Evolution: Your Thoughts

[ET Warrior]

If you had used the 'I can't observe it scientifically, therefore it's not there' argument 150 years ago, you would have denied the existence of bacteria.

That's not true, because while we couldn't necessarily SEE said bacteria, we could observe the effects of the bacteria.

Even subatomic particles that we cannot necessarily directly observe, we can indirectly observe them through their interactions and effects on the universe.

 

There is no observation of a god, direct or indirect. You can attribute things to the power of god if you wish, but I prefer to accept the logical and natural explanations.

Our knowledge of science is so young we can't rule out the existence of God.

We'll never be able to rule out the existance of god, just as we cannot rule out the existance of invisible and undetectable space aliens controlling our thoughts and actions. This doesn't lead me to conclude that I should believe in those aliens, however.

 

 

I haven't stated my opinion on this matter as of yet, but I suppose it may be obvious that I'm not part of the creation camp. I believe in evolution as much as I believe in gravity. Some of the specifics may be incorrect, but on the whole the theory is far to sound and far too tested to be entirely wrong.

It is my belief that anyone who argues against evolution does not understand evolution.

[Maverick5770]

The main thing I can't get about evoloution is, where did it all come from, was it always there, or what? Can someone please clarify that, or is it another of the holes in evoloution?

[CSI]

Well, I think Da Vinci's Evolution is quite correct. Every live beings are evoluted from single-cell beings. But I don't really believe what Bible says.

[Samnmax221]

The main thing I can't get about evoloution is, where did it all come from, was it always there, or what? Can someone please clarify that, or is it another of the holes in evoloution?

It doesn't come from anywhere, it just exists.

[ET Warrior]

The main thing I can't get about evoloution is, where did it all come from, was it always there, or what? Can someone please clarify that, or is it another of the holes in evoloution?

Evolution makes no statements or claims as to the origins of matter or the very first life-forms.

 

The first life-forms is a matter of biogenesis. Not related.

[lukeiamyourdad]

The history of science and medicine is filled with examples of times where what we thought was serious science turned out to be dead wrong. We used to think illness was caused by 'bad humors'. We used to think mercury was a medicine. We used to think the sun went around the earth (and had numerous math equations to explain the 'anomalies' that actually proved the earth went around the sun). We used to think in the 1800's that infections were caused by spontaneous generation. The treatment of glaucoma has changed rather dramatically in the last 20 years as we learned more about the eye. Some of the things we do now in medicine will probably be found to be wrong in 100 years when we have more information on how the body works and have a paradigm shift in treatment modalities.

 

I see this as science evolving. You first examples are taken from a time when there was no rigorous method in science. You could do whatever you wanted, claim whatever you wanted. Today, as you must know, every new theory has to be tested again and again. The community keeps a close eye on everything. It is not easy to pass anything as "science".

 

As for the second part, I got nothing to say except that again, it's science evolving. I'm not too familiar with medecine, that's all I got.

[Pavlos]

The main thing I can't get about evoloution is, where did it all come from, was it always there, or what? Can someone please clarify that, or is it another of the holes in evoloution?

 

Here and here are some good reads.

[Vaelastraz]

Reading the debate reminds of a famous paradox...I'm sure you all know it.

 

 

Anyway @ Jae:

 

You said, before we had microscopes, we could not prove that they exist. Do you really think, it's the same with god?

 

Personally I don't think we will ever be able to prove that god exists. After all religion is all about faith.

[Darth InSidious]

^^Claim what? It was the Vatican that sent Gallileo into house arrest. I'm not sure what you are getting at. All I am saying is that the feud between science and religion is a long one and both sides have their perks and downfalls. Evolutionary theory is merely one of those rounds that continues the flame to ignite.

 

The Catholic Church doesn't claim creationism over evolution.

 

The Catholic Church's teaching on the Book of Genesis has, for a very long time been that it is allegorical, initially was neutral to the theory, and now fully accepts it.

