• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Religious Conservatives Demand Changes at Nation's Parks

Status
Not open for further replies.

geogaddi

Banned
Hitokage said:
The flying fuck we are. With evolution being one of the most supported and tested theories in all of science, those who counter it by taking the writings of 4000 year old men as literal infallable truth hardly match up. SUPPORT is what matters, it ultimately doesn't matter WHO you are or what you've done before... status alone means nothing to a claim's veracity. There are no authorities in science.

Creationism has been making noise as a larger push by fundamentalist christians in an reactionary attack on science and liberalism. The recent trend of "Intelligent Design" is just their new method to not get immediately smacked down in court on first amendment grounds.

It is true that natural selection (change in color, loss of wings, became blind) is supported via mutations (which is loss of genetic information or re-shuffling of the same genetic makeup) but it's the "fish-to-philosopher" evolution that is still in question because it requires new genetic information, not a loss/reshuffling of the existing genetic information.

"There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.’"- Dr. Werner Gitt
(director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology)

*waiting for someone to pull up a Talk.Origins article*
 

Azih

Member
Look there are no truths in science, only things not proven false, maybe if the extreme religous people realize this then they wouldn't have their panties in a bunch about evolution or um, erosion (as is the case in the Grand Canyon... debate) because science and religion don't address the same issues and are concerned with completely different things. It just seems to me that there is a significant amount of intolerance from the bible thumping segment of the U.S population for anything at all in any sphere that's doesn't conform to their brand of Christianity.

Their is nothing keeping religion and science from co-existing... depending on the kind of religion you're talking about, and the kind of religion that would ignore factors like carbon dating, fossil records etc in favour of it's own view that does not have any support from scientific evidence is incompatible with science and that is a major problem.

Edit: The theory of evolution is a theory. It's only around because it's the best one we have to explain fossil records and the diversity of animal/plant life that we observe. It has problems (namely there should be a much smoother progression between ancient fossils and modern species then there is), but hey the beauty of science is that you can come up with a better theory, support it via invesitgation and experiment and propose it. If it survives a peer review process from a bunch of skeptical scientists then there you go. New theory.
 
Azih said:
Edit: The theory of evolution is a theory. It's only around because it's the best one we have to explain fossil records and the diversity of animal/plant life that we observe. It has problems (namely there should be a much smoother progression between ancient fossils and modern species then there is), but hey the beauty of science is that you can come up with a better theory, support it via invesitgation and experiment and propose it. If it survives a peer review process from a bunch of skeptical scientists then there you go. New theory.

It actually doesn't take much of a mutation/duplication of a gene to create big changes in the body structure. Consider the Hom/Hox complex which appear to have been duplicated several times in evolution. Drosophila has one, and mammals have 4. This Hom/Hox complex plays a great deal in segment patterning and can play a major part in determining major morphological differences. The genes controlling the features actually don't have to change either. They could be simply expressed longer, creating more pronounced features. Another way to achieve adapations would be to simply use the same protein/major feature and use in another form.

When scientists study genes of different animals, they have noticed that it doesn't take much of a mutation to create different changes. This kind of goes into molecular evolution, and this is where a lot of the current research is going on. Erm, that's the best answer for now before I take an upper division evolution class. :)
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Azih said:
Edit: The theory of evolution is a theory. It's only around because it's the best one we have to explain fossil records and the diversity of animal/plant life that we observe. It has problems (namely there should be a much smoother progression between ancient fossils and modern species then there is),

That's only a "problem" if you absolutely, positively refuse to consider the fact that maybe we just haven't dug them up yet.
 

Azih

Member
xsarien said:
That's only a "problem" if you absolutely, positively refuse to consider the fact that maybe we just haven't dug them up yet.
Dude be careful, you're becoming a mite overzealous in your defense. I'm not refusing to consider either that the gradual fossils exist or don't exist, I'll have to see them with my own eyes (or, er, read about them in a journal when and if they're discovered) to make a judgement, as I SHOULD if I want to be scientific about the whole business. You on the other hand are convinced that they're there and just haven't been dug up yet. I'M being the scientifically rigorous one in this case.

