Darwin's Finches Demonstrate Evolution

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I didnt post that link or thread to suggest it couldnt be done...I posted it to show what it "might or would" take. Click on the link and read the article. Its an excellent read that uses justifications from BOTH sides to reach its conclusions...IF it makes them. From that point anyone can decide what they want to believe.
I never suggested in my post that I espoused one version over the other or suggested that one side was right or worng. Take it for what its worth.
I did comment that a 600 year old Noah might be stretching things a bit. This also doesnt take into consideration the idea that Noah and his family had to repopulate the human race after they reached dry land. Are we all the Ba$tard offspring of an incestuous family? Why was an ALL LOVING God so angry he had to murder everything he created? If he was ALL KNOWING then wouldnt he have known in advance what he created and what would happen?
Personally I would have hated to be Noahs son shovelling all the Elephant dung on a daily basis from the Ark.

Those are all great points, but are neither here nor there. You posted (perhaps mislead by the article) that the largest ships today are only 300 feet long and that this seems to suggest that the Ark could not be built. I've simply shown that there infact are examples of wooden ships that are much larger than 300 feet and that this seems to suggest that the Ark could be built. Logistics of repopulating the earth, a 600 year old dude setting sail in a worldwide flood, and shoveling a bunch of elephant poop aside, there are examples of ships that show that building a ship the size of the Ark (presumably about 450 feet long) is at least plausible. Likely? Not really, but if someone really set their mind to it I'm sure they could build a wooden ship that big. That's all I'm saying.

Edit: In any case, of all the details of the Ark story, I think it's kind of funny that people choose the size of the ship as the unbelievable part of the story that makes it implausible. That's kinda like saying The Terminator is unbelieveable becuase for some reason the machines decided to give the Terminators accents. Of all the parts of the story that are completley out to lunch it is supposedly this one detail that makes the story unbelievealbe.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Those are all great points, but are neither here nor there. You posted (perhaps mislead by the article) that the largest ships today are only 300 feet long and that this seems to suggest that the Ark could not be built. I've simply shown that there infact are examples of wooden ships that are much larger than 300 feet and that this seems to suggest that the Ark could be built. Logistics of repopulating the earth, a 600 year old dude setting sail in a worldwide flood, and shoveling a bunch of elephant poop aside, there are examples of ships that show that building a ship the size of the Ark (presumably about 450 feet long) is at least plausible. Likely? Not really, but if someone really set their mind to it I'm sure they could build a wooden ship that big. That's all I'm saying.

Edit: In any case, of all the details of the Ark story, I think it's kind of funny that people choose the size of the ship as the unbelievable part of the story that makes it implausible. That's kinda like saying The Terminator is unbelieveable becuase for some reason the machines decided to give the Terminators accents. Of all the parts of the story that are completley out to lunch it is supposedly this one detail that makes the story unbelievealbe.

well again not to be overly nitpicky...I quoted this...

The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.

I dont think I was mislead..I simply hilited a portion of the article that was relevant to the post. The article itself disscusses the hows/wheres/whys. Its not my point and perhaps not entriely what I believe...just a very good look at everything.

As you feel so do I in regards to the story. Its however just one story in hundreds that are impossible and implausible.

[rawr]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Creationism has no basis in fact and is based purely in faith. It should stay that way, and that is why it has no place in schools.

If you put it that way, it takes quite a bit of faith to believe in evolution itself. Being a scientist takes a lot of faith as well. "Religion" and science are not meant to be seperate, they are actually very much related to each other.

[RedMan12]

wouldn't there be a way for scientists to test DNA to see if each spieces of modern animals came from 2 common ancestors? Wouldn't that mean all animals were severly inbred if they all came from Noah's ark?

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

wouldn't there be a way for scientists to test DNA to see if each spieces of modern animals came from 2 common ancestors? Wouldn't that mean all animals were severly inbred if they all came from Noah's ark?

Jesus would fix the test....

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by rawr

If you put it that way, it takes quite a bit of faith to believe in evolution itself. Being a scientist takes a lot of faith as well. "Religion" and science are not meant to be seperate, they are actually very much related to each other.

"It is crucial for creationists that they convince their audience that evolution is not scientific, because both sides agree that creationism is not." [Miller 1982: 4, cited in Selkirk and Burrows 1987: 103]

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by rawr

Being a scientist takes a lot of faith as well.