 

As to Galileo, actually, it was the Inquisition. Different body

 

RE: science and our perceptions: I think some people have misinterpreted what I said.

 

What I meant was that while we can indeed deduce a certain amount from science, and perceive a certain amount, we cannot see or interpret the whole of existence. A microbe cannot perceive the entire petrie dish.

 

Our knowledge of the universe through science is incomplete. Right now, I wouldn't rule anything out.

[Negative Sun]

Our knowledge of the universe through science is incomplete. Right now, I wouldn't rule anything out.

I couldn't agree more...I could say stuff as well but you've said it all

[JediMaster12]

So Insidious, you prefer the sit back and watch approach?

 

Well, I think Da Vinci's Evolution is quite correct. Every live beings are evoluted from single-cell beings.

Da Vinci did not develop the theory of evolution. It was a man named Charles Darwin who first proposed the idea through the process of natural selection. The most well know example is when he went a sailing on the Beagle and stopped at the Galapagos Islands and observed the finches. This has a bearing with the idea of gentics which dates back to Gregor Mendell's time with his pea plants and the the idea of heredity.

 

Da Vinci was a scientist, Renaissance man if you will. His thing deals with the what is featured in Dan Brown's book the Da Vinci Code. That is a totally different topic.

[Pavlos]

Da Vinci did not develop the theory of evolution. It was a man named Charles Darwin who first proposed the idea through the process of natural selection. The most well know example is when he went a sailing on the Beagle and stopped at the Galapagos Islands and observed the finches. This has a bearing with the idea of gentics which dates back to Gregor Mendell's time with his pea plants and the the idea of heredity.

 

Da Vinci was a scientist, Renaissance man if you will. His thing deals with the what is featured in Dan Brown's book the Da Vinci Code. That is a totally different topic.

 

Which makes you think that Darwin must have been terribly ill-informed not to have read anything by Mendel. Admittedly, he was a monk in a remote location... but if Darwin had been able to make the connection between what he was seeing and genetics, we may well have a few more answers in this field than we do today.

[Bimmerman]

@DarthInSidious: The Catholic Church does not claim that now; however, they did in the past. The Inquisiton was created to quiet dissenters like Galileo, and was run and controlled by the Catholic Church. Same body.

 

"At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26 Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence, and accepted the orders. (p. 253. Source: Drake, Stillman, Galileo At Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. ISBN 0-226-16226-5)"

 

The Inquisition was created in 1542 by Pope Paul III to defend the faith and combat heresy. Galileo's observations and studies were considered heresey. The church has had a wide-ranging about-face on evolution, heliocentric universe, and a wide range of other scientific advancements. Modern Catholicism compared with Full-Blown Medieval Catholicism is like comparing American and German beer. Or a Toyota Prius and a Hummer.

[JediMaster12]

Which makes you think that Darwin must have been terribly ill-informed not to have read anything by Mendel. Admittedly, he was a monk in a remote location... but if Darwin had been able to make the connection between what he was seeing and genetics, we may well have a few more answers in this field than we do today.

Well there were other studies done around Darwin's time concerning this. There were the early embryonic studies and a bunch of other studies that I can't list at the moment because my notebook is buried under a pile of stuff and dust. Anyway Darwin would have had to have read something and put two and two together to get four. Later discoveries we have to thank for deepening our knowledge like Watson and Crick with the double helix of DNA. There are some things that have yet to be answered and maybe they can't be answered using science. All we can do is push forward using what we know to develop new ways to approach the same questions that elude us.

[RaV™]

I really don't think there is a higher being above anyone else. I beleive we evolved just through scientific reasons. Though I am not saying this because im an athiest it's just my look on evolution..

[Jae Onasi]

Which makes you think that Darwin must have been terribly ill-informed not to have read anything by Mendel. Admittedly, he was a monk in a remote location... but if Darwin had been able to make the connection between what he was seeing and genetics, we may well have a few more answers in this field than we do today.