Until either a) you dig up the links or b) prove that major changes can happen in a very short amount of time (Hammy), the theory has gaps in it. And there is nothing wrong with questioning a theory as long as you do it for valid reasons. If you STOP questioning a theory and STOP acknowledging problems that it has then you're no better than a bible thumber, albeit for very different reasons and with a very different vocabulary.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Azih said:
If you STOP questioning a theory and STOP acknowledging problems that it has then you're no better than a bible thumber, albeit for very different reasons and with a very different vocabulary.

It's not a matter of stopping the questions, it's a matter of picking the theory that has actual, tangible, physical evidence to back it up. We have a fossil record. I can look at these things, I can examine them, I can hire someone to date them.

A creationist will show me a book and tell me to "have faith."
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Some of the people here are retarded. The Theory of evolution states that all creatures evolved from similar lifeforms over millions of years. However, the consequences of evolution, that a species changes as a result of changing environmental pressures, is a proven fact. This is a very well-known thing to anyone who's studied basic science, and is usually the first idiotic thing a young-Earth creationist tries to do to attack evolution.
 

Cool

Member
gblues said:
Bullshit.

Give me a link to ONE PAPER where speciation has occurred under observation.

Evolution is a plausible theory, certainly, but it isn't tested and it's barely supported. Hell, I still cringe whenever I'm watching some nature program and the narrator says something incredibly stupid like "the such-and-such evolved +10 fangs of poison for rapid kills" as if whatever creature it is sat and said to itself, "my food keeps getting away from me. I know! I'll grow these fangs that drip nasty poison! Ooh, that's much better!"

I'm sorry, but it takes more faith to believe in evolution (as an origin theory, anyway) than it does to believe that God created it all in a week.

Nathan


IAWTP. I guess I'm now automatically a conservative southern red stated right wing bible thumper.
 
gblues said:
Bullshit.

Give me a link to ONE PAPER where speciation has occurred under observation.

Evolution is a plausible theory, certainly, but it isn't tested and it's barely supported. Hell, I still cringe whenever I'm watching some nature program and the narrator says something incredibly stupid like "the such-and-such evolved +10 fangs of poison for rapid kills" as if whatever creature it is sat and said to itself, "my food keeps getting away from me. I know! I'll grow these fangs that drip nasty poison! Ooh, that's much better!"

I'm sorry, but it takes more faith to believe in evolution (as an origin theory, anyway) than it does to believe that God created it all in a week.

Nathan

From what you have written, I suggest you read a little bit more about what defines a scientific theory, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory, and what exactly the fundamental points of the theory of evolution are. The examples you use as to its flaws are ludicrous in their simplicity and not substantive logic as to why "intelligent design" or whatever other euphemism you wish to use are just as plausible theories.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
Some people I guess are just incapable of conceptualizing the global time scale.

Evolution or mutation does not happen within a single lifetime of an animal. No one is saying it does.

One major fault of popular evolutionary study is that geneticists try to assign a time scale to mutation so as to facilitate working backwards. I just don't feel like you can do that. Not now at least.

Fossil record is vast and EXTENSE. Talk about gaps and holes is pretty irrelevant to trying to disprove the concept of evolution.

Rest assured though, humans are the greatest of the great apes... the world is still yours!
 

geogaddi

Banned
Nerevar said:
Some of the people here are retarded. The Theory of evolution states that all creatures evolved from similar lifeforms over millions of years. However, the consequences of evolution, that a species changes as a result of changing environmental pressures, is a proven fact. This is a very well-known thing to anyone who's studied basic science, and is usually the first idiotic thing a young-Earth creationist tries to do to attack evolution.

