nonsense about God.

[Gan]

While I disagree with Backlash's statement with the de-evolution of American society within the past 5 years (suspiciously aligned with the existing term of the Bush Admin ie: left winged rhetoric); I do agree with his opinion of Religion and how it was used throughout history to explain the unexplainable.

Like politics, there were numerous instances where the public was taken advantage of in the name of God, Allah, whathaveyou. While Religion helped society take a few steps forward they also helped them take a few steps back.

In the end, belief in God/Allah/whathaveyou requires a leap of faith. For those whom faith is a tenant of their spirituality then evolution could encompass many possibilities, some perhaps that have not been explained yet. All because of the roots of the 'plan or design' by an omnicient and omnipotent entity attempting to be understood and interpreted by an imperfect being - Man.

For those who prefer science to explain their evolution and to define their spirituality then the concept of faith does not fit and therefore not an issue.

When it comes to the teaching of evolution I believe that 'intelligent design' does not belong in a fact based textbook environment and should be pursued only in religious institutions. As the child develops then he/she can base how they want to interpret evolution comparitively and if applicable, spiritually.

[xtc]

First off I am not an evangelical Christian clinging to the belief that the Bible is perfect and that genesis is true.

I see that many proponents of evolution can be as dogmatic in their vehemence and approach as any evangelical Christian. Any theory should be able to be debated, discussed and tested. Many evolutionists hold on to evolution as dogma and absolute truth, they are unable to discuss the topic rationally and concede areas of evolution theory that are flawed. In mind that makes as bad as any narrow minded evangelical Christian who hold genesis to be absolute truth and not an allegory to explain our origins.

[Back]

Originally posted by xtc
First off I am not an evangelical Christian clinging to the belief that the Bible is perfect and that genesis is true.

I see that many proponents of evolution can be as dogmatic in their vehemence and approach as any evangelical Christian. Any theory should be able to be debated, discussed and tested. Many evolutionists hold on to evolution as dogma and absolute truth, they are unable to discuss the topic rationally and concede areas of evolution theory that are flawed. In mind that makes as bad as any narrow minded evangelical Christian who hold genesis to be absolute truth and not an allegory to explain our origins.

So with this argument someone who argues for truth as passionately as someone who argues fantasy is just as wrong or somehow not worth listening to because both are passionate? I’m not the smartest guy around but there is a huge flaw in there somewhere.


Science wins. By virtue of observation. The Earth is not flat, our planet is not the center of the universe and stars are not pinholes in the firmament amongst many many other things people used to believe.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by xtc
First off I am not an evangelical Christian clinging to the belief that the Bible is perfect and that genesis is true.

I see that many proponents of evolution can be as dogmatic in their vehemence and approach as any evangelical Christian. Any theory should be able to be debated, discussed and tested. Many evolutionists hold on to evolution as dogma and absolute truth, they are unable to discuss the topic rationally and concede areas of evolution theory that are flawed. In mind that makes as bad as any narrow minded evangelical Christian who hold genesis to be absolute truth and not an allegory to explain our origins.

So with this argument someone who argues for truth as passionately as someone who argues fantasy is just as wrong or somehow not worth listening to because both are passionate? I’m not the smartest guy around but there is a huge flaw in there somewhere.


Science wins. By virtue of observation. The Earth is not flat, our planet is not the center of the universe and stars are not pinholes in the firmament amongst many many other things people used to believe.

No, your missing the point. My point is closemindedness. Evolution is ONE scientific theory. If a scientist is as dogmatic and close minded as some evangelical Christians they are as likely to find the truth as the evangelical Christian.

[Warriorbird]

Indeed. There's a whole bunch of other scientific theories dealing with speciation, adaptation, and so on. I'm all in favor of those getting explored alongside pure Darwinian evolution. That doesn't mean that Intelligent Design belongs anywhere near, however.

[Unique]

Originally posted by Ganalon
When it comes to the teaching of evolution I believe that 'intelligent design' does not belong in a fact based textbook environment and should be pursued only in religious institutions. As the child develops then he/she can base how they want to interpret evolution comparitively and if applicable, spiritually.

