Evolution And My Job

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304737259' post='2238267']
I'm done dialoguing with you. You are denying reality and your understanding of the nature of Sacred Scripture is at worst erroneous and at best very poor, simplistic, narrow, stagnant, unreasonable and even pharasaical.[/quote]

I'm denying your interpretation of them, based upon a language other then what they were originally written in.

- I said that they were written in Hebrew not Latin, true or false? TRUE
- I said that your interpretation is clearly unorthodox, true or false? TRUE according to all the early church fathers, and the text itself.
- I said that your comment about the birds being the only species to survive, being false, is true or false? TRUE, as fish and reptiles also survived according to the fossil record.

You have repeatedly said "Genesis does not only hint toward the idea of evolution it reveals it", when in reality there is not a single hint at evolution in the text itself. It is the story of "creation" for a reason. Even scientists like Eugenie Scott and Keneith Miller [a roman catholic] do not accept your interpretation because it's unorthodox. Lastly, your comments about dinosaurs doesn't fit with the fossil record, as the article that I posted pointed out.

[quote]Not to mention you are blowing my interpretations out of proportion, misreading them and showing absolutely no respect for a work I've put countless hours into.
[/quote]

I'm sorry that I took an axe to your high horse, I'd give you a ladder but it is funnier watching you squirm as you fall to the concrete.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]
This is common propaganda of those who support Darwin's Theory and is taught as part of the evolutionary theory, but I reject it. Micro-evolution and macro evolution are not the same but with longer periods of time. If a sting ray were to go from the salt water of the ocean and slowly adapt to fresh water through traveling up a river, very slowly. This is micro-evolution, as he still is a sting ray but his body has gone through small genetic changes. However there is no evidence that if he were to spend extended periods near the beach that he would slowly grow legs. There is no evidence that his body would slowly lose weight and he'd learn to fly. If we were to take a standard land roving animal and ask ourselves, "what changes would this animal need to become a sea going animal like a whale", we are not talking small changes, we are talking major changes, not just having to do with small external changes. We're talking about the brain evolving, the skin getting water resistant, it's means for breathing changing, it's brain patterns changing, etc.

Note: Scientists do not even have a clue as to how great white sharks reproduce. It's never been witnessed in the world whatsoever, so what makes you think they are even at the stage of making an informed decision as to the origins of that species, or any species for that matter?[/quote]

Sorry, but I'm finding your descriptions to be a bit confusing. I don't know if I'm assuming too much based on a lot of my time spent on reading creationists distortions and transferring that to you or because of your use of language. Your stingray example looks a bit Lamarckist, which has already been proven to be false a long time ago. A stingray will not grow legs because it's near a beach, it will walk on the beach if it evolves some sort of limbs that can be used as legs which give it a competitive advantage open the way for better limbs to evolve because of natural selection.

As for the whale, transitional fossils have been found, their DNA has been traced back to their divergence from artiodactyla (hoofed mammals) which also gave rise to giraffes and hippos, using genetic markers and comparing the percentage of similarities are one would in a family tree, not to mention the vestigial organs which are still present in their DNA but have been deactivated such as whales with legs. They even move like mammals when they swim, flexing their spines up and down and not side to side like a fish. If I do recall...the bible placed them as the same "kind" as fish?

How does scientists not having observed a great white reproduce affect all the evidence supporting neodarwinism? I would say they they [i]are[/i] informed on the origin of some species, since new species coming into existence have actually been observed...

[quote]Well it is just as scientific as darwin's theory. Surely it's at odds with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection Evolution, no doubt about it but many scientists agree that Darwin's Theory is severely inadequate. Just because most liberal college universities have done their best to exclude it, doesn't mean that the issue has been settled. A Scientific Decent of Darwin's Theory, made it clear that there are scientists with a different perspective, who reject darwin's theory of natural selection and all the other evolutionary processes that you mentioned.

Hypothetically, if we were to say that scientists studied the patterns of the brain and concluded that it was only possible through some sort of intelligent causation, is that not a scientific process? Surely it is, the problem is that this politically correct atmosphere will never allow for such to be acknowledged because it might open up the possibility to G-d being recognized and an absolute truth. You and I both know that if we could prove the G-d of Roman Catholicism scientifically, that would be rejected regardless of it's validity. Intelligent Design does not reject evolution, rather it rejects this radical interpretation of macro evolution to the point that Darwin's Theory takes it. The problem with darwin's theory is that the mathmatical possibility of such mutations is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion, essentially zero [as Dr. Gerald Schroder puts it]. If you talk to any mathmatician and ask them, without telling them that we're talking about evolution, about the possibility of such happening, they will tell you that it's impossible.[/quote]

Darwin's common ancestor idea is an deduction based on DNA evidence much like the universe coming from the big bang is based on our observations of it's expansion. To add to the evidence for that, you have things such as the microwave background. Nobody observed the big bang, but if you were to put such limitations on what science can achieve then you won't get further than what a person can observe in their lifetime or since our species started recording their scientific observations.

ID does not answer any questions, is not falsifiable and is essentially an argument from ignorance. What Behe's point was with the flagellum was basically that a flagellum could not have existed without all it's parts, but it was refuted by Ken Miller who showed how it evolved from a bacteria's cellular "pore", which had a whole different function but evolution works like that: it adapts and evolves based on what it's got.