 

Well there were other studies done around Darwin's time concerning this. There were the early embryonic studies and a bunch of other studies that I can't list at the moment because my notebook is buried under a pile of stuff and dust. Anyway Darwin would have had to have read something and put two and two together to get four. Later discoveries we have to thank for deepening our knowledge like Watson and Crick with the double helix of DNA. There are some things that have yet to be answered and maybe they can't be answered using science. All we can do is push forward using what we know to develop new ways to approach the same questions that elude us.

 

Darwin's 'Origin' were written several years before Mendel's 'Versuche' (1859 and 1866 respectively), so Darwin wouldn't have had access to Mendel's findings--they hadn't been published at the time Darwin wrote Origin. Here's an interesting article from American Journal of Botany that discusses the reliability of Mendel's data (there's some question on whether he falsified data, the authors here feel he didn't) and a discussion towards the end of the article of whether Mendel supported or opposed Darwin. Here's a very brief history of major developments in the history of genetics.

 

Da Vinci is the quintessential Renaissance man because he lived during the Renaissance. And he was incredibly brilliant and talented in so many areas.

Dan Brown's book on the Da Vinci Code is pure fiction, and thus can't be quoted as a scientific source (or theological, since he plays fast and loose with his religious sources and facts, too).

 

I believe in evolution as much as I believe in gravity. Some of the specifics may be incorrect, but on the whole the theory is far to sound and far too tested to be entirely wrong.

It is my belief that anyone who argues against evolution does not understand evolution.

It's been studied quite a bit, and there are a lot of consistencies. There are some inconsistencies that need to be addressed as well, just as there is in any science.

Believe me, I understand evolution. I understand creationism. I did a paper on both. I have enough college science under my belt to make _me_ sick, much less everyone else. I don't find the two mutually exclusive. I just happen to think God organized it all rather than it being left to pure chance. I think He happened to set up some scientific laws and had life develop in accordance with those laws.

 

@Emperor Devon--on the topic of free will--would you want someone to love you because they were forced to, or because they wanted and chose to love you? There's no such thing as forced love. He wants to share love with us. We can't have that kind of relationship if we have no choice in the matter. The only way to have a mutual love relationship is if God gave humans a choice on whether to love Him or not.

[Hallucination]

I believe the world was made by the Great Salmon Wilhelm (as dictated in the Great Book, the Bobbler), and he used the Divine Dominoes, which would be knocked down at a certain time of His Fishyness' choosing to change the inhabitants of New Earthington (how the Earth is referred to in the first book of the Bobbler, Fishocoles) to fit his grand design.

[ET Warrior]

I just happen to think God organized it all rather than it being left to pure chance. I think He happened to set up some scientific laws and had life develop in accordance with those laws.

I have no qualms with that viewpoint. I think people should absolutely feel free to believe what they wish.

 

Our knowledge of the universe through science is incomplete. Right now, I wouldn't rule anything out.

I don't think I've misunderstood you at all. I get that we obviously don't know everything, and science doesn't have all the answers, nor does it deal in absolutes. But you've never addressed how YOUR viewpoint has any benefit at all. If everyone took that viewpoint, there wouldn't BE progress in science, because why bother trying to learn anything when it's impossible to prove anything for certain?

[Emperor Devon]

There's no such thing as forced love.

 

Since when did I propose love?

 

He wants to share love with us.

 

Then He can stop innocents from dying.

 

The only way to have a mutual love relationship is if God gave humans a choice on whether to love Him or not.

 

Hard to love someone if you don't know He exists.

[Darth InSidious]

I don't think I've misunderstood you at all. I get that we obviously don't know everything, and science doesn't have all the answers, nor does it deal in absolutes. But you've never addressed how YOUR viewpoint has any benefit at all. If everyone took that viewpoint, there wouldn't BE progress in science, because why bother trying to learn anything when it's impossible to prove anything for certain?

 

The point is to increase our knowledge of the universe in order to understand it better. The same point of science as has always been.

