Erm...weren't finches one of Darwin's examples of speciation?
Either way, I've concluded that the strongest support for evolution is the support of most of the scientific community (much in the same way that the strongest support for creationism comes from a large part of the Judeo-Christian community).
Originally posted by FeceMan
Erm...weren't finches one of Darwin's examples of speciation?Either way, I've concluded that the strongest support for evolution is the support of most of the scientific community (much in the same way that the strongest support for creationism comes from a large part of the Judeo-Christian community).
Most of what Darwin and others noticed about the finches led to supposition. It is possible that speciation occurred. I would even say it's the most likely scenario. But it still isn't hard evidence. Neither are the whales I suppose, but logic does seem to point in that direction.
I suppose the support thing is true. Depends on what assumptions you're making. Science says that everything can be measured in some way by the five senses, religion says there are things beyond those senses.
I suppose the question becomes "Is everything eventually knowable?"
WOAH!
1. There ALREADY is an evolution thread.
2. Macroevolution is a term that has been dead for half a century. Drop it.
3. Descent with modificaiton is a simple way of looking at evolution and is part of the Modern Synthesis.
4. Many people do not believe in evolution because they can't pull their heads out of their asses. There has been overwhelming evidence for a century.
5. Darwin's finches are evedince for evolution, not this strange speciation concept.
6. There is hard evidence for evolution, but we're not looking for it in the 1800s (Darwin's finches).
"Strange speciation concept"? Like those crazy allopatric and sympatric concepts?
"Many people do not believe in the veracity of the Bible because they can't pull their heads out of their asses. There has been overwhelming historical evidence ascertaining as such."
See, now that's just not a good way to debate.
Originally posted by AllianceWe know, we're just humoring him.
WOAH!1. There ALREADY is an evolution thread.
Originally posted by Alliancehaven't taken an evolution course lately have you?
2. Macroevolution is a term that has been dead for half a century. Drop it.
Originally posted by AllianceDescent with modification was the exact way Darwin described it. The modern synthesis just replaced Darwin's "heritable factors" with genes.
3. Descent with modificaiton is a simple way of looking at evolution and is part of the Modern Synthesis.
Originally posted by AllianceAgain, most sensible people don't argue with evolution as a whole, they argue with the scale. And the evidence does have holes in it at certain scales.
4. Many people do not believe in evolution because they can't pull their heads out of their asses. There has been overwhelming evidence for a century.
Originally posted by AllianceI think feceman said it best. PS have you read "The Beak of the Finch" by Weiner?
5. Darwin's finches are evedince for evolution, not this strange speciation concept.
Originally posted by AllianceAgain, there is hard evidence for small scale evolution. For large scale evolution or speciation we have to interpret incomplete data.
6. There is hard evidence for evolution, but we're not looking for it in the 1800s (Darwin's finches).
Originally posted by FeceMan
"Many people do not believe in the veracity of the Bible because they can't pull their heads out of their asses. There has been overwhelming historical evidence ascertaining as such."
Which is why of course a person could, say, dive into academic (not just popular or romanticised) history and listen to a thousand lecturers, professors and doctors of history and would find acceptance of the claim there is overwhelming historical evidence ascertaining such.
Hey.... wait a minute.... that isn't all that correct actually.
It odd, but in all the uni courses I have done with history I have found that, in Australia at least, a very large number of Atheists and agnostics studying history and anthropology and the like... Why? I ask myself. Who knows, maybe it is learning about all the dead religions that people once believed so fanatically in. Or the massive variety. Or things like evolution of religion (all religions), the history of religions that isn't always nice (ok, very often and so on...)... Now that I think about it I'm not so surprised there are so many atheists and agnostics in certain areas of the humanities.
Or course in a more serious way, not accepting evolutionary theory is a bit different then not accepting the Bible, for the reasons why such things are not accepted to the kinds of evidence people ignore, misinterpret etc that support the two things.
Evolution needn't be in conflict with religion or religious faith, yet some of the most energetic and often misguided attacks against it have come from members of religious communities, where as science doesn't nearly as often attack the Bible, and when it is debated seriously then it is rarely based upon ignorance or misinterpretation of facts.
Originally posted by docb77
Wrong forum, this is religion, not science. Not to mention that there are already a couple of threads on this topic. Rather long threads I might add.As for the actual question. There may be some wackjobs that deny anything and everything that has to do with evolution, but most sensible religious people fall somewhere in between the two extremes.