Dr. Gerald Schroder is a physicist, and when biologists who are studying macroevolution are saying that they don't know all the details yet, whatever he has to say would be just as good as the mathematician Dembski's assertions who in order to "disprove" evolution had to distort and misrepresent it so much that even a student in high school with the minimal understanding of the theory could point it out. Well, if you distort what a theory is about enough, it's obvious that it's going to look ridiculous. :eyeroll:
Genes and their interactions are complex, genetic inheritance has "memory" and increases in complexity which make probability estimates along the lines of Hoyle's plane in a junkyard analogy incredibly off the mark strawmen.

[quote]Because by it's very nature it's undirected mutation. To say that G-d's hand guided it, is unnecessary at best and unscientific at worst. Thou we don't agree on much, I'm glad that we do agree that it's incompatible with the literal [and I'd say figurative] interpretation of genesis. I mean, even if you believe Genesis to be figurative in the sense that the world was not created in 7, 24hr days, it still wouldn't fit with the evolutionary process as Darwin Understood it.[/quote]

I'm going to defend the theistic evolution here...

A [i]supernatural[/i] god, if he exists, is beyond the realm of science anyways, which only has access to the [i]natural world. [/i]That's why I don't see it as incompatible for a person who believes in the supernatural. What I've read on theistic evolution, god guides the process as if from behind the curtains through his omniscience. There are many different shades to this sort of belief though.

Science can't really make statements about what's beyond the natural world if there is a beyond the natural word. It shaves god out of the picture with Occam's razor, but hey, if people want to believe in that sort of a guidance, science it would be sort of like reading the mind of god I think (pantheistic inclinations speaking).

[quote]I disagree, I think that it is widely accepted at most universities, but I won't say that it's possibily one of the most important theories in biology. Infact one brain surgeon [who's name I forget but i'll find it] once said that it was not necessary to read about Darwin's Theory and Evolution in order to understand the interworkings of the brain. He came under attack by supporters of Darwin's Theory but he wasn't religious, nor taking a side in the debate, just giving his opinion. There is so much within this idea of Evolution that is not understood. It is irrelevant to understanding human biology.[/quote]

Yeah, a surgeon who focuses more on practical matters of the brain (very hands on job) would not need to consult what he learned about evolution as much as somebody studying viruses and drug resistant bacteria. If I were ever to undergo a brain surgery I would want a surgeon who knew what he was doing and how to fix the problem, and not one who knew more on how the brain composed of its fish, reptile and mammalian parts evolved.
I would not say that it's irrelavent to understanding the human body however, since it is the product of evolution, and that does shine light on it and aids in understanding from everything from genetic defects to inherited diseases to even why we don't produce our own vitamin C (we have the gene for that, but it's been "broken" - just a little trivia). Like the brain surgeon example, it just depends on what you want to get out of it.

It's the theory in which a lot of facts come together and make sense, not to mention it's predictive power is truly something.

Edited May 7, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[kafka]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304738234' post='2238274']
I'm denying your interpretation of them, based upon a language other then what they were originally written in.

- I said that they were written in Hebrew not Latin, true or false? TRUE
- I said that your interpretation is clearly unorthodox, true or false? TRUE according to all the early church fathers, and the text itself.
- I said that your comment about the birds being the only species to survive, being false, is true or false? TRUE, as fish and reptiles also survived according to the fossil record.

You have repeatedly said "Genesis does not only hint toward the idea of evolution it reveals it", when in reality there is not a single hint at evolution in the text itself. It is the story of "creation" for a reason. Even scientists like Eugenie Scott and Keneith Miller [a roman catholic] do not accept your interpretation because it's unorthodox. Lastly, your comments about dinosaurs doesn't fit with the fossil record, as the article that I posted pointed out.



I'm sorry that I took an axe to your high horse, I'd give you a ladder but it is funnier watching you squirm as you fall to the concrete.
[/quote]
it is your attitude.

1. the word of God assumes all languages, even if it originated in particular languages.

2. my interpretation is not unorthodox. The Church Fathers did not have the science we have today. They made erroneous interpretations on purely scientific matters:

"The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood." (theologian Ludwig Ott)

we live in the 21st Century.

3. I never said that the birds were the only species to survive period. I was focusing on them generally being the only clade of the dinosaur group to survive. You werent carefully reading what I was expressing, and I dont think you really care what I am trying to express because you are just here to provoke and harrass people with your limited, petty, fallen and sinful view of the Faith and all your big name people you love to quote.

4. I dont base my understanding of the fossil record on one or two people, I base it on the generally accepted opinion of the whole scientific community. And I dont agree that the creation account is a story it is rather a revealed word of God which is infallible and inerrant on all matters without exception as the Magisterium teaches. There are literally thousands of commentaries, and it will probably take until the end of time for us to unlock all its truth and depth, since it is clearly concerned in part with processes of creation and it has taken a long time for reason to figure out what happened in deep time.

5. Yes I believe that the account does figuratively reveal evolution in some of the verses.

Last, yes I am on a high horse. I ride high in God.

Get a better attitude. It is people like you why I sometimes hate participating at this phorum. You are provoking and harrassing me. Your spirit is not of the Church. The Magisterium does not have an infallible interpretation of the creation account at the present and neither do you.

If you disagree with me fine, but like I said, I was just posting a few cut and pastes of my commentary. You will have to read the whole thing to get the jist of what I am saying. I just wanted to get in a dialogue with that very nice and good person xSilverPhinx. I dont like having to defend myself on every single sentence I write. You are playing the pharisee. Get a better attitude and go take care of your children.