I agree with Ganalon here. Intelligent Design is a great topic for a philosophy, religion, or metaphysics class. It does not belong in a science class.




Originally posted by xtc
I see that many proponents of evolution can be as dogmatic in their vehemence and approach as any evangelical Christian. Any theory should be able to be debated, discussed and tested. Many evolutionists hold on to evolution as dogma and absolute truth, they are unable to discuss the topic rationally and concede areas of evolution theory that are flawed. In mind that makes as bad as any narrow minded evangelical Christian who hold genesis to be absolute truth and not an allegory to explain our origins.

I agree here too. Science is as bad (my word of choice) as any religion when its practitioners become dogmatic. Many of those who "adhere" to Evolution can not even state what it really claims because they are so enraptured with its opposition to Creationism they don't bother to look at the facts.

In reality, Evolution and Creationism are not strictly contrary to each other. Evolution simply makes a claim about what happens from generation to generation, and how that affects the species we see in the world today; further, it requires an axiom of a long period of time for its mechanism to work. Creationism specifies that all creatures were created at the same time, and biblical scholars add up roughly 6000 years before between then and now. The two are seen as opposing ideas because they make very different claims about history. However, one can be tested by observation and study and the other can only be tested by faith. In this sense alone are they strictly contrary, because faith and observation do not mix well.

I find it interesting that Creationists rarely attack another opposing idea -- the origin of the Universe itself explained by the Big Bang and subsequent inflationary/expansionary periods. Is this because Creationists can embrace the Big Bang as an act of God (even though the bible does not mention inflationary/expansionary periods?) Or is it because this aspect of cosmology is so well supported by hard evidence that it seems unattackable?

(yes, hard evidence. Background microwave radiation, recession velocities proportional to distance, homogeneity, and more.)

If the evidence stacked a different way, I would abandon my belief (the scientific sense of the word) in the Big Bang.

Unique.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Unique
I find it interesting that Creationists rarely attack another opposing idea -- the origin of the Universe itself explained by the Big Bang and subsequent inflationary/expansionary periods. Is this because Creationists can embrace the Big Bang as an act of God (even though the bible does not mention inflationary/expansionary periods?) Or is it because this aspect of cosmology is so well supported by hard evidence that it seems unattackable?

(yes, hard evidence. Background microwave radiation, recession velocities proportional to distance, homogeneity, and more.)

If the evidence stacked a different way, I would abandon my belief (the scientific sense of the word) in the Big Bang.

Unique.

A Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître first proposed the Big Bang theory. George was also an astronomer. He had a Doctorate from MIT.

The Catholic Church endorses the Big Bang theory. I am guessing because they believe God was responsible for the Big Bang. The Catholic Church doesn't believe that the Old Testament should be taken literally, unlike many evangelical Christians. I am betting many Creationists would object to the big bang theory.

[Necromancer]

Intelligent design isn't a real theory, it's an effective rhetorical device. As pointed out earlier, evolution is a theory (not because people have any evidence at all that creatures don't evolve, but because it's 1. unprovable (like gravity is: also mentioned earlier) and 2. there are numerous small points within Darwinian theory that researchers have been battling over; generally speaking if you have not studied biology you are not familiar with these small arguments; note that the debates don't tend to center on evolution as origin as that is accepted as as close to fact as we're going to get)

What intelligent design does is capitalize on the fact that Evolution cannot ever be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. It inserts itself in that small gap between what we say and what we know for certain, and then uses the backlash it gets as proof that it does somehow offer a legitimate competing theory. Why else would they be so upset?

Consider the following analogy:

Theory: All things that fall eventually accelerate to, and cap out at, 9.8 m/s/s; this is from the force of gravity.

Competing Rhetorical Theory: It is possible that some objects will only cap at at 9.7 m/s/s, we just haven't seen it. You haven't even proven yet that 9.9 m/s/s is indeed the ultimate point of acceleration due to gravity. I can point to numerous examples of your intrustments for measurement being off, and there were quite a few falling objects that I witnessed that seem to be 9.7 m/s/s instead of 9.8.