I just don't like the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." They leave much room for confusion when discussing these subjects, specifically since there is no conclusive scientific evidence demonstrating the existence of the latter.
I'd prefer that either the terms variation and/or adaptation were used in lieu of "micro-evolution", and that the term speciation was used in lieu of "macro-evolution", so that people don't get the terminologies mixed up during discussions.
Even supposing that "macroevolution" was no longer used, it still highlights an important difference in the scale of evolution...and, frankly, it's easier to type than "goo-to-you evolution."
Also, I grow weary of the whole "anyone who sees flaws with evolution is an ignoramus" bit. Evolution is far from infallible, and good scientists should recognize, discuss, and make known to the public the flaws with it and their methods.
Unless evolution has become the Catholic church of the theocracy of science.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Also, I grow weary of the whole "anyone who sees flaws with evolution is an ignoramus" bit. Evolution is far from infallible, and good scientists should recognize, discuss, and make known to the public the flaws with it and their methods.
Is evolution perfect? No nothing is.
Has anyone given actual proof for creation? No never, in fact they haven't even tried.
I'm sticking with evolution.
Originally posted by Thundar
I just don't like the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." They leave much room for confusion when discussing these subjects, specifically since there is no conclusive scientific evidence demonstrating the existence of the latter.I'd prefer that either the terms variation and/or adaptation were used in lieu of "micro-evolution", and that the term speciation was used in lieu of "macro-evolution", so that people don't get the terminologies mixed up during discussions.
That's fair. I think that most scientifically minded people understand the meaning of the prefixes micro- and macro-. But you're right that this is more of a lay forum. We should be fairly explicit in what we're talking about.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Unless evolution has become the Catholic church of the theocracy of science.
Pope John Paul II on the Theory of Evolution
"The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."
Yet another reason why I'm starting to doubt as to whether anything this man ever said or did was loving.
(No offense to you Catholics who don't believe in the theory)
[EDIT]
Originally posted by FeceMan
Also, I grow weary of the whole "anyone who sees flaws with evolution is an ignoramus" bit. Evolution is far from infallible, and good scientists should recognize, discuss, and make known to the public the flaws with it and their methods.
Wanted to add that I definitely agree on this.
Originally posted by Thundar
Pope John Paul II on the Theory of Evolution
And, quite frankly, I'll take up the young-Earth creationist standpoint if anyone's game.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I was more referring to the way that the Catholic church restricted access to Scripture early on and the common folk were forced to rely on things on the basis of "the Church said so."
Ya I know, but I posted that quote to demonstrate the irony of your joke. According to the Pope, Catholicism now embraces Evolutionary theory, and believes that it should be incorporated into biblical doctrine.
Originally posted by FeceMan
And, quite frankly, I'll take up the young-Earth creationist standpoint if anyone's game.
I'm staying away from this one. Whatever you do, don't get into the whole literal vs metaphorical debate. 😉
Originally posted by FeceMan
I was more referring to the way that the Catholic church restricted access to Scripture early on and the common folk were forced to rely on things on the basis of "the Church said so."
Don't turn into a consipiracy theorist.
Originally posted by FeceMan
And, quite frankly, I'll take up the young-Earth creationist standpoint if anyone's game.
What do they believe?
Originally posted by FeceManSuch a position is a weak one to hold though, the Genesis account is anything but a complete account.
Literal translation of Genesis--the Earth was created in six days of 24 hours, the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old, etc.
Also, a literal interpretation should take into account the definition of the word "ewy" in Hebrew, which is translated into "day".
Ewy - Definition
day, time, year
[list=1][*]day (as opposed to night)
[*]day (24 hour period) as a division of time
[*]a working day, a day's journey
[*]days, lifetime (pl.)
[*]time, period (general)
[*]year
[*]temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow [/list]
Literally the period of time is not designated specifically in the Bible.
Originally posted by docb77
That's fair. I think that most scientifically minded people understand the meaning of the prefixes micro- and macro-. But you're right that this is more of a lay forum. We should be fairly explicit in what we're talking about.
True. But I was also suggesting that the terms probably shouldn't be used within the scientific community as well, specifically since the word evolution is such a broad term. Add to this the fact that many scientists who support the theory only use the term "evolution" when referring to both, and this gets people caught up in a whole web of confusion during discussions.
Ex:
Educated Individual(not a scientist though): The theory of Evolution is not a plausable theory.
Evolutionary Scientist: Are you trying to say evolution "doesn't" exist?