Edited May 7, 2011 by kafka

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304735911' post='2238257']
AHHHH!!!! So much science
[/quote]

What can I say, biology is a beautiful subject

If you want, I can point to some good youtube videos on it (done by atheists, but because creationists get it so wrong)

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304736242' post='2238260']
wow thanks. And already. You must be pretty bright. I realize the science might not be perfect, since I am not a scientist but I put a lot of work into learning the science I wanted to add to the commentary. If there are any scientific errors let me know.

I think Adam means the likeness, or red earth. In the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible the word Adam doesnt show up until chapter two, in the second creation account. The two different creation accounts focus on different things.

And I am glad you understood some things. Grace and peace to you. I hope you continue to dialogue.
[/quote]

Well I'm not a scientist and not bright (I just like biology) but like I said, the interpretation of the bible to fit scientific fact is not an area I feel comfortable because I lack the knowledge. If it were to debunk a literal interpretation that would be easy.

I'll read it again, and both the creation accounts of the bible when I have a little more time...

[kafka]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304742072' post='2238297']
What can I say, biology is a beautiful subject

If you want, I can point to some good youtube videos on it (done by atheists, but because creationists get it so wrong)
[/quote]
yes very beautiful, profound and complex, and even in a sense messy like God who is Infinity. Life is Beautiful.

Physics is a little less messy.

[RezaMikhaeil]

SilverPhinx, I will respond to your arguments tomorrow. It's getting late and my wife wants to watch a movie. Very good points, nonetheless.

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304742039' post='2238296']
it is your attitude.[/quote]

My attitude huh?

[quote]1. the word of God assumes all languages, even if it originated in particular languages.[/quote] I'm sorry to tell you but this is not a legit argument from a translation perspective. Whenever a text is translated meaning is lost and added. If we want to get down to a reliable text, we have to go by the original, not a translation of a translation, which is highly inaccurate.

[quote]2. my interpretation is not unorthodox. The Church Fathers did not have the science we have today. They made erroneous interpretations on purely scientific matters:

"The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood." (theologian Ludwig Ott)

we live in the 21st Century.[/quote]

I agree that they didn't have science, that's the point. They were some of the most versed people on the Bible, yet they rejected this idea of evolution according to Genesis 1:20. Your interpretation is not based upon what the text says but rather what science says and you making despirate attempts to reconcile your faith with science.

[quote]3. I never said that the birds were the only species to survive period. I was focusing on them generally being the only clade of the dinosaur group to survive. You werent carefully reading what I was expressing, and I dont think you really care what I am trying to express because you are just here to provoke and harrass people with your limited, petty, fallen and sinful view of the Faith and all your big name people you love to quote.
[/quote]

Your original response did not make that distinction, it said specifically, "birds were the only spicies to have survived", would you like me to quote you because I can do that? My responses are not about "big name people who I love to quote", it's about the fact that credible scientists and scholars of the torah do not agree with you and have specific reasons as to why they do not, which you ignore because they destroy your arguments.

[quote]4. I dont base my understanding of the fossil record on one or two people, I base it on the generally accepted opinion of the whole scientific community. And I dont agree that the creation account is a story it is rather a revealed word of God which is infallible and inerrant on all matters without exception as the Magisterium teaches. There are literally thousands of commentaries, and it will probably take until the end of time for us to unlock all its truth and depth, since it is clearly concerned in part with processes of creation and it has taken a long time for reason to figure out what happened in deep time.
[/quote]

You act like the fossil record that I'm citing is "the fossil record according to richard dawkins", "the fossil record according to Gerald Schroder", "the fossil record according to Kenneth Miller", etc. as if they are independant gospels. That is not the case, when we talk about "the fossil record", it isn't according to any one scientist but rather the scientific community as a whole. You're right there are different commentaries on the Scriptures, but there is an orthodox interpretation that is accepted by all Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians. Go to anyone of them and ask them about your interpretation and it won't get any merit. Forget that, go to Richard Dawkins and ask him about that interpretation and he will disagree with you.

[quote]5. Yes I believe that the account does figuratively reveal evolution in some of the verses.
[/quote]

As i have pointed out, there is no evidence for this conclusion. Allow me to get out a Catholic Bible, rather then the other translations that I've been using to prove this point further. Quoting from the New Jerusalem Catholic Bible, which if i'm not mistaken is as close of a direct translation from the Hebrew as one could get, "G-d said, 'Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and let birds wing their way above the earth.'" This by no means mentions the evolutionary process, as you claim. If you read the supporting verses, they clearly go against the process science and evolutionary processes. I mean seriously. According to that account, if you see when vegetation was 'created', it was scientifically impossible for it to be sustained according to natural evolutionary processes, it would have to be supernatural, not scientific.

[quote]Last, yes I am on a high horse. I ride high in God.
[/quote]

You should chill out...if not through G-d then try the buddha [erb].

[quote]Get a better attitude. It is people like you why I sometimes hate participating at this phorum. You are provoking and harrassing me. Your spirit is not of the Church. The Magisterium does not have an infallible interpretation of the creation account at the present and neither do you.
[/quote]

I'm not doing anything of the kind, rather I'm sticking to the fact and pointing out where you are incorrect. As for "your spirit is...", I don't think that's for you to judge but you're right, I'm not Roman Catholic and at this rate, probably will never be.