See I would argue the exact opposite. I'd say that to be a scientist (A good one anyway) takes a lot of skepticism, and the suspension of faith. That in itself is the basis for the modern scientific method, that a single result to the contrary of your theory can disprove it. It's not as though scientists are following the old mantra of being able to use reason and logic to prove or disprove any theory. That line of thinking went the way of the dinosoaurs when Galleleo dropped the orange. Any scientist that takes anything at face value as a matter of faith is not practicing true science.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

See I would argue the exact opposite. I'd say that to be a scientist (A good one anyway) takes a lot of skepticism, and the suspension of faith. That in itself is the basis for the modern scientific method, that a single result to the contrary of your theory can disprove it. It's not as though scientists are following the old mantra of being able to use reason and logic to prove or disprove any theory. That line of thinking went the way of the dinosoaurs when Galleleo dropped the orange. Any scientist that takes anything at face value as a matter of faith is not practicing true science.

If I suspended faith in my chemistry and faith in myself I would be one incredibly unhappy person. If all I did was be skeptical of my project nothing would ever get done and I bet I would sink into a deep depression. My point is faith plays a huge role (to me anyway) in research, you need it to convince yourself that what you're doing is worthwhile. I realize this is probably different than what you're saying but I maintain one can be both skeptical and have faith.

Research is the most draining thing I have ever done in my life. You can have years of **** before anything happens and that can be hard to deal with. You need something to keep pushing you towards the goal.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

If I suspended faith in my chemistry and faith in myself I would be one incredibly unhappy person. If all I did was be skeptical of my project nothing would ever get done and I bet I would sink into a deep depression. My point is faith plays a huge role (to me anyway) in research, you need it to convince yourself that what you're doing is worthwhile. I realize this is probably different than what you're saying but I maintain one can be both skeptical and have faith.

Research is the most draining thing I have ever done in my life. You can have years of **** before anything happens and that can be hard to deal with. You need something to keep pushing you towards the goal.

Having "faith" in oneself or what one is doing for a living is different then what was being suggested....

If you put it that way, it takes quite a bit of faith to believe in evolution itself. Being a scientist takes a lot of faith as well. "Religion" and science are not meant to be seperate, they are actually very much related to each other.

In regards to the Creationists view, their "theory" is black and white and written for all to see in the Bible. It simply takes Faith to believe what is written without any disection.
A scientist is always open to rebuttal, usually by submitting articles on whatever he is doing, and changes are allowed to happen when science disproves something.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

If I suspended faith in my chemistry and faith in myself I would be one incredibly unhappy person. If all I did was be skeptical of my project nothing would ever get done and I bet I would sink into a deep depression. My point is faith plays a huge role (to me anyway) in research, you need it to convince yourself that what you're doing is worthwhile. I realize this is probably different than what you're saying but I maintain one can be both skeptical and have faith.

Research is the most draining thing I have ever done in my life. You can have years of **** before anything happens and that can be hard to deal with. You need something to keep pushing you towards the goal.

As Cheese already said, there is a difference between the kind of faith that you are talking about, and what I was talking about.

Sure you need to beleive that you're doing something worthwhile, but in the end you will believe what the results tell you, whether you are right or wrong, any scientist worth his or her salt would. You won't just say "Oh well, the results don't match up to my hypothesis, but that's okay, I have faith in my theory" You'd probalby say "Darn, looks like I was wrong. Oh well, back to the drawing board". That's the difference.

[rawr]

What I meant was a scientist has faith in evolution much like a christian has faith in God. Evolution will never be completely proven or disproved in our lifetime, just as the existence of God will not. Evolution is not fact, there are just some bits of information that lead us to believe that this may be happening just as there is information to disprove this.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by rawr

What I meant was a scientist has faith in evolution much like a christian has faith in God. Evolution will never be completely proven or disproved in our lifetime, just as the existence of God will not. Evolution is not fact, there are just some bits of information that lead us to believe that this may be happening just as there is information to disprove this.

Again I would disagree. Science is about making logical conclusions.
A scientist (or anyone for that matter) believes in evolution because there is an overwhelming body of evidence to suggest that it is the correct theory. As for information to disprove it, once again I'd disagree. Can you give me one example of real data that disproves it? I doubt it because if there was then we'd have to disregard, or alter the theory, that's the way the scientific method works, if you find ONE piece of data that is verifiable, that does not fit with your theory then you either have to change, or get rid of your theory. You don't have to have fait, you have to be reasonable and say, yup, everything so far points to me being right, I sure hope nothing new comes along to blow my theory out of the water.