 

You can't prove anything for certain, but science isn't about proof, but evidence. Now, that evidence may not be certain either, but the main reason to continue searching even if the evidence is not certain is surely to try and make that evidence *more* certain?

 

I don't particularly care if my point of view is advantageous or not. It's true.

 

Also, re: your point on God and bacteria - Believe it or not, but back before we had microscopes, some people refused to believe the effects of bacteria were caused by this invisible monsters.

 

Who is to say that you are not acting just like them over God? I'm not accusing you, nor labelling you - you have every right to stick to your opinion and belief on the subject, but I ask if you can prove to me that what others might attribute to divine intervention is in fact perfectly normal science?

 

In any case, is learning through science and the scientific method a necessarily good thing?

 

Then He can stop innocents from dying.

 

He also gave us free will. To interfere, even to save lives or do good, would be to destroy that freedom.

 

Hard to love someone if you don't know He exists.

Indeed.

 

"Happy are you, who have seen and believed. But how happy are those who have not seen and yet believe."

 

Faith isn't absolute, or enough. You also need reason, but that's another discussion. My point is, that everyone is occasionally caused to doubt their belief. To do so is natural, and part of being human.

 

We don't know he exists. Not for certain. But we interpret the evidence that we perceive as showing that he does.

[JediMaster12]

It's been studied quite a bit, and there are a lot of consistencies. There are some inconsistencies that need to be addressed as well, just as there is in any science.

Believe me, I understand evolution. I understand creationism. I did a paper on both. I have enough college science under my belt to make _me_ sick, much less everyone else. I don't find the two mutually exclusive. I just happen to think God organized it all rather than it being left to pure chance. I think He happened to set up some scientific laws and had life develop in accordance with those laws.

Same here. Every anthro course I have taken involves some introduction into evolution but it is mostly at the end concernig humans which is what we study. In terms of scientific laws how about the Golden Ratio and the Divine Proportion. They are one and the same but my favorite number: 1.618. That number exists everywhere.

 

@Emperor Devon--on the topic of free will--would you want someone to love you because they were forced to, or because they wanted and chose to love you? There's no such thing as forced love. He wants to share love with us. We can't have that kind of relationship if we have no choice in the matter. The only way to have a mutual love relationship is if God gave humans a choice on whether to love Him or not.

God gave us free will. We chose to disobey Him and now we pay the consequence. He still loves us though for God so loved the Earth that He sent his only begotten Son so that he may die for our sins.

[ET Warrior]

In any case, is learning through science and the scientific method a necessarily good thing?

I probably don't have to point out the irony of asking a question like that on an internet forum that you posted from your personal computer do I?

[Prime]

In any case, is learning through science and the scientific method a necessarily good thing?

It's as good or as bad as the person who is applying the method, since unlike religion, the Scientific Method doesn't preconclude what the answer is.

[Jae Onasi]

It's as good or as bad as the person who is applying the method, since unlike religion, the Scientific Method doesn't preconclude what the answer is.

 

Hmm, in some ways the scientific method does preconclude. We see evidence, we come up with an idea on why things are happening the way they are, and then do experiments to confirm or deny that theory. We have to have a reason for the experiment, so in some ways we are preconcluding an answer. For instance, I've noticed that some patients who wear contact lenses complain of dryness, and when I switch them to a contact lens solution with different/no preservatives, the dryness frequently goes away. I've made a preliminary conclusion that dryness could be due to an allergy to a specific preservative in a contact lens solution. If I was in a research setting I'd be able to put that theory to the test by doing allergy testing on those with dryness, doing some well-designed studies to show if the solution preservative is the culprit or not, that kind of thing. However, I've come up with the preliminary conclusion already and think that I've probably got the right answer, but I can't know for sure until better designed testing for data can be done.

[JediMaster12]

Your eye solution is a good example Jae of how science disproves but in your case it confirmed your supposition with the dry eyes. Theories are based on observation. You then use the scientific method to see if it holds true. In the case of evolution, every bit of evidence we uncover only supports it, not disproves it, which is the goal of science.