[quote]If you disagree with me fine, but like I said, I was just posting a few cut and pastes of my commentary. You will have to read the whole thing to get the jist of what I am saying. I just wanted to get in a dialogue with that very nice and good person xSilverPhinx. I dont like having to defend myself on every single sentence I write. You are playing the pharisee. Get a better attitude and go take care of your children.
[/quote]

That may be, and I responded to those "cuts and pastes" of those portions of the commentary that you posted. If you're offended because I believe that your commentary is less then scentific and orthodox, don't get offended Mr. College professor, get used to criticism, that's also part of academics and science. If you got to know me, you'd see that I have a very posetive outlook on life and I do take care of my children. One suggestion that I make to you is that this is between you and me, not my children, so please leave them out of it. You don't know them, have never met them, don't know me, have never been to my house to know about weather or not I take care of my children.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]Physics is a little less messy.[/quote]

I like physics also, though it's way more difficult for me than biology when all the maths is involved.

[quote]SilverPhinx, I will respond to your arguments tomorrow. It's getting late and my wife wants to watch a movie. Very good points, nonetheless.[/quote]

Okay.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299724027' post='2219699']
So my company builds complex guidance equipment for aircraft. We keep trying to make it better alll the time. I just wonder if we just let it sit there and didn't apply any brain power to it if it would get better on it's own? Oh I suppose you could say animals are different, they have a brain. So is it the thinking of the animal that makes it go from a single celled ameba to a human? No it would seem the brain of the creature is immaterial to the evolution of life. So I'm back to not in a billion billion years would our guidance systems get better by themselves. They have to have a brain apply energy and incite to improve them. A mind external to them. I just wonder how even if evolution is a valid process it would be different. Just thinking out loud. Ignore if you like. Thoughts?
[/quote]


Do your guidance systems make new guidance systems all by themselves, or do you have to build new ones?

The reason I ask is because...the ability to reproduce is integral to both the definition of life and the process of evolution.

No reproduction...no natural selection...no evolution.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304741179' post='2238292']
Sorry, but I'm finding your descriptions to be a bit confusing. I don't know if I'm assuming too much based on a lot of my time spent on reading creationists distortions and transferring that to you or because of your use of language. Your stingray example looks a bit Lamarckist, which has already been proven to be false a long time ago. A stingray will not grow legs because it's near a beach, it will walk on the beach if it evolves some sort of limbs that can be used as legs which give it a competitive advantage open the way for better limbs to evolve because of natural selection.[/quote]

Well it's one of the most establish facts within Marine Biology that Sting Rays were once only found in salt water and that the adapted to fresh water. It's as firmly established as any other fact that we have to date. It's adaptations include:

[quote]River Stingrays have developed permanent modifications to adapt to the freshwater environment that they are confined to. One significant modification is the degeneration of the rectal gland that serves in the excretion of excess salt in marine elasmobranches. Salt water rays also have the ability to retain high levels of urea in their blood which counters the osmotic flow of fluids through their skin into the salt rich water. River Stingrays have lost this characteristic resulting in an inability to tolerate environments with a salinity greater than 3 ppt. The electroreceptive ampullae of Lorenzini among River Stingrays is also modified to operate in freshwater.
[/quote]

I would not say that it's Lamarckist because these changes do not simply happen with the offspring of Sting Rays as they procreate but rather in their lifetime. If I'm not mistaken his theory has more to do with offspring changing. As for it growing limbs, I agree that it's far fetched, but so do I think other mutation theories are far fetched. That's the point.

[quote]As for the whale, transitional fossils have been found, their DNA has been traced back to their divergence from artiodactyla (hoofed mammals) which also gave rise to giraffes and hippos, using genetic markers and comparing the percentage of similarities are one would in a family tree, not to mention the vestigial organs which are still present in their DNA but have been deactivated such as whales with legs. They even move like mammals when they swim, flexing their spines up and down and not side to side like a fish. If I do recall...the bible placed them as the same "kind" as fish?
[/quote]

I'm going to have to ask you to turn up evidence for this claim, I don't deny that whales are mammals and therefore move like mammals. That is without a doubt, unquestionable even for the most radical of skeptics. Therefore we don't need to go indepth on that because it's not a question. However, as for the fossil record being clear with whales, I will put that up for question. I do not believe that the science with that is as clear as people would like to believe it to be. I'd also extend that to Humans and Apes coming from a common ancestor. We might have similar biology, as many forms of life on this earth do share similar biology but that doesn't prove that we're linked. It might just be that we have much in common.

[quote]How does scientists not having observed a great white reproduce affect all the evidence supporting neodarwinism? I would say they they [i]are[/i] informed on the origin of some species, since new species coming into existence have actually been observed...
[/quote]

How does it affect scientists that support Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection? Well it affects modern scientists more so then Darwin's Theory as he knew it. He had no concept of a cell and his theory is quite primative. He did title his book, "the origins of species" but he truly wasn't dealing in the origins, as many modern scientists that believe in evolution have come to accept. However the modern scientists that make such predictions about the origins of life, I believe are like a kindergardner that is skipping to algebra without understanding the basics of add and subtract, or multiplecation and division. If you don't know about their means of breeding, it's highly unlikely that you're going to know about the origin of that species. The Great White is not a new species, rather it's a quite old species that dates back to some of the eldest living animals on the planet.

[quote]Darwin's common ancestor idea is an deduction based on DNA evidence much like the universe coming from the big bang is based on our observations of it's expansion. To add to the evidence for that, you have things such as the microwave background. Nobody observed the big bang, but if you were to put such limitations on what science can achieve then you won't get further than what a person can observe in their lifetime or since our species started recording their scientific observations.[/quote]

I'd have to disagree with this statement, when Darwin came up with his theories, there was no possible way of testing DNA evidence, nor did he have a simple concept of what a cell was, for that matter. We should not forget that the "Big Bang", also has it's critics, that interpret scientific data of red drifts and such differently then those that support this evolutionary concept. I agree that if you put limitations such as "nobody witnessed it so it must not be true", you won't progress and I disagree with putting such limitations, but at the same time, I think that just because you interpret the evidence in one direction and it appears to be clear, doesn't necessarily make it so.