Theory: We have absolutely no proof whatsoever that objects cap out at 9.7 m/s/s. This is a ridiculous counter-theory with no merit. Please go back to church where you belong.

Rhetorical Theory: Just based on the reaction I got, I can tell that you are so close-minded from your studies and your little "scientific mainstream world" that you are doing nothing but regurgitating what you've been taught. You can't even accept a viable competing theory when you have yet to prove your own. Science will get nowhere unless you're willing to accept the possibility of my theory being right, and people should be able to choose between these theories to decide what they believe most; since neither one is absolutely provable.

President: I agree with the Christian fundamentalist, whichever one that was.

That's precisely how intelligent design works. It has no actual fact to it whatsoever, it's just a smart rhetorical argument hiding as a scientific theory. The only advanced industrial society to still discuss whether or not evolution should be taught in schools is also the only one to questioned whether or not to teach a religious theory with no scientific backing. Go Amurrca.

[ElanthianSiren]

Creationism and "Intelligent Design" have no place in the classroom imo.

The notion that no spiritual force existed behind the creation of the earth and its various populations is not something I've encountered much as a biotechnology student. Most of my instructors and the small number of researchers that I've worked with held ideas akin to what XTC and others have mentioned. Those are their personal, faith-based ideas, however.

That said, scientific people generally do not want evolution taught beside anything like creationism/intelligent design because it errodes the credibility of Evolutionary theory. We can duplicate instances of evolution with bacteria and other animals that spawn several generations quickly (fruit flies for instance). One of the great loopholes of faith-based belief is that what is being lectured upon cannot be duplicated, therefor it cannot be questioned and it cannot be recreated. Science does not lend itself to untestable theories, nor should it.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Creationism and "Intelligent Design" have no place in the classroom imo.

The notion that no spiritual force existed behind the creation of the earth and its various populations is not something I've encountered much as a biotechnology student. Most of my instructors and the small number of researchers that I've worked with held ideas akin to what XTC and others have mentioned. Those are their personal, faith-based ideas, however.

That said, scientific people generally do not want evolution taught beside anything like creationism/intelligent design because it errodes the credibility of Evolutionary theory. We can duplicate instances of evolution with bacteria and other animals that spawn several generations quickly (fruit flies for instance). One of the great loopholes of faith-based belief is that what is being lectured upon cannot be duplicated, therefor it cannot be questioned and it cannot be recreated. Science does not lend itself to untestable theories, nor should it.

-M

I haven't really come to a conclusion on the matter. I have only stated that the matter needs to be discussed with an open mind. I think Warriorbird made a good suggestion a while ago that Cosmology could/should be taught along side Evolution. I think children need to be taught both sides to understand the debate. Now perhaps science class isn't the best place to teach theories like I.D. as they don't seem to be scientific. I don't like the idea of only evolution being taught. It is a scientific theory not gospel truth (an expression). Evolution theory has holes in it and I think it is important to examine Evolution critically. Micro evolution can be repoduced, macro evolution can not. These are things that kids need to suss out and talk about.

[Latrinsorm]

First, as an aside:
Originally posted by Necromancer
unprovable (like gravity is: also mentioned earlier)NASA (or possibly ESA) is sending up these satellites called LISA that are supposed to detect gravity waves. Of course last I heard, gravity was the effect of the warping of space-time by mass, so how that appears as a wave phenomenon is beyond me.
The only advanced industrial society to still discuss whether or not evolution should be taught in schools is also the only one to questioned whether or not to teach a religious theory with no scientific backing.Right, everyone who disagrees with the majority should just shut up. That's pretty American.

Now, as Warriobird is fond of insinuating, I do find fault with the idea that science has nothing to do with faith. To Warriorbird, this means I do not believe in science. To a logical person, well aware of the fact that I believe in lots of things that require faith, this would be an invalid conclusion.

My point on the matter of evolution vs. ID is that believing in science as a predictive mechanism at all implies faith, and science that cannot predict is at best history. Therefore, the distinction between the "faith-based" ID and evolution is false and should not be used as a reason to not teach ID in the classroom.

