Remove the bolded part and see if that isn't also true.
The italicized sentence is pure conjecture unless you have some kind of proof.
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.
Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.
It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.
without teaching evolution we would be taking steps backwards for educating doctors and research scientists that create both pharmacueticals and commercial products. Learning and understanding evolution is critical for these professions.
How? Keeping in mind we are discussing macro-evolution and not micro-evolution, I'd like to know how supposing that we evolved from a single-celled organism aids in the develoment of Gell-Coated Maximum Relief Tylenol Cold or helps me learn about photosynthesis.
The whole theory is that we share something in common with every living thing. Studying different species down the evolutionary chain (model organisms) has led to breakthroughs in knowledge of not just how a representative species such as E. coli bacteria or Drosophila behave, but also how human developement behaves as well. Without the theory of evolution and the assumption that certain aspects of life are common to all species but also can be modified with evolution, we would know far less about both medicine and the natural world.
Originally posted by: akubi
Originally posted by: GeneValgene
Originally posted by: JohnCU
The environment does not adapt to allow it's inhabitants to survive, the inhabitants adapt to the environment. Survival of the fittest.
Things are the way they are because that's how we evolved.
survival of the fittest isn't necessarily a sufficient explanation for macro evolution. evidence points to macro evolution often occurring in 'bursts' in a short amount of time. this theory is often referred to as punctuated equilibrium, bursts of change followed by long periods of little or no change- this better describes the evidence than a purely gradual darwinian natural selection. a proponent of this idea is stephen jay gould of harvard, who is one of the most prominent biologists in the world today (and also a staunch critic of intelligent design). here's an article from gould Evolution of Life on Earth
however, i wouldn't say all of intelligent design is all crock. i woudl suggest william dembski's The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) . he is a mathematician who has a phd from u of chicago, and has done post doc at MIT and princeton - he's one of the leading voices in the intelligent design movement.
please do not smear MIT's good name with your crock of bs. he did not study at MIT (yes, I know you said post doc, but that means nothing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski
his educational background seems to indicate that he is just one of the many math phd's who simply could not compete with the real geniuses in the field; so he took one of the many cop outs and got another degree in philosophy and theology ( :roll: ). now he's trying to make a living by publishing horsesh!t and trying to justify it with pseudoscience.
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.
Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.
It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.
without teaching evolution we would be taking steps backwards for educating doctors and research scientists that create both pharmacueticals and commercial products. Learning and understanding evolution is critical for these professions.
How? Keeping in mind we are discussing macro-evolution and not micro-evolution, I'd like to know how supposing that we evolved from a single-celled organism aids in the develoment of Gell-Coated Maximum Relief Tylenol Cold or helps me learn about photosynthesis.
The whole theory is that we share something in common with every living thing. Studying different species down the evolutionary chain (model organisms) has led to breakthroughs in knowledge of not just how a representative species such as E. coli bacteria or Drosophila behave, but also how human developement behaves as well. Without the theory of evolution and the assumption that certain aspects of life are common to all species but also can be modified with evolution, we would know far less about both medicine and the natural world.
Remove the bolded part and see if that isn't also true.
The italicized sentence is pure conjecture unless you have some kind of proof.
Both are flawed analogies, so don't base your beliefs on either of them.Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ID is like this.
put about 5 lbs of iron ore in a bag. shake the bag, how long will you have to shake the bag before you can open the bag and pull out a watch.
you could shake it for an eternity and it simply wouldn't happen.
True, but your analogy bears no resemblence to evolution.
Let's keep the bag, but to be analogous to the discrete base-4 coding of DNA, let's fill it with a discrete form of data, say Scrabble letter blocks. Let's say our goal is to get the Lord's Prayer, so we'll pick out the appropriate number of blocks and see what we get. If you picked a random set of 292 blocks each time randomly, it would take you 55 (26 uppercase, 26 lowercase, comma, space, and period) to the 292 (number of characters in the prayer) power tries, which is about 10 to the 510th power attempts.