[quote]ID does not answer any questions, is not falsifiable and is essentially an argument from ignorance. What Behe's point was with the flagellum was basically that a flagellum could not have existed without all it's parts, but it was refuted by Ken Miller who showed how it evolved from a bacteria's cellular "pore", which had a whole different function but evolution works like that: it adapts and evolves based on what it's got.
[/quote]

I disagree with this conclusion. Scientists that ascribe to intelligent design have made many scientific discoveries and pushed science further. The theory itself does not limit science, but rather rejects darwin's theory based upon it's inadequacies. We need to seperate the difference between creationism and intelligent design, they are distinctly different. Intelligent design does not require that one believe in G-d, let alone the G-d of the Bible. Nor does it attempt to put the scientific data into that bubble. Rather it allows the scientific data to speak for itself and if that data mentions some sort of intelligence in nature, then so be it. The problem is that people that accept Darwin's Theory say, "it doesn't go far enough", well maybe it doesn't go as far as they'd like it to go, they'd like it to say that we all started from a single cell organism, but that doesn't necesarily mean that it is inadequate or factually inaccurate.

[quote]Dr. Gerald Schroder is a physicist, and when biologists who are studying macroevolution are saying that they don't know all the details yet, whatever he has to say would be just as good as the mathematician Dembski's assertions who in order to "disprove" evolution had to distort and misrepresent it so much that even a student in high school with the minimal understanding of the theory could point it out. Well, if you distort what a theory is about enough, it's obvious that it's going to look ridiculous. :eyeroll:
[/quote]

Dr Schroder's arguments are much different then that of Dembskis. He does deal in physics but that doesn't limit his research nor understanding. However take him out of the equation if you like and put Dr. Robert Kaita in there. He is a Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. He has a very impressive resume, and yet also believes that Darwin's Theory is inadequate. Dr. David Berlinski holds a degree in molecular biology, mathmatics, philosphy, etc. and he also agrees that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is inadequate and that the scientific research is out to lunch.

[quote]I'm going to defend the theistic evolution here...

A [i]supernatural[/i] god, if he exists, is beyond the realm of science anyways, which only has access to the [i]natural world. [/i]That's why I don't see it as incompatible for a person who believes in the supernatural. What I've read on theistic evolution, god guides the process as if from behind the curtains through his omniscience. There are many different shades to this sort of belief though.

Science can't really make statements about what's beyond the natural world if there is a beyond the natural word. It shaves god out of the picture with Occam's razor, but hey, if people want to believe in that sort of a guidance, science it would be sort of like reading the mind of god I think (pantheistic inclinations speaking).
[/quote]

Well if a supernatural, celestial dictator G-d does exist, it is not beyond the realm of science. It might deal in the supernatural realm but it also deals in the natural realm. As Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin's Theory deals in the origins of life and the G-d of the Bible deal in the origins of life, both cannot be right, one has to be wrong". If G-d truly did "guide" the evolutionary process, that is him going from the supernatural realm, into the physical/natural realm for which science would detect and could detect. Therefore science can say, "natural selection cannot be guided by G-d because it doesn't need G-d, and there is no evidence fo such".

[quote]Yeah, a surgeon who focuses more on practical matters of the brain (very hands on job) would not need to consult what he learned about evolution as much as somebody studying viruses and drug resistant bacteria. If I were ever to undergo a brain surgery I would want a surgeon who knew what he was doing and how to fix the problem, and not one who knew more on how the brain composed of its fish, reptile and mammalian parts evolved.
I would not say that it's irrelavent to understanding the human body however, since it is the product of evolution, and that does shine light on it and aids in understanding from everything from genetic defects to inherited diseases to even why we don't produce our own vitamin C (we have the gene for that, but it's been "broken" - just a little trivia). Like the brain surgeon example, it just depends on what you want to get out of it.

It's the theory in which a lot of facts come together and make sense, not to mention it's predictive power is truly something.
[/quote]

If one were studying viruses and bacteria, surely they would need to understand some sort of evolution, an evolution that all people, including those that accept intelligent design, would believe in. This is without a doubt but Darwin's Theory of Evolution, no. I would completely disagree that it's relevant whatso ever in terms of understanding the human body. It more has to do with understanding the origins of life, if that's the theory that you accept, explaining how it all happened, then that which is modern. However, I don't want to focus on this point more so because I don't think that we're going to come to an understanding and it's a minor point that will only drag out this further. Perhaps another thread would work for that.

So yes, we will agree that micro evolution is vitally important to understand biology, bacteria, cells, etc. You'd be pleasantly surprised that Creationists hate me more then those that accept Darwin's Theory [which they call DArwinists but I don't like using that term], so I get hit from both sides of the road.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304792082' post='2238433']
No reproduction...no natural selection...no evolution.
[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken this is false, natural selection is one method of evolution. As Eugenie Scott put it, "if you disprove Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, you don't disprove evolution".

[MithLuin]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1299867385' post='2220140']
I realize I was being fascetious. Just trying to probe the thought of myself and others. I'm not against evolution as a process So did the male or female evolve first? Guessing female. Could the first female something reproduce both sexually and asexually? Or maybe they were bi. Just askin.
[/quote]

Asexual reproduction preceded sexual reproduction, but [i]long[/i] before there were humans of any variety, mammals reproduced solely sexually, not asexually. So, when asking about the development of male and female...in which species? Certainly, it's pretty far back in the chain.