And yes, theories change all the time. Einstein had to change his theory of general relativity a bunch of times before he thought he had it right, and then people came along and made other discoveries that forced even more changes. Even though they were wrong on many things, believeing their theory wasn't a matter of faith, it was simply the best explination that they had for the data that they had observed, the same conclusions that anyone with the same understanding of the subject would make.

Believing in God on the other hand takes tremendous faith, because so far there is no concrete proof of his existance, other than the old anecdotal "We're here ain't we?".

Saying you believe in God (something that there is no concrete evidnece of) is a matter of faith, and I salute those that can make that leap.

Saying you believe in evolution is a matter of reason.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And there are supposedly writings from the Ming Dynasty about all wood treasure barges that were over 400ft long and 150 feet wide

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/media/expl_01q.html

[Nehkara]

When I took Physical Anthropology (human evolution) & Primatology at the UofC, the first thing our Prof said to us was:

(Paraphrasing)"Evolution is a scientific fact. Evolution is the change of something over time. There is enough evidence to support evolution that it is as close to a fact as you get in science. The THEORY of natural selection is simply a theory about HOW evolution happens. There is very little doubt that evolution does happen. If you have a problem with any of this, you would be well advised to leave this class."

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Again I would disagree. Science is about making logical conclusions.
A scientist (or anyone for that matter) believes in evolution because there is an overwhelming body of evidence to suggest that it is the correct theory. As for information to disprove it, once again I'd disagree. Can you give me one example of real data that disproves it? I doubt it because if there was then we'd have to disregard, or alter the theory, that's the way the scientific method works, if you find ONE piece of data that is verifiable, that does not fit with your theory then you either have to change, or get rid of your theory. You don't have to have fait, you have to be reasonable and say, yup, everything so far points to me being right, I sure hope nothing new comes along to blow my theory out of the water.

And yes, theories change all the time. Einstein had to change his theory of general relativity a bunch of times before he thought he had it right, and then people came along and made other discoveries that forced even more changes. Even though they were wrong on many things, believeing their theory wasn't a matter of faith, it was simply the best explination that they had for the data that they had observed, the same conclusions that anyone with the same understanding of the subject would make.

Believing in God on the other hand takes tremendous faith, because so far there is no concrete proof of his existance, other than the old anecdotal "We're here ain't we?".

Saying you believe in God (something that there is no concrete evidnece of) is a matter of faith, and I salute those that can make that leap.

Saying you believe in evolution is a matter of reason.

You are dead on.

[icarus]

Evolution is far from a settled field.

The biggest challenge has been that it is not observable since it takes so long. Which is why Peter Grant's ongoing research in the Galapagos is so important and why this latest publication is so significant.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by icarus

Evolution is far from a settled field.

The biggest challenge has been that it is not observable since it takes so long. Which is why Peter Grant's ongoing research in the Galapagos is so important and why this latest publication is so significant.

Precisely. They observed the evolution of this species. That is a big breakthrough for evolution. It may only be microevolution but the chances that macroevolution could ever be witnessed by one person in their life time is... very likely zero.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Precisely. They observed the evolution of this species. That is a big breakthrough for evolution. It may only be microevolution but the chances that macroevolution could ever be witnessed by one person in their life time is... very likely zero.

but microevolution can logically only prove that macroevolution does exist. if these birds evolved a beak to better gather food to survive, then it seems pretty plausible that a fish would evolve to survive on land when the waters became too overpopulated to sustain them

if some fundie wants to convince me that the bible is true, then make the story of Adam and Eve about two salmon that god placed in an ocean 400 million years ago and i may start listening

[Cheese]

Evolutions case evolves...

IT'S BEEN A TOUGH month for creationists. On April 6, evolutionary biologists announced the discovery of a fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a giant fish whose fins were evolving into limbs when it died 375 million years ago. This scaly creature of the sea was in transition to becoming a land animal, the discoverers wrote in Nature.

[Azure]

I really don't get the part about fish evolving the proper structure to survive on land.

Wouldn't they die before it happened? Seeing that they now need water to survive.....