Educated Individual: No what I meant was, from what I've read on it there is no real testable hypothesis supporting it, recent breakthroughs in molecular biology have essentially refuted it, and there really is no real concrete evidence from the fossil record supporting it.
Evolutionary Scientist: What about Darwin's finches, are those not examples of evolution? Different species of cats, dogs, and plants..are you saying that these things don't represent evolution?
Educated Individual: No I just meant that macro-evolution is not possible, nor has it been a proven theory..I wasn't speaking about micro-evolution.
Scientist 2: Scientists do not make a distinction between the two, as the TOE incorporates micro-evolution and genetic drift to account for these large scale or macro-evolutionary changes, as well as natural selection......blah..blah..blah..*ended with*...please study up on evolution.
I know it wasn't the best parody. But to be honest, it is still a rather accurate one.
Originally posted by FeceMan
See, now that's just not a good way to debate.
There comes a point where you stop debating with people you've already debated with. I hate being a broken record.
Originally posted by docb77
haven't taken an evolution course lately have you?
Macroevolution is not a modern concept. If you think it is, you are wither unaware of the definition of the term or are severely misguided.
Originally posted by docb77
Descent with modification was the exact way Darwin described it. The modern synthesis just replaced Darwin's "heritable factors" with genes.
Originally posted by docb77
Again, most sensible people don't argue with evolution as a whole, they argue with the scale. And the evidence does have holes in it at certain scales.
Originally posted by docb77
I think feceman said it best. PS have you read "The Beak of the Finch" by Weiner?
Really? Because speciation is a totally secondary characteristic of evolution, not a primary part. At all.
Originally posted by docb77
Again, there is hard evidence for small scale evolution. For large scale evolution or speciation we have to interpret incomplete data.
Maybe you need un update. Evolution has changed since the 1940s.
Originally posted by Thundar
I just don't like the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." They leave much room for confusion when discussing these subjects, specifically since there is no conclusive scientific evidence demonstrating the existence of the latter.
Well, neither terms are really used today. Microevolution is no longer a concept. Microevolution now means evolution.
..this leads too...
Originally posted by FeceMan
Even supposing that "macroevolution" was no longer used, it still highlights an important difference in the scale of evolution...and, frankly, it's easier to type than "goo-to-you evolution."
Originally posted by FeceMan
Also, I grow weary of the whole "anyone who sees flaws with evolution is an ignoramus" bit. Evolution is far from infallible, and good scientists should recognize, discuss, and make known to the public the flaws with it and their methods.
This is BULLSHIT. The public has no right to have any say in evolution. This is not an opinion poll, this is science. Making science a public issue is morally wrong imo, and its disastrous for only one side, science. Your criticisms are invalid, because you have the opportunity to be informed of all these things, you just choose to ignore them.
Despite my opinion, hundreds of people have done this, writing pop accounts of evolution. People attend school. There are many ways scientists are trying to educate people, but people choose not to listen. Research is published. Conferences are held. There are many ways that the public can learn what science is doing. All it takes is brain cells and effort.
Science is complex, it has a methodology. Scientists DO recognize the sparse holes in evolution. If you actually tried to find out, you'd know the real ones as opposed to the perceived ones used by cremations (read: literal) are using arguments form the 1700s.
Science is not a public issue, people don't read a book with the same vigor that they listen to their preacher or Kent Hovnid. They don't actually understand the theory and they don't care to. They just want to bash it as they feel appropriate (and they look like morons for doing it).
SCIENCE is NOT PUBLIC POLICY. It is NOT to be judged by the public. This leads to the disaster we are experiencing right now. Research is published, accessibly by anyone. It all comes back to whether you are willing to educate yourself or if you just want to have all knowledge told to you. Obviously for many people it’s the latter, because they are just told what evolution is not and then feel they are educated enough to comment upon it.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I was more referring to the way that the Catholic church restricted access to Scripture early on and the common folk were forced to rely on things on the basis of "the Church said so."
The Protestant churched did the same thing, especially immediately following the reformation. (Hypocritical, but it happened)
Originally posted by FeceMan
And, quite frankly, I'll take up the young-Earth creationist standpoint if anyone's game.
Originally posted by Regret
Such a position is a weak one to hold though, the Genesis account is anything but a complete account.
Just take into account that Genesis 1 and 2 can't even give the same account of creation and any sort of strict argument goes downhill from there.
Originally posted by Thundar
I know it wasn't the best parody. But to be honest, it is still a rather accurate one.
If one can't use terms correctly, is that the scientists fault or the persons?