According to this article, Creationists do believe in natural selection/variations (the example they give is dogs; some dogs have thick furs others don't, depending on their environment but they claim it is genetically impossible for a dog to all of the sudden, gain genes to develop a horn or wings, for instance because it would require the rise of new genetic information). Therefore, the fish-to-philosopher evolution would require new genetic information after new genetic information after new genetic information after new genetic information which they say natural selection/variations alone can't do. The creationists ask the evolutionists; How can existing genes produce new genes in a mutation if a mutation is merely a loss of information or a re-shuffling of the same information?

My own opinion:
I read on Talk.Origins (i dunno where) about how excess information give rise to new genetic information for new functions but that most of the time the new functions are actually useless (for surviving or anything at all). But lets say that a fish grows an odd limb all of the sudden, wouldn't the fish still be a fish? Maybe if it happens millions of times (generation after generation) then it won't be a fish? That probably would take A LOT of excess information and its up to the scientists to keep on working hard to find how this mechanism actually works.
 

geogaddi

Banned
Azih said:
Edit: The theory of evolution is a theory. It's only around because it's the best one we have to explain fossil records and the diversity of animal/plant life that we observe. It has problems (namely there should be a much smoother progression between ancient fossils and modern species then there is), but hey the beauty of science is that you can come up with a better theory, support it via invesitgation and experiment and propose it. If it survives a peer review process from a bunch of skeptical scientists then there you go. New theory.

Whatever the case may be the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity. Young Earth Creationists call the fish-to-philosopher evolution a "unsubstantiated conjecture". At a conference here at Florida International University, in a debate between two biology professors, the creationist kept on saying "the conjecture of macroevolution..." while the evolutionist kept on saying "the hypothesis of an intelligent designer...". Silly humans.

Edit: I guess the whole Georgia thing is just a straw man.
 
gblues said:
Bullshit.

Give me a link to ONE PAPER where speciation has occurred under observation.
Highlighting your text and using the swell Firefox "Search Web For" context menu option, the first result I got was: Observed Instances of Speciation. Of course, it's not going to show anything like a dolphin growing wings, but at a much smaller scale. Small enough that people in similar discussions around these parts have proclaimed its insignificance.

My own opinion:
I read on Talk.Origins (i dunno where) about how excess information give rise to new genetic information for new functions but that most of the time the new functions are actually useless (for surviving or anything at all). But lets say that a fish grows an odd limb all of the sudden, wouldn't the fish still be a fish? Maybe if it happens millions of times (generation after generation) then it won't be a fish? That probably would take A LOT of excess information and its up to the scientists to keep on working hard to find how this mechanism actually works.
Sure with a tiny change it could still be compatible with fish. Just like if I took an English book and randomly translated one word to French, most people would still use it as the original book. If I do this a few hundred thousand times, however, people are going to have to start treating it as something else which can't be used interchangeably.

I'm sure there are scientists working on details like this. But lack of perfect explanation now hasn't increased the probabilities of an omnipotent, omniscient, being who appeared out of nowhere without an earlier form to make this happen. That's like taking the gaps in the theory of evolution and taking it to the trillionth power.
 

geogaddi

Banned
JoshuaJSlone said:
Highlighting your text and using the swell Firefox "Search Web For" context menu option, the first result I got was: Observed Instances of Speciation. Of course, it's not going to show anything like a dolphin growing wings, but at a much smaller scale. Small enough that people in similar discussions around these parts have proclaimed its insignificance.

Sure with a tiny change it could still be compatible with fish. Just like if I took an English book and randomly translated one word to French, most people would still use it as the original book. If I do this a few hundred thousand times, however, people are going to have to start treating it as something else which can't be used interchangeably.

I'm sure there are scientists working on details like this. But lack of perfect explanation now hasn't increased the probabilities of an omnipotent, omniscient, being who appeared out of nowhere without an earlier form to make this happen. That's like taking the gaps in the theory of evolution and taking it to the trillionth power.

