Despite that there are lots of great fossil sequences, like whale evolution. Evolving from a land hippo like animal to a whale is clearly beyond the species level.
For every single fact that's posted (including from myself) I can find another scientist with a different set of research disproving it.
Quote:
Textbooks increasingly present a series of fossils which purportedly document a transition from landmammals to whales as evidence for evolution. But reconstructions of these fossils are often based upon
evolutionary interpretation, not hard data. For example, the species Pakicetus may be portrayed as a fully-aquatic four-legged mammal, not because of the evidence but because textbooks want it to appear as an ancestor of whales. Yet the technical literature on the fossil notes that “the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations,” leading to the conclusion that “Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir.”
But even if these fossils do have some intermediate traits, the claim that land-mammals evolved into whales by random mutation and natural selection faces a great hurdle from mathematics. Many changes would have been necessary to convert a land-mammal into a whale, including the emergence of the blowhole, modification of the eye for permanent underwater vision, ability to drink ocean water, forelimbs transformed into flippers, reduction of hindlimbs and pelvis, the origin of tail flukes and musculature, and the advent of blubber for temperature insulation, to name a few.
Each of these changes would necessarily involve many mutations. But the fossil record requires that evolution of whales from small land mammals took place in less than 10 million years, which would only allow the fixation of a few thousand mutations—far too few to accomplish this transition.
Biologist Richard Sternberg has examined the requirements of this transition mathematically and concludes it requires “too many genetic re-wirings, too little time.” Unfortunately, textbooks never acknowledge these obstacles.
22
J. G. M. Thewissen, E. M. Williams, L. J. Roe, & S. T. Hussain, “Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of
whales to artiodactyls,” Nature, Vol. 413:277-281 (September 20, 2001).
23
List provided courtesy of Dr. Richard Sternberg.
24
Alan Feduccia, “‘Big bang’ for tertiary birds?,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol.18:172-176 (2003).
25
See Walter ReMine, The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory (Saint Paul Science, 2007).
I don't want to turn this into a cut-and-paste orgy because I know everyone can find a biologist or scientist with an opposing viewpoint.
But that's exactly the point. And I suppose that's why each side is deeply entrenched.
I don't want to turn this into a cut-and-paste orgy because I know everyone can find a biologist or scientist with an opposing viewpoint.
But that's exactly the point. And I suppose that's why each side is deeply entrenched.
Really? Accredited ones? By all means, post them here. We will wait, and then dissect.
I don't think you can. Christian Science Monitor does not count.
You've moved your argument and 'point' each time. Slightly more, slightly more. Kinda like the church FINALLY agreeing the earth revolves around the sun, even after they sent the best men to die for it.
The enzyme that replicates RNA (the genomic material) in viruses like polio, respiratory syncytial virus, SARS, has an error rate that introduces one error per replication per genome; HIV is about one per 10 genomes - so if you can imagine a high-pressure situation like antivirals would bottleneck the virus so that only beneficial mutations will survive, then it's easy to see how organisms can evolve quickly. Project that same idea to a larger species with a slower replication time, and over a far larger length of time, and it's not hard to see how evolution produces changes over time.
Guess what? At the end of the day, they are still viruses no matter how much they mutated and over what length of time and no research today can prove otherwise. No matter how many artificially created "high-pressure situations" scientists create, they can't get the virus to evolve into something else. It's based on assumptions and "projecting ideas"
Atheism is just as much a religion as Christianity, Islam or Judaism. Not sure why some people have such a hard time with that.
Because it's a really stupid statement, which doesn't hold up to any interesting definition of a religion.
1) Not believing is not the same as believing. This should really be quite obvious to even the casual observer. Atheism is not "the belief that there is no god". It is "not believing that there is a god". The difference might look small, but it's really important.
Not believing in the existence of a flying spaghetti-monster is also not a religion.
Your statement is like saying that all people who are not fans of any hockey team are just a different group of hockey fans. (While those people do exist, they are the exception, not the rule.)
2)To think that not-believing in gods makes someone a part of something (a religion) sounds quite a bit like your saying that "everyone who is not US is THEM". It sounds like you are putting so much weight in this thing that you believe in, that you consider everyone not believing in your thing to be labeled by it. That's why non-religious people sometimes take offense over this subject. What your saying sounds kind of oppressive.