I assure all of you that just about 0% of the examples taught to me in Math and Physics can be duplicated/created in any observable sense. This does not mean that either the examples or the theory are invalid.

[Warriorbird]

You still don't understand me but I like you, Latrin.

Of course science is based on faith. It's just based on an entirely different set of core beliefs than Intelligent Design is...thus rendering the combination problematic.

You wouldn't teach a course on Orthodox Judaism and include a prominent portion of the course devoted to Raelian beliefs, I imagine.

[Unique]

Originally posted by xtc
I don't like the idea of only evolution being taught. It is a scientific theory not gospel truth (an expression). Evolution theory has holes in it and I think it is important to examine Evolution critically.


Yes, you're right it's important to examine Evolution critically.

On the other hand, it being merely a "scientific theory" does not weaken its position. See one of my earlier posts in this thread.

To continue that line of thought...

Einstein came up with the General Theory of Relativity which claims, among other things, that we live in 3+1 dimensional Minkowski space and what we experience as gravity is actually a stress in spacetime created by the presence of mass. It's "just" a Theory, like evolution. However, theories in physics lend themselves more readily to observation than theories in biology. Einstein's little theory has been verified completely by many methods including, but not limited to, the precession of mercury, de-synchronization of highly precise clocks flown around the world, and the Global Positioning System.

However, even Einstein's little theory has holes in it. First, it falls apart completely at atomic scales (where Quantum Theory takes over). Second, Relativity's equations predict the existence of black holes. Ironically, the same equations fall apart when applied within a black hole. So Relativity (literally) has holes in it, meaning there are certain questions it can't answer.

As I mentioned before, any scientist who believes Relativity (or Evolution) is the END of debate simply does not deserve the title scientist. Any physical (or biological) theory may fall given enough time and new observations. However, and I stress, the fact that a theory falls does not discredit that theory entirely. Theories often fall for the reason that a new theory explains the same process and more and make new verified predictions not possible in the old theory.

So yes, Evolution may have holes in it. And yes, it may someday fall and a new theory will rise to replace it. Speaking as a scientist now, at present Evolution is the best we have to explain speciation.


Originally posted by xtc
Micro evolution can be repoduced, macro evolution can not. These are things that kids need to suss out and talk about.

I point out the human induced speciation of canines in the last couple thousand years.

Unique.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You wouldn't teach a course on Orthodox Judaism and include a prominent portion of the course devoted to Raelian beliefs, I imagine. Teaching a religion course is different than teaching a science course. Science is reliant upon man, whereas religion is beyond man. Therefore, pointing out the explanatory gaps of religion is a nonsensical exercise, as it's not our choice which religion is correct. Given that, it follows that a religion may be scholastically taught in the absence of information on others, though I would recommend an introductory course on religion as a whole.

Science, on the other hand, seeks to find the best explanation possible given our limited information. Also, science has a storied tradition of those viewed as (and a few who actually were) crazy nutjobs ending up being right. Therefore it is imperative to at least bring up all possible coherent explanations, no matter how apparently wrong they are. Just because you or I believe evolution is the way to go doesn't mean that it is. I still believe the harmonic series converges, but that doesn't make it so (according to the mathematical community at large, THE FOOLS).

[Terminator X]

In all fairness, if entropy included an asterisked footnote involving scientific fact that conflicted with The Bible (et al. God, 0 A.D.;First Edition: pp. 0-¥.) Then thermodynamics would probably be, at best, an obscure hypothesis indexed in the back of one percent of physics textbooks.

Stating a theory,

- The Termite

[xtc]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by xtc
Micro evolution can be repoduced, macro evolution can not. These are things that kids need to suss out and talk about.

I point out the human induced speciation of canines in the last couple thousand years.

Unique.

Yes but our tampering with the dog species isn't speciation or evolution. It is cross breeding. None of it was naturally occuring, we didn't reproduce the one breed of dog evolving into another. We cross bred its DNA which is another matter.

