evolution

Darth> You see, I’m wondering when and how in zoology the trend began, that predators were these noble, beautiful animals, while scavengers were evil and sneaky (The Disney image). Any clue?

Ush> YOU were surprised to find people who doubt evolution. Imagine MY surprise! 🙂

Something else worth considering: Natural sciences don’t reside alone. That is to say, what happens in one field may influence other fields as well. Evolution is part of biology, which encompasses such things as zoology, anatomy, botany etc. To understand, say, the anatomy of the “bad male plumbing”, you need physiology and evolution to explain this.
Evolution is not a science unto itself.

However, this DOES needs to be discussed. If faith moves into the class-room, the US is in a bad state, indeed.

Silver Tears> You can, actually. I’m a scientist and an atheist. I don’t need faith in divinity to do research. Don’t confuse faith with morality, please. They’re not one and the same 😄

Julibug> They were. The dinosaur to bird transitional fossils I mention is complete – without the morphological gaps that Creationist claim are in the fossil record.
Presuppositions can affect a subjective opinion. However – we’re talking science here. My personal feelings about something won’t help, if I can’t apply the scientific method. One important aspect of this method is, that if I have a theory, it must have some kind of falsifiable tests or experiments that other scientists should be able to copy. This is were the subjective leaves the arena and the OBJECTIVE comes into play.

“I cannot scientifically prove creation to you.” Ok 🙂

As I’ve told you before, The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is the best proof of a Big Bang. Big Bang is also deductible from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (his theory for Gravity – space-time curves) and the best explanation for the expanding Universe.

“I look at my child, and I see so much more than genetic code.” Yes, you see environment, your upbringing and – of course – someone you love dearly. IF you are home-schooling your child (I hope he/she is not ill or something) I hope you let he/she choose if he/she wants to believe or not.

On to your C&P in next post.

Julibug> Okay, because a handful of scientist doubt an established fact, doesn’t prove the fact to be wrong. I’m linking to some sites, since otherwise I’d take op 10 pages 😄

Our good Grasse is simply wrong. Mutations DO produce evolution from one species to another. There are several ways to evolve as a species, mutation is only one of them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Here you can read why evolution is a fact btw http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html. So Michael Denton is wrong.

You wrote: ’Information theorist Hubert Yockey writes, "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." ’
He even admits that evolution is an established fact/wisdom. Again, scientists do not claim life evolved by random chance. Reread my previous posts.
About Darwin saying something about divinity: Would you tell me where you got that quote from, please? I’m pretty sure Darwin never said that. Someone called Dawkin may have, but he’s not Charles Darwin.

Palaeontology: I once again suggest you read up on fossilisation and how difficult it is for a dead animal/plant to become a fossil. And realise, that complete transitional fossil without morphological gaps exist.

Genetics: Here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html ALL you want to know.

Mathematics: Okay, AGAIN: Scientists do not say life evolved by random chance. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Scientific evidence for macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Evidence for human evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Originally posted by The Omega Something else worth considering: Natural sciences don’t reside alone. That is to say, what happens in one field may influence other fields as well. Evolution is part of biology, which encompasses such things as zoology, anatomy, botany etc. To understand, say, the anatomy of the “bad male plumbing”, you need physiology and evolution to explain this.
Evolution is not a science unto itself.

It will still be interesting to see where genetics takes us with this, though.

Originally posted by The Omega However, this DOES needs to be discussed. If faith moves into the class-room, the US is in a bad state, indeed.

To be honest, faith has been slowly removed from the class room in the US, except for in the private christian schools. I really doubt that there is any danger of it returning. So, that shouldn't really be an issue.

Originally posted by The Omega Presuppositions can affect a subjective opinion. However – we’re talking science here. My personal feelings about something won’t help, if I can’t apply the scientific method. One important aspect of this method is, that if I have a theory, it must have some kind of falsifiable tests or experiments that other scientists should be able to copy. This is were the subjective leaves the arena and the OBJECTIVE comes into play.

So, in that regard, have there been successful experiments to prove macroevolution. In other words, outside of fossils, is there any other "proof"?

Originally posted by The Omega As I’ve told you before, The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is the best proof of a Big Bang. Big Bang is also deductible from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (his theory for Gravity – space-time curves) and the best explanation for the expanding Universe.

The curriculum I have addresses that a little...