Bacteria are neither male nor female and typically reproduce asexually, but can reproduce sexually. A copy of a small portion of DNA is transferred to another bacterial cell during conjugation through the sex pili. Bacteria that have the plasmid are considered '+' while those lacking it are considered '-'. Mating converts the '-' into a '+' (or into an Hfr, if the plasmid is taken up by the chromosome, but I'm trying to keep this as straightforward as possible). If whatever DNA is in the '+' is helpful, those bacteria will be more likely to survive. That's actually partly how bacterial resistance to antibiotics spread - the bacteria that are resistant share their DNA with other bacteria, which become resistant. Bacteria can even pick up DNA from [i]dead[/i] bacteria and incorporate it, but that is called transformation, not conjugation.

Isogamy is the general term for sexual reproduction in species in which the 'egg' and 'sperm' are indistinguishable from each other. Meaning, they are the same size and either both have flagella (tails) or neither of them do. So, you still need two cells to get together, and they do need to be two different types, but neither one is designated male or female. In fact, there can be more than two varieties, and any two can make a baby. Yeast can do this, as can some forms of algae and fungi. Typically, this form of sexual reproduction is not relied on exclusively; the organism can reproduce asexually under other circumstances.

Self-fertilization is still sexual reproduction, but in this case both male and female gametes are made by the same parent. It is common among plants, and sometimes two closely related species will have one group that self-pollinates and another that cross-pollinates. Cross-pollination is healthier genetically, but more complicated to orchestrate (pollen [sperm] has to be transferred to the other plant). So, each has their advantages, and it depends which is better for a plant. A grove of aspen trees is likely to be genetically identical to one another (so, asexual reproduction), but then if a disease strikes, they are all likely to get it.

Hermaphroditic behavior (one organism containing both male and female sex organs) can be observed in some animal species, but the examples I am familiar with are invertebrates such as [url=http://lhsfoss.org/fossweb/teachers/materials/plantanimal/earthworms.html]earthworms[/url] and some [url=http://www.weichtiere.at/english/gastropoda/morphology/reproduction.html]snails[/url]. So, in these cases, all specimens are capable of acting as both male and female at the same time, though a partner is needed and self-fertilization is not possible. Most plants are hermaphrodites, producing flowers (for their own seeds) and pollen (to fertilize the flowers of other plants), for instance, or both male and female cones. But some trees come in male and female varieties, so only one set of sex cells is produced by that individual. You can't have just one apple tree and expect to get any apples on it.

Sequential hermaphrodites are even trickier. The organism may start out as one sex, and then as circumstances change, become another sex. Clownfish, groupers, and wrasses are all examples of this. This also played a role in the plot of 'Jurassic Park'.

The determination of 'male' and 'female' is often (but not always) chromosomal. In mammals, XX is female and XY is male. In birds (and some other critters), ZW is female and ZZ is male. In most insects (not butterflies, ants, or bees), there is only one sex chromosome (X). If the individual has two copies (XX), it is female, and if it has only one copy (XO), it is male. In the rest, the entire cell is haploid, because the egg is never fertilized and is produced from the diploid female. This condition is known as parthenogenesis.

Reptiles are just weird, though. Some (like some turtles and some lizards) are XX/XY like mammals. Others (like snakes) are ZW/ZZ like birds. And some (like crocodiles and other turtles)...are based on the temperature at which the eggs were incubated. Sometimes, [url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-temperature-sex-determination-reptiles]both[/url] temperature and sex chromosomes can determine the sex of the individual.



The short answer to your question is that the first 'males' and 'females' were members of species in which sex was not something as straightforward as being male or female, and asexual reproduction was certainly an option. But by the time we know about them (ie, by the time they were reproducing sexually), both versions had to be in existence, so if one came first, there'd be little we could do to figure that out...since sexual reproduction wouldn't have begun in earnest until both males and females (or, well, '+' and '-' or 'a' and 'alpha') existed.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304792409' post='2238437']
If I'm not mistaken this is false, natural selection is one method of evolution. As Eugenie Scott put it, "if you disprove Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, you don't disprove evolution".
[/quote]

Yes, it was overly simplified of me to state: "No reproduction...no natural selection...no evolution."

My point was that if reproduction is not occurring...then of course evolution can't be occurring either! You can't have offspring showing a different variety of traits...if there are no offspring. Evolution, as a natural process, relies upon the generation of new organisms. If all life were to stop reproducing, well, duh, it would all die off and evolution would cease.

Evolution is an observation that organisms change over time. Thus...it is a statement of fact.

Natural Selection is a mechanism that [i]explains[/i] how evolution occurs, and thus is a theory. Theories are always explanations of natural phenomena based on experiments and observations. But the phenomena themselves are just...nature. Both Darwin and Lamarck had theories about the mechanisms behind evolution...but when Lamarck's ideas were tested out (Mendel actually did some of those experiments!), they didn't hold up. Evolution itself would be difficult to disprove, because you'd have to essentially say that species do not change over time...and they do. Arguing about the mechanism or the timescale makes a lot more sense, of course, since that is at least up for debate. Well, sorta. It was in Darwin's day, anyway.