[Warriorbird]

Science is reliant upon man, whereas religion is beyond man.

-Latrinsorm

Curiously enough... this explains very cogently why Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in a science class. Don't get me wrong. I think ID would fit just fine in a course on Cosmology (which I've said several times I WOULD support) but that still doesn't make Intelligent Design science.

ID's backers come off as trying to foist one over on scientists, the American people, and children...which is probably one of the reasons why opposition is so fervent and fairly effective (liberals do a poor job opposing the religious right in most of its other efforts...witness gay bashing helping swing an election, for example).



[Edited on 11-29-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Curiously enough..Again, every proponent of ID I've seen practically bends themselves in half making sure they don't mention God or Allah or whoever. I don't think it's the case at all that anything supernatural is necessarily religious.

[Unique]

Originally posted by xtc
Yes but our tampering with the dog species isn't speciation or evolution. It is cross breeding. None of it was naturally occuring, we didn't reproduce the one breed of dog evolving into another. We cross bred its DNA which is another matter.

Not exactly.

Imagine we start with some wild wolves (which we did). Wolves are quite social and given the right circumstances will befriend man.

Man sees qualities in wolves he likes (protective behavior, group oriented behavior, hunting behavior). He also sees qualities he doesn't like (aggressive when provoked, etc.).

Anyway, time progresses and man has a few "pet" wolves. He keeps the ones that exhibit more social, more protective, less violent behavior. He breeds them. Now we make the ASSUMPTION that these behaviors have genetic components. Here is the weak point in my argument if you like to pick on something, although I will post references to modern research suggesting this assumption isn't far-fetched. Anyway, as I said, man breeds these more friendly variety of wolf.

Eventually, we have something that's a not-wolf, more like a dog. Not sure what breed you'd call it, but there it is. It's not a wolf anymore though.

Humans do this all the time by ACCELERATING the process of natural selection artificially. The world of agriculture is a much better example, but I won't get into it now.

The idea that breeding can't produce new species is bogus, though. Look up cabbage and its nearest relatives.

The main argument in favor of stable species lines is this: you take a fish and another fish and they reproduce. You get a fish, not some kind of not-fish. You can do this any number of times. You'll always get a fish. Never a horse.

Absorb that argument for a moment please.

The idea that a fish IS JUST a fish and every other fish also IS JUST a fish relies on the Platonic fallacy of idealized objects. In reality every fish is different, carries different genes, and every sexual reproduction creates a new and unique combination. This is the fuel of evolution: variety.

Unique.

[Warriorbird]

I can't believe you can say that with a straight e-face, Latrin.

It wouldn't make any difference anyways. The theory is based on accepting a completely "untestable" fact beforehand. Just because science has flaws doesn't mean ID's flawed non science somehow merits inclusion.

Nevertheless...

Many of the proud ID proponents have written a vast series of out and out Creationist works. Their "institutes" are by and large funded by the religious right. The non Christian component is shockingly low. If you actually bother to read their material, the Christian agenda is pretty obvious.

Unless you're an apologist or specifically deluded. You fit in the first of those two categories quite often, Latrin.

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Unique

Originally posted by xtc
Yes but our tampering with the dog species isn't speciation or evolution. It is cross breeding. None of it was naturally occuring, we didn't reproduce the one breed of dog evolving into another. We cross bred its DNA which is another matter.

Not exactly.

Imagine we start with some wild wolves (which we did). Wolves are quite social and given the right circumstances will befriend man.

Man sees qualities in wolves he likes (protective behavior, group oriented behavior, hunting behavior). He also sees qualities he doesn't like (aggressive when provoked, etc.).

Anyway, time progresses and man has a few "pet" wolves. He keeps the ones that exhibit more social, more protective, less violent behavior. He breeds them. Now we make the ASSUMPTION that these behaviors have genetic components. Here is the weak point in my argument if you like to pick on something, although I will post references to modern research suggesting this assumption isn't far-fetched. Anyway, as I said, man breeds these more friendly variety of wolf.