Scientists observe that the universe is expanding and most likely had a fiery beginning. In 1914 astronomer Vesto Slipher observed that some galaxies are moving away from our Milky Way galaxy at enormous speeds as predicted subsequently by the Big Bang theory. In the late 1920's another astronomer, Edwin Hubble, measured the distance to and the velocity of many more of these galaxies, establishing the expansion rate for the universe...The universe is far from being static, as some philosophers and scientists proposed; rather, it is expanding. The Big Bang theory which predicted that traces of energy from an initial fiery explosion would remain today got a big boost in 1964 when two physicists, Amo Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Laboratories, measured this background radiation remnant. More than 25 years later, further measurements of this radiation by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE satellite) fit the Big Bang theory's predictions perfectly. Some scientists have rejected the Big Bang idea, possibly because it sounds too much like Biblical Creation. In the 1920's Albert Einstein proposed a rival theory of a static universe - infinitely large and infinitely old - with no beginning (no Big Bang). He had to change the general relativity equation to obtain this result. However, this modified theory did not agree with actual observations. Later, Einstein was quoted as saying, this was "the greatest mistake of my life." Einstein finally accepted the necessity of a beginning and the presence of a superior reasoning power, but not a personal God. - ref. Einstein, A. Out of My later Years, Philosophical Library, New York (1950) pp. 27-28

Originally posted by The Omega “I look at my child, and I see so much more than genetic code.” Yes, you see environment, your upbringing and – of course – someone you love dearly. IF you are home-schooling your child (I hope he/she is not ill or something) I hope you let he/she choose if he/she wants to believe or not.

He is free to make up his mind about everything in life, but he is obviously influenced by our belief in God. I'm curious if you have children, because, when you have a child of your own, you see even more than environment, upbringing, genetic code, etc. You see a miracle.

Btw, in your other post, you asked me about a reference to Darwin's comment on divinity. I apologize - it should have said Dawkin, but either way, he rejected the idea.

It may take me awhile to go through the links you've posted, but I will. I'll be back later!

Thanks!

sorry the omega, i kinda forgot about the is thread, but i'll reply to your answers when i get home, k, btw they are nice answers , and i can answer most of them without outside help.

I'm being kinda hesitant becuase at the last forum i was at I made alot of atheist/evolutionist enemies, because of my beliefs

How can anyone doubt something as obviously true as evolution? All logic and common sense suggest that evolution happened, rather then two random people dropped into eden to start the human race. Come on now.

I'm more of an Old School Creationist... I believe there is a God, and that it was God that set things in motion in the first place... I also think it was God who designed the Universe we live in... But evolution did happen...it happened according to the laws of God, the laws of nature..

that mean you a Theistic Evolutionists

g2g

Originally posted by rusky
I'm more of an Old School Creationist... I believe there is a God, and that it was God that set things in motion in the first place... I also think it was God who designed the Universe we live in... But evolution did happen...it happened according to the laws of God, the laws of nature..

I don't think I'm so far from that myself. Not sure yet. Can't just give up the belief that God started it all, but not sure what to think about the rest of it. Who's to say God didn't execute the Big Bang and the rest is, well, history! No, wait, science. No, wait, math. Well, you know! 🙄

But evolution did happen...it happened according to the laws of God, the laws of nature..

Originally posted by finti
laws of God????????????

I think what he means is that if you believe that God created the earth - whether by Big Bang, evolution, etc. or literally created it all as is - the "laws of nature" that are in operation were put in place by God. So referring to the "laws of God" he's meaning "laws of nature". Does that make sense? It's just terminology.

Like that don't ya ? 😄

I mean like, the laws of physics right ? they're the laws of God too.. 😉

I think we posted at the same time! 🙂

well since i dont think god exist then I`ll stick to the nature of things

I think we posted at the same time!

yup ✅

"I'm curious if you have children, because, when you have a child of your own, you see even more than environment, upbringing, genetic code, etc. You see a miracle."

Why the heck can not those things you said before BE that miracle? Genetics looks pretty damn miraculous to me, when you think about it- God or no God.

Good point. I guess the difference is that I contribute miracles to the existence of a higher intelligence. But I do see your point.

higher intelligence = GOD:-)

Originally posted by julibug
I look at my child, and I see so much more than genetic code.

Any geneticist will tell you that you are correct: there is a very big difference between genotype and phenotype. Genotype is the genetic code itself, phenotype is the physical manifestation of the genes. Phenotype isn't just based on genotype--environment has a pretty profound effect on it as well. In a genetics textbook I have, it shows pictures of two pairs of identical twins. One of them had been raised together, and look almost exactly the same. The other pair had been raised seperately, and didn't look like identical twins at all. This proves how big an effect environment has. So you are seeing more than genetic code when you look at your child.

Originally posted by The Omega
Darth> You see, I’m wondering when and how in zoology the trend began, that predators were these noble, beautiful animals, while scavengers were evil and sneaky (The Disney image). Any clue?

Well, I'm not too sure, but I would just guess that it's human nature--scavengers were looked at as being the "theives" of the animal kingdom, while predators were the "honorable" ones who fended for themselves.

higher intelligence = GOD:-)