[xSilverPhinx]

[font="Arial Narrow"][size="3"][quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304792317' post='2238436']
Well it's one of the most establish facts within Marine Biology that Sting Rays were once only found in salt water and that the adapted to fresh water. It's as firmly established as any other fact that we have to date.
I would not say that it's Lamarckist because these changes do not simply happen with the offspring of Sting Rays as they procreate but rather in their lifetime. If I'm not mistaken his theory has more to do with offspring changing. As for it growing limbs, I agree that it's far fetched, but so do I think other mutation theories are far fetched. That's the point.
[/quote]

Well I didn't mean that stingrays couldn't have adapted to live in fresh water, if I'm not mistaken there's even a species of shark that that has undergone the same process or is able to swim in both salt and fresh water without suffering too much from the osmotic effect. I actually meant that Lamarckism as a broad theory has been proven to be incorrect (except in some epigenetic sense).

Here's the wiki link: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism%20"]Lamarckism[/url]

Evolution does not happen at the individual level, or in a living being's lifetime, as that would be closer to Lamarckism than reality. Individuals pass on their genes with mutations which can manifest into a characteristic which is naturally selected by their offspring and not acquire a characteristic out of necessity in their lifetime and pass it on. It's just the way you wrote that looked to be Lamarckian, if not, then I apologise.

Would you imagine the first amphibians for instance having grown complex limbs in one go? I also think that's far fetched...sort of like saying that the eye came about in one or two generations...

Using our ancestors, for example, our limbs came from fish fins. They were rudimentary at first.

[quote]I'm going to have to ask you to turn up evidence for this claim, I don't deny that whales are mammals and therefore move like mammals. That is without a doubt, unquestionable even for the most radical of skeptics. Therefore we don't need to go indepth on that because it's not a question. However, as for the fossil record being clear with whales, I will put that up for question. I do not believe that the science with that is as clear as people would like to believe it to be. I'd also extend that to Humans and Apes coming from a common ancestor. We might have similar biology, as many forms of life on this earth do share similar biology but that doesn't prove that we're linked. It might just be that we have much in common.[/quote]

Google has loads on this, including detailed changes in the whale fossil record. As far as I know, one of the earliest fossils that has been linked to whales (a wolf-like hoofed mammal) showed evidence in it's skull that it had already begun an amphibious life (in the inner ear), an adaptation that is still present in modern whales. Other fossil links even show a succession of the nostrils moving up towards the top of the skull. As I mentioned earlier, modern whales still preserve the genetic instructions (atavism) for atrophied legs, which still shows up sometimes:

This [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans"]wiki link[/url] has a list of other good links at the bottom if you want to research this further.

What would it take to prove that both we and other apes are part of the larger ape family with common descent ? Do you see it as just a series of coincidences backed by us sharing about 92% of our genome with chimps including all the genetic markers previous to us branching off from out nearest common ancestor?

Did you know about our fused chromosome 2?

[quote]How does it affect scientists that support Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection? Well it affects modern scientists more so then Darwin's Theory as he knew it. He had no concept of a cell and his theory is quite primative. He did title his book, "the origins of species" but he truly wasn't dealing in the origins, as many modern scientists that believe in evolution have come to accept. However the modern scientists that make such predictions about the origins of life, I believe are like a kindergardner that is skipping to algebra without understanding the basics of add and subtract, or multiplecation and division. If you don't know about their means of breeding, it's highly unlikely that you're going to know about the origin of that species. The Great White is not a new species, rather it's a quite old species that dates back to some of the eldest living animals on the planet.[/quote]

Well the origin of new species is intimately linked to animals being genetically isolated from eachother, and Darwin's theory predated genetics, even though he was a contemporary of Mendel's. Darwin himself said that he didn't know the exact mechanisms of inheritance of traits, but he was on track since he theorised it as happening through distinct units of some sort (genes) and not some "amorphous fluid" like some people still seem to think even today (association with blood, I think). Neodarwinism incorporates DNA and genetics and is based heavily on that...not on the means of breeding of a species. Sure, if you have access to that information as well, it's evidence supporting a case, not making a case.

[quote]I'd have to disagree with this statement, when Darwin came up with his theories, there was no possible way of testing DNA evidence, nor did he have a simple concept of what a cell was, for that matter. We should not forget that the "Big Bang", also has it's critics, that interpret scientific data of red drifts and such differently then those that support this evolutionary concept. I agree that if you put limitations such as "nobody witnessed it so it must not be true", you won't progress and I disagree with putting such limitations, but at the same time, I think that just because you interpret the evidence in one direction and it appears to be clear, doesn't necessarily make it so.[/quote]

Cosmology is still a much more nebulous area than evolutionary biology. I was using that example merely as an analogy.

In what ways do you think that Darwinism is inadequate?


[quote]I disagree with this conclusion. Scientists that ascribe to intelligent design have made many scientific discoveries and pushed science further. The theory itself does not limit science, but rather rejects darwin's theory based upon it's inadequacies. We need to separate the difference between creationism and intelligent design, they are distinctly different.[/quote]

"Scientists that ascribe to intelligent design have made many scientific discoveries and pushed science further."

Now it's my turn to ask for evidence of this...

[quote]Intellignt design does not require that one believe in G-d, let alone the G-d of the Bible. Nor does it attempt to put the scientific data into that bubble. Rather it allows the scientific data to speak for itself and if that data mentions some sort of intelligence in nature, then so be it. The problem is that people that accept Darwin's Theory say, "it doesn't go far enough", well maybe it doesn't go as far as they'd like it to go, they'd like it to say that we all started from a single cell organism, but that doesn't necesarily mean that it is inadequate or factually inaccurate.[/quote]

Intelligent design does not require that one believe in god? What an odd thing to say...how would you define "intelligent" in this context?