Speciation is not a big deal. For instance, in a laboratory, the Uroplatus Fimbriatus (mossy leaf tailed gecko) specie can be forced (through special procedures) to mate with Eublepharis macularius (leopard gecko) and it could give rise to a new, (if mutations aren't life threatening) specie. But, it's STILL a gecko, not bat, nor a skink, nor a shark with breasts as eyes. Rapid speciation, therefore is not a big deal because the specie might change BUT the kind remains.

- It makes sense with what you said with the translation analogy. You gotta give credit to Richard Dawkings, he published this idea, originally. But in your analogy, the book remains a book and nothing more. It went from English (specie) to French (specie). I guess it brings up an interesting question, what characteristics are needed to determine a book from a non-book?
 

Mumbles

Member
geogaddi said:
It is true that natural selection (change in color, loss of wings, became blind) is supported via mutations (which is loss of genetic information or re-shuffling of the same genetic makeup) but it's the "fish-to-philosopher" evolution that is still in question because it requires new genetic information, not a loss/reshuffling of the existing genetic information.

In order to support this, I would like to see a precise, quantitative definition of "genetic information".
 

Drozmight

Member
A friend of mine went to an intelligent design conference recently and had me watch one of the videos he bought there. While I could acknowledge the problems with evolutionary theory brought up, they seemed to be basing it entirely on the fact that they couldn't account for the evolution of biological machines. Because of this, by default, a designer (code for God) was responsible. Just because we don't know how something got there or how something works... the default answer is God? It doesn't seem very scientific to me.
 

Xenon

Member
the default answer is God? It doesn't seem very scientific to me.


God is like duck tape. He covers holes and helps hold together peoples beliefs.

"Oh your son died at the age of two and you have cancer. Let get a long piece of this[takes a strip of tape and bites off the end with his teeth] and we'll just cover it up as gods will. [stands back and admires his handy work] There now, it all makes sense."
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
Xenon said:
God is like duck tape. He covers holes and helps hold together peoples beliefs.

"Oh your son died at the age of two and you have cancer. Let get a long piece of this[takes a strip of tape and bites off the end with his teeth] and we'll just cover it up as gods will. [stands back and admires his handy work] There now, it all makes sense."

There's a name for this phenomenon; I believe it is called "god of the gaps." It applies to all gods though. The various gods are responsible for everything that science can't explain...until science explains that thing.
 

ge-man

Member
Drozmight said:
A friend of mine went to an intelligent design conference recently and had me watch one of the videos he bought there. While I could acknowledge the problems with evolutionary theory brought up, they seemed to be basing it entirely on the fact that they couldn't account for the evolution of biological machines. Because of this, by default, a designer (code for God) was responsible. Just because we don't know how something got there or how something works... the default answer is God? It doesn't seem very scientific to me.

It isn't. The argument doesn't account for the possiblity something outside of God being responsible. There is nothing in the intelligent design theory that points that actually points to the concept of the Christian God being the entity behind life and the universe--this is literally a leap of faith.
 

Azih

Member
xsarien said:
It's not a matter of stopping the questions, it's a matter of picking the theory that has actual, tangible, physical evidence to back it up. We have a fossil record. I can look at these things, I can examine them, I can hire someone to date them.

A creationist will show me a book and tell me to "have faith."
It seems then that the issue you had with my post was that you thought I was creationist? Because I don't see how my original statements have been discussed. Hell all I said that evolution is the best scientific theory we have currently, but it's got problems.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Azih said:
It seems then that the issue you had with my post was that you thought I was creationist? Because I don't see how my original statements have been discussed. Hell all I said that evolution is the best scientific theory we have currently, but it's got problems.

And I'm saying that giving classical creationism any more than a light chuckle today, in 2004, is tantamount to humoring theories that still point to the Earth being at the center of the solar system.
 

gblues

Banned
brooklyngooner said:
From what you have written, I suggest you read a little bit more about what defines a scientific theory, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory, and what exactly the fundamental points of the theory of evolution are. The examples you use as to its flaws are ludicrous in their simplicity and not substantive logic as to why "intelligent design" or whatever other euphemism you wish to use are just as plausible theories.