On the other hand, if you applied selection, by keeping the blocks that matched from every pick, you could do it in around 10,000 tries. Evolution is based on natural selection, not randomness, and that 10 to the 506th power factor increase in selection in this simple example shows how selection produces results than randomness never could.
so, you take the universe before big bang. it's one continous matter/energy form. in it's explosion this energy forms into various types of matter
Note that randomness isn't driving this behavior either. Quarks are bound in protons and neutrons by the strong nuclear force, protons and electrons are joined in atoms by the electromagnetic force, and stars and galaxies form through the attractive power of gravity.
entropy theory agrees to an extent. higher forms of energy to lower forms of energy.
Entropy is not as simple as your intuitive conception of disorder.
Furthermore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases overall in a closed system. A moment of thought will reveal that the Earth is obviously not a closed system, since it's a bit warmer here than the average temperature of the universe, which is around -270 Celcius. Energy from the Sun drives all life on Earth, either directly or indirectly, and the amount of entropy increase generated by the Sun's daily activities dwarves any small decrease in entropy in the life on our planet.
Originally posted by: Siva
I'm pretty sure any biologist would agree and these are the people who are responsible for our knoweldge.
Originally posted by: rnp614
Evolution is very real. Embrace it.
No, not at all. Rather, they sound like statements made by people congnizant of the pertinent facts and unhindered by religious dogmatism.Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Siva
I'm pretty sure any biologist would agree and these are the people who are responsible for our knoweldge.
Originally posted by: rnp614
Evolution is very real. Embrace it.
These statements sound like they're coming from brainwashed people to anybody else?
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Siva
I'm pretty sure any biologist would agree and these are the people who are responsible for our knoweldge.
Originally posted by: rnp614
Evolution is very real. Embrace it.
These statements sound like they're coming from brainwashed people to anybody else?
The leader is good, the leader is great, I surrender my will, as of this date.
Originally posted by: ArtVandalay
Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I can't speak for him, but my answer to that would be scientific theory. It's theorized that early conditions on our planet led to the creation of very simple life forms. Lab tests have synthesized bits of proteins and DNA by simulating this environment.
Ah, I love this comment. I've heard this many times before and if the earth existed as they said it did then sure it could happen. However, how do these scientists know what the earth was like millions of years ago? They can theorize and speculate, but they cannot know. The thing we do know is evolution in the short-term is a fact and reality. We see it everyday with bacteria forming antibiotic resistance. It happens, the question ultimately lies in how everything started really.
Originally posted by: cscpianoman
Originally posted by: ArtVandalay
I can't speak for him, but my answer to that would be scientific theory. It's theorized that early conditions on our planet led to the creation of very simple life forms. Lab tests have synthesized bits of proteins and DNA by simulating this environment.
Ah, I love this comment. I've heard this many times before and if the earth existed as they said it did then sure it could happen. However, how do these scientists know what the earth was like millions of years ago? They can theorize and speculate, but they cannot know. The thing we do know is evolution in the short-term is a fact and reality. We see it everyday with bacteria forming antibiotic resistance. It happens, the question ultimately lies in how everything started really.
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
its pretty evident no intelligence went into the creation of some people
Originally posted by: cscpianoman
Ah, I love this comment. I've heard this many times before and if the earth existed as they said it did then sure it could happen. However, how do these scientists know what the earth was like millions of years ago? They can theorize and speculate, but they cannot know. The thing we do know is evolution in the short-term is a fact and reality. We see it everyday with bacteria forming antibiotic resistance. It happens, the question ultimately lies in how everything started really.
Originally posted by: Lorn
Oh, and why are you guys so concerned about all of this research that 'proves' or 'disproves' things. Nobody can 'prove' ANYTHING. We're all zeros and we're all going to die and dissapear into oblivion like the trillions before us.