IDers such as those of the Discovery Institute use the argument that there are evolutionary instances which could not have happened by evolution, such as the bacterial flagellum. Behe took that apparatus said that it was [i]irreducibly complex[/i]. Sure, as a flagellum it couldn't work without all it's parts, but Ken Miller pointed out that its predecessor was a pore, used even to secrete toxins. A whole different function, but he showed that it did not need "extra help" to [i]evolve[/i] into something else.

I don't see how this differs from creationism, albeit a more sophisticated form of creationism, who look at the world and living organisms in their present complex forms and say: those could not have popped into existence from pure chance (just as the odds of a hurricane assembling an airplane in a junkyard are basically null) therefore there must've been an intelligent creator. With ID it's the same argument, only using smaller parts or "snapshots" of evolutionary history as is the case with the flagellum example.

[img]http://www.cambridgeblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/miracle-comic.jpg[/img]

If your understanding of ID is different, then please, clarify.

[quote]Dr Schroder's arguments are much different then that of Dembskis. He does deal in physics but that doesn't limit his research nor understanding. However take him out of the equation if you like and put Dr. Robert Kaita in there. He is a Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. He has a very impressive resume, and yet also believes that Darwin's Theory is inadequate. Dr. David Berlinski holds a degree in molecular biology, mathmatics, philosphy, etc. and he also agrees that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is inadequate and that the scientific research is out to lunch.[/quote]

I looked up Berlinski, tried to keep my biases in check when I saw that he's a Senior Fellow at the the Discovery Institute but still am not impressed. I find someone who keeps poking holes in something but does not offer new testable possibilities as suspicious.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpeOD593lCc"]Here for instance[/url], he says that mathematicians say that it's a preposterous theory because they think it's explains how life originated. Once again, mathematicians looking at a complex stage and calculating probabilities...he's opposing strawmen here, not darwinian theory.

He also says that the fossil record cannot sustain any intelligent prediction which can be derived from Darwinian theory.Two points here:

- the theory does not rely as heavily on the fossil record as creationists would want people to believe and fossilisation is not a common occurence in the first place. Because we can't stack the fossils we have into mountains does not invalidate the theory.
- check this out: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik"]Fish with limbs found based on a prediction[/url]

He also says that natural selection and random variation can't account for the generation of a high level of complexity. Well, it's not all down to just that...complexity can happen as a chain event based on other things not selected for, such as in the fox example I mentioned earleir. Foxes were selected for just tameness, but it caused a series of effects such as change in fur colour, floppy ears they started to bark even. Living organisms are complex and evolution doesn't operate on a trait by trait basis. Traits are selected, but organisms can get more complex then they bargained for. Not to mention that there are inherited effects that are not restriced to our genome. Not all the details are fully known.

There are limitations to understanding complexity based on natural selection alone, though it is the main mechanism. [b]

[/b]He also pokes holes in the evolution of the eye *eyeroll*. That's no longer much of a mystery and there are intermediate forms found in nature, with eyes even better than ours too in more demanding environments (birds of prey).

I'll look up the other later...

[quote]Well if a supernatural, celestial dictator G-d does exist, it is not beyond the realm of science. It might deal in the supernatural realm but it also deals in the natural realm. As Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin's Theory deals in the origins of life and the G-d of the Bible deal in the origins of life, both cannot be right, one has to be wrong". If G-d truly did "guide" the evolutionary process, that is him going from the supernatural realm, into the physical/natural realm for which science would detect and could detect. Therefore science can say, "natural selection cannot be guided by G-d because it doesn't need G-d, and there is no evidence fo such".[/quote]

It depends on how you see that "guidance". Are you looking for an interventionist god who defies the natural to an extent? An omnipotent and omniscient god would guide the process as it is, I guess, but setting up the future (determinism) to happen in a way that would be indistinguishable from a reality where a future was not set up, which is what I meant by a 'backstage director' in a previous post.

[quote]If one were studying viruses and bacteria, surely they would need to understand some sort of evolution, an evolution that all people, including those that accept intelligent design, would believe in. This is without a doubt but Darwin's Theory of Evolution, no. I would completely disagree that it's relevant whatso ever in terms of understanding the human body. It more has to do with understanding the origins of life, if that's the theory that you accept, explaining how it all happened, then that which is modern. However, I don't want to focus on this point more so because I don't think that we're going to come to an understanding and it's a minor point that will only drag out this further. Perhaps another thread would work for that.[/quote]

Evolution does not have to do with the origins of life, it just applies to once life got started. There is still not a [i]theory [/i]of abiogenisis to even be spoken about scientifically in that way...

But yes, it depends on what you want to get out of it, and sometimes the theory is not the most necessary. I agree with the brain surgeon.

[quote]So yes, we will agree that micro evolution is vitally important to understand biology, bacteria, cells, etc. You'd be pleasantly surprised that Creationists hate me more then those that accept Darwin's Theory [which they call DArwinists but I don't like using that term], so I get hit from both sides of the road.
[/quote]

Creationists hate everybody because they perceive everybody to be a threat. But ID (which is distinct from theistic evolution) is no threat until it can prove that it's more than a god of the gaps argument or an argument from ignorance. [/size][/font]

Edited May 8, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304742730' post='2238299']
Physics is a little less messy.

[/quote]
Surely you jest! Physics is completely logical and mathematical! Biology is some chemicals and some dirty deeds and some guesswork and BOOM there's a redheaded baby born.