Well, my illustration was how evolution is so taken for granted as to be anthropomorphized in umpteen zillion nature documentaries.

I am familiar with how evolution works. The common misconception is that "species evolve" which is not true (although you wouldn't know it based on the aforementioned nature shows). The theory is that the environment changes, and what used to be a minor variance in a population group becomes the difference between life and death. The creatures without some way of surviving the environmental change die. Eventually this happens enough times that speciation occurs.

But I cannot accept evolution as a human origin theory, although humans are obviously affected by evolution (witness the various races--european, mexican, indian, etc). Why, out of billions of species, are humans the only ones that seem to record any kind of history? Why are humans the only ones who seem to be capable of abstract thought? Surely if we got this way as a response to environmental changes, humans wouldn't be the only species with these capabilities!

The truth is out there.. but evolution isn't the entire answer--even if it may be a part.

Nathan
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
gblues said:
I am familiar with how evolution works. The common misconception is that "species evolve" which is not true (although you wouldn't know it based on the aforementioned nature shows). The theory is that the environment changes, and what used to be a minor variance in a population group becomes the difference between life and death. The creatures without some way of surviving the environmental change die. Eventually this happens enough times that speciation occurs.

Whoa whoa, you using archaic theory man, you are not familiar with it at all. Evironmental changes are NOT needed for random mutations to be selected for.
 

3phemeral

Member
Natiowned.jpg


Seeing these two threads together frightens me into thinking that they will never be happy until this Country becomes another Rome.
 

Jeffahn

Member
Waddaya mean the Earth isn't the centre of the Universe?

Seriously, anyone with a problem with evolution needs to speak to this man:

david.jpg
 

Azih

Member
xsarien said:
And I'm saying that giving classical creationism any more than a light chuckle today, in 2004, is tantamount to humoring theories that still point to the Earth being at the center of the solar system.
Alright cool, I just wanted to confirm that you weren't responding to my post as much as you were making a general argument against creationism.

Edit: I gets confused easily.
 
geogaddi said:
Speciation is not a big deal. For instance, in a laboratory, the Uroplatus Fimbriatus (mossy leaf tailed gecko) specie can be forced (through special procedures) to mate with Eublepharis macularius (leopard gecko) and it could give rise to a new, (if mutations aren't life threatening) specie. But, it's STILL a gecko, not bat, nor a skink, nor a shark with breasts as eyes. Rapid speciation, therefore is not a big deal because the specie might change BUT the kind remains.
But make enough specie changes, and why wouldn't that lead to being considered a different kind?

- It makes sense with what you said with the translation analogy. You gotta give credit to Richard Dawkings, he published this idea, originally. But in your analogy, the book remains a book and nothing more. It went from English (specie) to French (specie). I guess it brings up an interesting question, what characteristics are needed to determine a book from a non-book?
To continue the specie/kind thing, perhaps other than just translating words I make other changes. Slight modifications to the page size, paper type, or any illustrations. Perhaps eventually the book can become a magazine or a poster. From there it could become a table.

xsarien said:
And I'm saying that giving classical creationism any more than a light chuckle today, in 2004, is tantamount to humoring theories that still point to the Earth being at the center of the solar system.
Well, all motion being relative, the Earth could be considered the center just as well as the sun or I could.

gblues said:
But I cannot accept evolution as a human origin theory, although humans are obviously affected by evolution (witness the various races--european, mexican, indian, etc). Why, out of billions of species, are humans the only ones that seem to record any kind of history? Why are humans the only ones who seem to be capable of abstract thought? Surely if we got this way as a response to environmental changes, humans wouldn't be the only species with these capabilities!
Not even humans have been doing those things for very long. If some other species had got to it a bit faster, they'd probably have used up all the oil and made us an endangered species before we had a chance to reach this point.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Heh, since I'm in an auto shop waiting for my car to be worked on, I'll respond to a few points.