Eventually, we have something that's a not-wolf, more like a dog. Not sure what breed you'd call it, but there it is. It's not a wolf anymore though.

Interesting but is it macro-evolution. Breeding smaller/friendlier wolves but at the end of the day they are still wolves. No large scale changes have taken place, certainly nothing even approaching what Darwin claimed.


Humans do this all the time by ACCELERATING the process of natural selection artificially. The world of agriculture is a much better example, but I won't get into it now.

ok but are we cross breeding? or are we picking we picking certain plants/vegetables, like your wolf example and if so at the end of the day is there any evidence of macro-evolution? I know Darwin used pigeons for his evidence buy once again micro-evolution versus macro.


The idea that breeding can't produce new species is bogus, though. Look up cabbage and its nearest relatives.

ok but tell me what I am looking for
SEARCH (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=cabbage+nearest+relatives&meta=)


The main argument in favor of stable species lines is this: you take a fish and another fish and they reproduce. You get a fish, not some kind of not-fish. You can do this any number of times. You'll always get a fish. Never a horse.

Absorb that argument for a moment please.

The idea that a fish IS JUST a fish and every other fish also IS JUST a fish relies on the Platonic fallacy of idealized objects. In reality every fish is different, carries different genes, and every sexual reproduction creates a new and unique combination. This is the fuel of evolution: variety.

Unique.

I do understand what you are saying here. You are looking at the end product and saying it must be a product of evolution because of traits x,y,z.

[Edaarin]

You're all stupid, of course God exists.

Remember when SeanyDigital proved his existence because there's a magic number PHI that exists in all things in nature?

[Unique]

Originally posted by xtc


The idea that breeding can't produce new species is bogus, though. Look up cabbage and its nearest relatives.

ok but tell me what I am looking for
SEARCH (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=cabbage+nearest+relatives&meta=)


I looked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbage

Specifically, "Cabbage, broccoli (Italica Group), cauliflower (Botrytis Group), Kale (e.g. collard greens) (Acephala Group), kohlrabi (Gongylodes Group), brussels sprouts (Gemmifera Group), Chinese kale or Chinese broccoli (Alboglabra Group), broccolini (Italica x Alboglabra Group), and broccoflower (Italica x Botrytis Group) are all cultivars of the same plant species, Brassica oleracea."

Yes, all of those are formally of the same species which (presumably) means they can cross breed. I brought it up as an example because it shows the diversity that can be achieved with under 2000 years of accelerated human induced evolution.

Unique.

[Warriorbird]

I wish to follow up Edaarin's excellent comment with some words of advice from Lil Jon regarding Unique's original topic, which was:

"Evolution or What?"

Me: So. What do you think about Intelligent Design?

Lil Jon: "Whaaaaaaaat??!?!?!?"

Me: So you believe in the Theory of Evolution.

Lil Jon: "Yeaaaaaah!!!!!"

[Unique]

Originally posted by Edaarin
You're all stupid, of course God exists.

Remember when SeanyDigital proved his existence because there's a magic number PHI that exists in all things in nature?

An anecdote about Euler the math master. Once in a debate he was asked to prove the existence of god. He apparantly responded:

"e^i*pi - 1 = 0 therefore god exists. Reply!"

Oh those crazy mathematicians.

Unique.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It wouldn't make any difference anyways.Not to you apparently.
Originally posted by xtc
Breeding smaller/friendlier wolves but at the end of the day they are still wolves.Are you seriously calling poodles wolves?
Originally posted by Edaarin
a magic number PHI Man was that ever brutal.
Originally posted by Unique
Oh those crazy mathematicians. It's e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0. pi radians points in the negative direction on the real axis. :)

[Unique]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0. pi radians points in the negative direction on the real axis. :)


Oh good you caught my *intentional* mistake. mmhmmm yes, my *intentional* mistake. Good job!

Seriously. I'm a physicist not a mathematician. Leave me alone :no:

Unique.

[Warriorbird]

Not to you apparently

-Latrinsorm

Or you, clearly, what with doing a politician style "next question?"

:grins:

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by Warriorbird]