It's just not nice to label people publicly, even if you happen to believe in the validity of your labels privately.
3) To be against something is not the same as believing in a similar thing. There is a vocal group of self-identifying atheists who definitely are showing cult-like obsessive behaviour towards religion. To call them religious is basicly like saying that pacifism is just a type of warfare.
(Note: because atheism is such a loaded word, if someone asks, I call myself non-religious. It's just simpler.)
Last edited by Itse; 07-14-2011 at 02:32 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
For every single fact that's posted (including from myself) I can find another scientist with a different set of research disproving it.
What you linked from wasn't scientific research, it was a report from the Discovery Institute about what's being taught in schools.
It doesn't even list any authors, so who knows if it was written by a scientists.
And just because a scientist writes something doesn't mean it's science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
I don't want to turn this into a cut-and-paste orgy because I know everyone can find a biologist or scientist with an opposing viewpoint.
Not all viewpoints are valid though. If a viewpoint can't stand up to scientific scrutiny then it isn't valid.
Which is why creationists and ID proponents have web pages and write books instead of publishing scientific papers; because their "research" can't stand up to scrutiny.
Like I said, if an ID proponent wants to make headway, document the process by which genetic change is stopped.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Guess what? At the end of the day, they are still viruses no matter how much they mutated and over what length of time and no research today can prove otherwise. No matter how many artificially created "high-pressure situations" scientists create, they can't get the virus to evolve into something else. It's based on assumptions and "projecting ideas"
What exactly are you expecting, subsequent generations of viruses to eventually evolve into complex multi-celled organism like a mammal or a plant?
...The thing that ID proponents can't imagine is the enormous length of time that evolution takes and how long we have had to evolve. But arguing with ID proponents is like arguing with a brick wall. You get about the same level of intelligent arguments.
I think that this is one of several problems. A principle issue that prevents understanding among ID proponents is a more global philosophical problem that impacts a variety of areas, and that is the matter of hermeneutics. More specifically, people generally presume that their own interpretation of the world (this includes science, language, society, etc.) is somehow universally fixed and not prone to any sort of change. When in actual fact, change across the spectrum in practically every discipline is both natural and prevalent. In my discussions with creationists and IDers it is my impression that they largely suffer from a marriage to arguments from incredulity, by which they cannot possibly imagine that things are contrary to how they appear, or to how how we make "common sense" of them.
An example of how this works out may be illustrated from the interesting history of sexuality in the Western world: our modern attitudes towards gender and sex have had a huge impact on our perception of human relationships, social cues, children, and even matters of morality and law. There was a time when sex was perceived almost exclusively as a function for either reproduction or the assertion of power. Among ancient Mesopotamian / Assyrian cultures from which we are descended, it was completely divorced from any expression of emotion or what we would consider affection (certainly, affection was often a common response within sexual relationships, but this was entirely secondary): for this reason, social cues were created to confine sex to a (usually polygamous) marriage relationship, and laws were defined along these lines to eliminate gratuitous sexual activity, or "non-productive" (read: "homosexual") sexuality. Through the passage of time, and as human cultural interaction has evolved, the relationship between men and women has adapted along the same lines, and to include significant changes to our attitudes with regards to sexuality: No longer is it merely a reproductive activity. In fact, in the modern world, reproduction seems to actually have become much more of a consequence as opposed to the purpose for sex. Social cues and ideas with regards to courtship, marriage, and family have changed significantly as a result, to the point at which now their primary purposes have much more to do with affection and devotion in their own rights, and much less to do with tribal solidarity. This in turn has caused a contemporary debate with regards to the very definition of marriage, and whether or not it should be restricted along gender lines.
All that said, the point in this is to illustrate how much our interpretation of just one part of the world can so dramatically affect our understanding of the way things are. Antiquated ideas about sex informed modern conceptions, and some of these still survive in one form or another, but the purpose of many of these do not accord with how sex functions in our society today.
How does this relate to IDers? Basically, the rejection of evolution is informed by a sense of incredulity that is in turn caused by a poor understanding of how our understanding of the world has so dramatically changed. I think that it is probably fair to argue that the vast majority of IDers oppose evolution in principle, and on the basis of a flawed or antiquated interpretation of how the world works. They maintain a commitment to an ideal that is challenged by the implications of evolution, and are thus forced to reject evolution as a result. By way of analogy: For those for whom homosexuality is wrong or unnatural, it is so axiomatically. However, the circumstances upon which this axiom were founded (that it was fundamental to protect the ancient idea of "family" and the instrument of reproduction) have changed so dramatically, that the axiom itself has become irrelevant. This is much less a matter of science than it is of philosophy. If we could convince IDers—and people in general—of their own susceptibility to hermeneutical shifts, would it become a more viable task to convince them of the soundness of evolution?
... or am I rambling?....
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Guess what? At the end of the day, they are still viruses no matter how much they mutated and over what length of time and no research today can prove otherwise. No matter how many artificially created "high-pressure situations" scientists create, they can't get the virus to evolve into something else. It's based on assumptions and "projecting ideas"
Sure it's still a virus, are you expecting a multi-celled organism after a few generations and adaptations?
The whole "macro" and "micro" evolution is silly. You can't have one and not have the other. Evolution is evolution regardless. The only reason you keep seeing this "micro" evolution is because it's the only one that can be reflected on our time scale.
Using the flu, look at how many there are currently; H1N1, H2N2, H3N2, H1N2, etc. and that's just influenza A, there are also B and C. All of these are much different from each other, affecting different species differently. All of the flu viruses we have now are a result of mutations from a common source, which would be much different than what we see today.
We will likely never watch a natural example of evolution on a large time scale (like dinosaurs to birds), but that doesn't mean it's not real or doesn't exist. It doesn't take faith to determine it does either. All we're doing is looking towards the direction that our current evidence points us to. I just don't understand why you can believe and witness evolution happening to viruses, bacteria, flies, etc. and still stamp your feet and claim the same thing can't happen on a larger time scale.
Guess what? At the end of the day, they are still viruses no matter how much they mutated and over what length of time and no research today can prove otherwise. No matter how many artificially created "high-pressure situations" scientists create, they can't get the virus to evolve into something else. It's based on assumptions and "projecting ideas"
Perhaps you misread what I wrote. The key phrase is at the end, and apparently you didn't understand. Once again, proving my point that ID proponents don't get it. What I'll do is post it again so you can ponder it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob123
The thing that ID proponents can't imagine is the enormous length of time that evolution takes and how long we have had to evolve.
Time. The earth is 5 billion years old. Life first emerged 3 billion years ago. Do you or any ID people have any clue how many generations of life that is? How LONG that is?
Last edited by billybob123; 07-14-2011 at 03:08 PM.
Wait, don't you believe that all who don't follow your particular belief will burn for eternity in hell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
Of course not. And that's where atheists, and many theists (or former pastors posting in this thread) are ignorant of the true teachings in the Bible. But that's another topic for a different thread.
I like the discussion of evolution and all, but could you be so kind as to elaborate on this gem? What is it that you presume to be "the true teachings of the Bible", particularly as they pertain to the discussion of militant atheism?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Btw, also I think it's worth noting that a lot of the misconceptions about atheism have to do with the fact that most atheists who talk about the subject are vocal, self-identifying, often come from an academic background, have thought about the subject a lot and often use a lot of highly specific terms and categories.
The "just don't give a f***" category of atheists just ignore the subject if possible. If asked to pledge to god, they'll do it because it's convenient and it's just not a big deal for them, for example. They might even belong to a church for social reasons.
Having talked about it with some people like that (for a specific reason connected to me once belonging in this one non-religious youth organization, which would be more complicated to explain than interesting), those people in many cases prefer to say they believe in god if asked about it, simply because it's more convenient.
One reason being, if they admit they think it's just silly believing in a god, there's a chance that an atheist or a really religious person gets all riled up and they just hate it when that happens, because it's such a boring subject and yet everyone seems to expect that they, as "atheists" have a lot of well thought out opinions about it they'd like to share. The same does not apply to religious people, as "the silent majority" of religious people is something everyone is familiar with.
I don't know how common this type of atheism is, but based on the fact that most groups of people tend to have a silent majority and a vocal minority, I'd guess it's more common than people realize.
EDIT: basicly, being non-religious can often be socially inconvenient, so many atheists just do what everyone else does and claim to be religious. It's just easier.
The whole "macro" and "micro" evolution is silly. You can't have one and not have the other. Evolution is evolution regardless. The only reason you keep seeing this "micro" evolution is because it's the only one that can be reflected on our time scale.
I think the part from about 1:00 to 2:00 from this video also helps underline why "micro" vs "macro" is kind of a silly distinction.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Btw, also I think it's worth noting that a lot of the misconceptions about atheism have to do with the fact that most atheists who talk about the subject are vocal, self-identifying, often come from an academic background, have thought about the subject a lot and often use a lot of highly specific terms and categories.
The "just don't give a f***" category of atheists just ignore the subject if possible. If asked to pledge to god, they'll do it because it's convenient and it's just not a big deal for them, for example. They might even belong to a church for social reasons.
Having talked about it with some people like that (for a specific reason connected to me once belonging in this one non-religious youth organization, which would be more complicated to explain than interesting), those people in many cases prefer to say they believe in god if asked about it, simply because it's more convenient.
One reason being, if they admit they think it's just silly believing in a god, there's a chance that an atheist or a really religious person gets all riled up and they just hate it when that happens, because it's such a boring subject and yet everyone seems to expect that they, as "atheists" have a lot of well thought out opinions about it they'd like to share. The same does not apply to religious people, as "the silent majority" of religious people is something everyone is familiar with.
I don't know how common this type of atheism is, but based on the fact that most groups of people tend to have a silent majority and a vocal minority, I'd guess it's more common than people realize.
EDIT: basicly, being non-religious can often be socially inconvenient, so many atheists just do what everyone else does and claim to be religious. It's just easier.
This is a good point, you'll find in Iceland and the nordic nations which went from mostly religious countries to almost 60-80% non religious in a matter of a few generations; the prevailing attitude is to not even discuss it. Most people here in Iceland think the idea of a God is silly and don't get worked up about it, until recently when the humanists here (my peeps) and others wanted to finally get it on the books to seperate church and state. We have priests going to public schools, we have a national church, we have tax payers paying the church and its employees, etc.
That will soon be gone, but even with this debate; people just see it as 'obviously the right thing to do' and its not remotely close to heated or controversial (polls show about 80% for this to be put in our upcoming new/citizen created constitution.)
The reason the atheists seem so angry/loud in the US is pretty obvious, look at what they deal with on a daily basis in their politics and national debate. Religion in America is very much in your face, and after 9/11 this new atheism movement began out of the utter frustration of how badly the various religions of this world are behaving and how if you don't speak up nothing will ever change in this world.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
EDIT: basicly, being non-religious can often be socially inconvenient, so many atheists just do what everyone else does and claim to be religious. It's just easier.
I would suggest being religious can also be socially inconvenient. It's not a lot of fun getting followed around a party and yelled at by a drunk millitant atheist spouting long arguments. If I wanted to argue with you, I'd show up at the University and take your class. But I don't, I'm at a dinner party to pleasantly converse with the other people there, and arguing about politics/religion is bad manners and disrespectful to the host/hostess, IMO.
There is definitely a group of atheists who seem to feel that every religious person should be "converted" to atheism by them personally applying their brand of logic. It's offensive, in a very similar way to people coming to the door and trying to convert you to their religion.
Guess what? At the end of the day, they are still viruses no matter how much they mutated and over what length of time and no research today can prove otherwise. No matter how many artificially created "high-pressure situations" scientists create, they can't get the virus to evolve into something else. It's based on assumptions and "projecting ideas"
I would suggest being religious can also be socially inconvenient. It's not a lot of fun getting followed around a party and yelled at by a drunk millitant atheist spouting long arguments. If I wanted to argue with you, I'd show up at the University and take your class. But I don't, I'm at a dinner party to pleasantly converse with the other people there, and arguing about politics/religion is bad manners and disrespectful to the host/hostess, IMO.
There is definitely a group of atheists who seem to feel that every religious person should be "converted" to atheism by them personally applying their brand of logic. It's offensive, in a very similar way to people coming to the door and trying to convert you to their religion.
Can't you just call them loudmouth atheists? Militant is such a horribly misused word in this case.
By the way do you get offended when people with opposing political views passionately argue them with you?
I've always found that if someone confronts me over strongly held beliefs that I don't want to debate, I simply tilt my head to the side and in a quiet voice say "Really, seriously, f$$$ off"
end of debate.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I've always found that if someone confronts me over strongly held beliefs that I don't want to debate, I simply tilt my head to the side and in a quiet voice say "Really, seriously, f$$$ off"
end of debate.
It helps if you smell your hand after. (sniff sniff)