Scientific Theory: In science, a theory is an explanatory model. Nothing more, nothing less. No amount of verification will cause it to become anything else. A law is a generalized observation. The use of the word "theory" by creationists as if it had some sort of stigma is misinformed at best, disingenuous at worst. Other successful theories such as the germ theory of disease are supported by a mountain of evidence and entire industries are built around it, but nobody turns around an attempts to discredit them by calling them mere "theories".

The Decent of Humanity, as I understand it: The answer to why humans, or at least the homo genus, are unique in their intellectual capacity(let's ignore dolphins. even though they may be highly intelligent, it's not in the same way as ours) takes consideration into what else makes humanity unique. As primates, our fundamental feature is the opposable thumb. This trait allows the grabbing and manipulation of objects, be they sticks, rocks, or food. Now, to fully take advantage of this, one would need the proper brain capacity to coordinate. This presents itself as a selective pressure for higher intelligence because populations of primates that have higher intelligence will have a significant advantage due to already having the ability to use it. Chimpanzees are already fairly smart as animals go, and also fairly social. A dog, for example, won't see much benefit in obtaining greater ability to manipulate. All it has are paws. Now, with primates in general, there's a big catch: all four limbs are equal. The same limbs must be used for both manipulation and movement, meaning that what a primate can physically do is rather limited. They can sit down and do stuff, or they can scurry around... but not really both.

Now we come to the fundamental trait of the human family tree: walking upright. Our four limbs are not equal, they are specialized. Hind limbs are now primarily used for movement(our feet are vestigial hands, after all), and fore limbs are now free to do anything under almost any physical state. Active hunting with weapons/tools is now a possibility among many others. Advancements in intelligence now readily present advantages when they didn't before. The only way to go was up. Now, I'll get a little more speculative since I've only read a little on the subject... but I believe around 20,000 years ago the life span of humans got a big boost. The presence of elderly people in a tribe is possibly what elevated our social network to the point of civilization. Now, I really can't say whether or not that's the case, but it make sense.
 
Good thread. I think rationality demands that, in looking at the greater picture of things, you have to acknowledge the flaws on both sides of the arguement. Personally I'm not sold wholesale on evolution as a complete theory, but I accord it far more respect as a concept than creationism simply because the observable evidence provides it a means of provability. Creationists do have valid points against evolution in pointing out inconsistencies in the fossil records and the fact that no valid apparatus for the appearance of life out of non-life has been discovered. But none of these points amount to support for creationism on a rational basis. That is why, though I hold evolution to the same levels of accountability as I do any other theory, I consider it a superior concept with regards to explaining life on earth, because it is derived of rational and observable tenets.
 

Flynn

Member
Ned Flanders said:
Good thread. I think rationality demands that, in looking at the greater picture of things, you have to acknowledge the flaws on both sides of the arguement. Personally I'm not sold wholesale on evolution as a complete theory, but I accord it far more respect as a concept than creationism simply because the observable evidence provides it a means of provability. Creationists do have valid points against evolution in pointing out inconsistencies in the fossil records and the fact that no valid apparatus for the appearance of life out of non-life has been discovered. But none of these points amount to support for creationism on a rational basis. That is why, though I hold evolution to the same levels of accountability as I do any other theory, I consider it a superior concept with regards to explaining life on earth, because it is derived of rational and observable tenets.

Someone tell Reverend Lovejoy, Ned is having a crisis of faith!
 
Think about the next 100 years.

Relgious extremists are all going to have to go drink cyanide kool-aid as science and our understanding of the universe grows.
 
Religious extremists are too busy insulating themselves from current accepted science (as demonstrated by the thread..Noah's flood carved the canyon W00T) to care about future breakthroughs. Rather than responding to new discoveries they are trying to craft the world around their beliefs and cherry pick what they find acceptable from contemporary science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom