I didn't address you specifically, but you gave me the impression that you didin't understand what it meant. Of course a theory has "yet to be disproved" but so do hypotheses, but it only describes one aspect of a theory, and to say it is the "most important part" is a serious understatement. A scientific theory is the best "proof" we can come up with with repect to science using the available data, observations, and laws.

That demonstrates the fact of gravity, not the theory of gravitation. The latter is supposed to describe the former, but we currently have a very poor understanding on why gravity happens (which is the whole point of a theory). Of course we know gravity happens, just like we know that genetic mutations happen (change over time) for organisms. However, this merely states the fact of evolution, and doesn't describe the theory of evolution by natural selection, which is what we're actually concerned about.

If you need actual evidence of evolution, look up: peppered moth, human chromosome 2, recurrent laryngeal nerve, vestigial structures or endogenous retroviruses. There are a lot more but these are the most important ones that I can name off of my head.

I never disputed evolution anywhere in this thread, I merely pointed out that to say it is equal in standing to gravity or electromagnetism is an exaggeration at best. There are laws associated with those things, formulas to perfectly model their principles, and first-hand supplemental evidence which just about everyone has immediate access to at all times.

This is to be expected, since the former theory relates to a process which in most cases takes thousands of years, while the latter subjects relate to phenomena that occur almost instantaneously. If evolution were easily and readily observable in human beings then this difference in status would probably not exist, but to pretend that it is currently on par with the staples of fundamental science is delusive.

So in fact, you haven't actually contributed to the discussion at all, Az, you've just stated something obvious and pretended as if it was a new and insightful idea you just had.

No it's not. It's definitely one of the parts, but by no means is it the most important.

Thank you for this observation which contributes more to the discussion than my own comments. I thought that if it was so obvious that it wouldn't have needed to be said, but clearly I was wrong. Please provide more brilliant and non-hypocritical insights such as this.


Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Go for it. And try to avoid cutting quotes expressing a single point of view in the future, unless you're just trolling, which is likely, in which case: fuck you.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/5597916/Bones-may-re-write-human-evolution

And this is why religious nuts going on about "missing links" etc is such a waste of time.

We're dealing with fossils that are millions of years old. Expecting these fossils to be abundant and easy to find is ridiculous. And yet every now and then, we can still find something unlike anything else we've found before.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 10 2011, 1:54 am by Lanthanide.

I posted this in another thread:

http://www.staredit.net/291925/

I've already stated that I think carbon dating makes too many assumptions. I wasn't around 6000 years ago so I can't prove what went down.

Good thing it's not the only way to date things. Radiometric carbon dating has its disadvantages, such as only being able to date objects up to 58 000 years.

The problem is that we are all not educated on dating techniques, or how and why they work. Any conclusions we make could very well be completely erroneous, even if they seem to make perfect sense. It takes a strong understanding of general chemistry and physics to even begin the details of radiometric dating. It could very well take several months of full time study to comprehend and really know how they work.

I just went through all sixteen pages. Good read. Would not recommend pages 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10.

Anyway, I don't understand the issue accepting macroevolution if you accept microevolution. If small, incremental changes are made to something over a period of time, some of which carrying on to future generations, then over a very long period of time, the end result will be notably different from the starting point. I know this has been discussed lightly in the more recent posts, but I'm not understanding the argument that macroevolution cannot happen. I'm not extremely knowledgeable on DNA, so maybe I'm missing some limitation nestled in there.

This was actually stated a bunch of times, but only one assumption was listed, which was regarding the decay rate of carbon. I'd like to hear the other assumptions that ruin it for you, because it sounds like there's a lot, and saying "well maybe carbon decayed at a different rate for a mysterious reason back when we weren't measuring it" doesn't seem like a very strong reason to disregard it.

It assumes that the same ammount of carbon-14 was in the atmosphere when the fossil in question was alive.
If Earth was created 6000 years ago, and there was no carbon-14 to begin with, the % of carbon-14 would increase rapidly at first, but then slow down as it reached equillibrium with the decay rate.
i.e. If the ammount of forming C-14 in the atmosphere was a steady 1000 units.
you would start at 0
0+1000=1000
1000/2=500
500+1000=1500
1500/2=750
750+1000=1750
1750/2=875
Obviously Carbon-14 is constantly decaying, and constantly being removed, not just at every half life, but the data would have a similar curve to this.

And what assumptions are being made for the Earth to be 6000 years old? I'm curious to hear this as well.

In any case, the idea of macroevolution is not defeated even if the Earth was created 6000 years ago; the only thing that changes is that the conclusions we found with fossils and such wouldn't have had the time for macroevolution, so they are not part of it. But what is there to refute macroevolution entirely?

You acknowledge microevolution, correct? Do you believe that when miniscule changes are made and carried on billions of times, they all somehow cancel each other out and consistently yield the same relative result?

I also recently found out that the debate of creationism vs evolution seems to only be strong in the United States; Europe regards evolution like we do gravity. This isn't necessarily saying anything, but I thought it was interesting.

If the mindset you have is "the Bible is right and I have to find the evidence argument to show this", then no amount of evidence or argument is going to change your mind because you are putting the Bible first. You have to put it second to evidence and argument, instead of cherry picking the evidence.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 11 2011, 12:21 am by NudeRaider. Reason: inappropriate for SD

If the mindset you have is "the Bible is wrong and I have to find the evidence + argument to show this", then no amount of evidence or argument is going to change your mind because you are putting the Bible last. You have to put old earth and evolution second to evidence and argument, instead of cherry picking the evidence.

I don't think you substituted correctly. In this case, wouldn't it be more accurate to do:
In that structure, it doesn't make sense because the theory of evolution is based on evidence and argument. We're not nitpicking evolution with a collection of other things to try and disprove the Bible; we're trying to describe it as an independent concept that is consistent with what we know of the universe.

You said yourself on page 4 that you acknowledge microevolution, Jack, so I'd like to pose the same questions to you that I did to K_A.

The way oh_man behaves, my substitution is more correct. Because for him, the Bible HAS to be wrong, so he then looks for evidence to disprove the Bible.

According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, evolution doesn't fit with what we know of the universe.

I've seen plenty of evidence for microevolution but none for macroevolution. What is generally touted as evolution is microevolution.

I think you're misunderstanding Jack's point, Roy.

He's pointing out that we draw conclusions from complete evidence. So we must look at the context as a whole. By saying, "the bible is wrong, we need the facts to prove it," one is falling into unscientific thinking. Just as, "the bible is right, we need the facts to prove it." It approaches the entire problem with an incorrect mindset, and instead of being open to opposing evidence, one would ignore it.

A scientific mindset would be, "I think the bible is right, what does the evdience suggest?" and, "I think the bible is wrong, what does the evidence suggest?" Of course, this is lumping the bible into one thing, which would be fallacious thinking. Instead, the proper scientific mindset would be, "Is the bible a credible source of information?"

We must then decide on what a credible source of information would be. If the bible does not qualify, then it is not a credible source of information.

---


On the onset, it does seem to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution, by its very nature, is increasing complexity and organization over time, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics says things must degrade over time.

They're both right, of course, but the misinterpretation lies in a part of the 2nd law left out by many people. In a closed system, entropy will always increase. The Earth is not a closed system; it receives additional energy from the sun, making it an open system, and thus the 2nd law is not applicable.

There was never any violation of the 2nd law at all.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 10 2011, 9:15 pm by Sacrieur.

@sac but the UNIVERSE is a closed system. Which means there is increasing entropy in the universe; if the earth had decreasing entropy then it is an anomaly, a freak. And not proven to have increasing entropy.

Um, what?

You know that there's nothing stopping localised areas of a system from having decreasing entropy at the expense of other areas having increasing entropy.

The fact that planets exist themselves is sufficient to prove this: which has more entropy, a bunch of asteroids swirling around chaotically bouncing off each other, or a planet that is one fixed mass?

Also if this is your argument against evolution, then you must use this argument against the bible too. Clearly the creation myth goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics because when God created everything he reduced the entropy of what was already there. So if evolution isn't possible because it breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, surely you should apply the same logic to the bible stories and say they aren't possible because they also break the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Or is your cop-out, as usual, "God did it!"?