Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Ostroeuropa]

Things fall to the ground, this phenomena is called gravity.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

/run math and do tests
/Create theory of gravity




Things evolve, this phenomena is called evolution.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

/find fossils, look at DNA, do tests
/Create theory of evolution by natural selection/punctuated equilibrium

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll use the imaginary buckfish again.
There exists an imaginary buckfish in this scenario.
The entire species exists in a salt water lake, and is very well adapted to it.
It is the same colour as the vegetation to match it's background, and is an omnivore, preying on smaller fish that try to eat it's stuff, and plants. It's relatively medium sized, but there are no predators above it on the food chain.

One day, erosion causes the lake to be connected to a river nearby, and some of the buckfish decide to go down river, which eventually leads to the ocean.
The ones who stayed in the lakes will over time suffer evolutionary pressure, the ones most able to adapt to fresh water being added over time will survive, until we reach a point where those who can survive easily in fresh water are all that are left. After a while, the trait that allows them to survive in salt water will be discarded since if they lose it, they don't suffer any negative consequences. (MOST evolutionary changes are totally neutral in nature, like this. They neither harm nor benefit the species in it's habitat.)
The ones who ended up in the sea had none of this pressure, and will be salt-water adapted.
The ones who stayed in the initial lake don't really need to adapt further.
They will remain vegetation coloured etc.

The ones who moved into the ocean go down into the depths, to a state of almost total darkness.
They have no need of eyes, and small eyes are a good thing here, since having two soft vulnerable spots on your face is a Bad Idea if they don't have any use. Eventually eyes get small enough to be negligible, and cease to exist at all. In the state of darkness, the pressure placed on blending in with vegetation is relaxed, allowing their colour to drift around into new hues, eventually settling on a neutral grey colour since this requires less energy than to colour ones skin.
There is little vegetation in the depths, and their diet consists almost entirely of smaller fish that they track by sensing movement. Pressure is applied to be quick enough to catch the prey, now that their usual tactic of ambush is no longer viable. As such, their fins will become more powerful, and their bodies more streamlined over time, with those unable to keep up with these changes dying off.
We may see pressure placed on becomming like a snake, where sensing vibration in the water is crucial to survival.
Due to the increased pressure in the depths, bone structure is selected for to be stronger, and size can increase proportionally, which is useful for a predator, and since they work by sensing movement, increasing the surface area of their body acts like increasing the size of their eardrum.

Now, suppose I grab one from each specimen and compare them.
One is green, the other grey.
One has eyes, the other does not.
One lives in fresh water, the other salt water.
etc.

They are both evolved/descended from:
The Imaginary Saltwater Buckfish
but have now become
The Imaginary Freshwater Buckfish
and
The Imaginary Deep-Sea Buckfish
(Though the chances of us naming them this is highly unlikely. You'll notice that we tend to name shit randomly and only later discover how it is related to other things in the tree. We're far more likely to call them: The Imaginary Freshwater Lurker, and the Imaginary Deep-sea Seeker, then discover "Hey, these are both descended from the imaginary Saltwater Buckfish! At which points creationists bitch about different kinds not producing etc etc. Humans are just "Hairless apes." If we'd been called that, the "Different kinds hurp durp!" wouldn't work now would it. But we called ourselves humans, and so you complain we can't be apes.)

Just change the enviromental pressures on two groups of the same species, and you'll see evolution happen. (Or hell, don't do that and just dump two species into geologically isolated, environmentally identical areas and you might see some noticable changes, there is no one size fits all solution.)
Over time, enough drift has occured as to make them radically different and unable to interbreed. At this point, they are a new species.

What part of that scenario do creationists disagree is possible and why?
If you agree it's all possible, you accept evolution is possible. And at that point, why don't you think it's LIKELY or even DEFINATELY occuring?

(if my fellow evolutionists like this post they are welcome to take it and use it later. I find that providing a definate example tends to make them unable to come up with any objection except cattle noises. An example of every change I described is available, i simply piled them all onto one creature to make the contrast between old and new as quick as possible to forgo it being a 100 page long post.)

[Faolinn]

As a religious man I cannot think of a more logical explanation for the state of life on earth as it is.I believe very deeply in the theory of evolution, and it even has a very point role in my personal convictions as well as my scientific understanding of the world.

[Sociobiology]

THAT'S WHAT A THEORY IS! IT'S SCIENTIFIC FACT!

Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but slightly misplaced. A theory is supported by factual evidence, but it is not supposed to be an indisputable fact. Theories are still subject to sceptical evaluation, because that's how we progress.

There is no such thing as an undisputed fact in science. The best you get his asymptotic to certain. Theories are the highest (closest to indisputably true) form of knowledge in science.

[Typhlochactas]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

A watch is inorganic, and has no way of forming itself into something more complex. Therefore, you can understand there was some form of watchmaker. The fallacy of this argument is that life has ways of forming itself into more complex systems due to environmental pressure and natural selection. Your argument is like filling two glasses of water, and then suggesting that water was designed because it fits a lot better in a cup than a giant rock.

[Xathranaar]

I'm not exactly certain why disproving causality would favour atheism...

Well this is a strawman as I never said it did. Only that your argument for deism, as it depends on causality, is flawed.

If events can occur without naturalistic explanation, then I'm all the more willing to submit God as an existant figure. With the basis for pointing out that uncaused events of energy so to can we come to regard them as enacted by God.

Without cause, not without naturalistic explanation. Also sorts of quantum phenomena appear uncaused, yet can be described mathematically. Even atomic decay could be described as uncaused, insofar as it occurs probabilistically, and without any evident impetus. However, atomic decay is explicable by naturalist means.

Also, note what you sound like here... you may as well have just said, "anything you can't explain is evidence for god!"

Something must cause what appears uncaused by natural progression.

So quantum fluctuations are caused by god? Does god generate virtual particles in vacuo?

But I will read more about the theories of this gentleman on the zero-energy sum universe, I believe I am already familiar with the theory, though. Perhaps, I have been provided with inadequate elucidation of it.

Well if you have a universe that requires no energy input, then you have a universe that can be created from nothing. And given what we know about quantum fluctuations, that means you have a universe that could easily emerge spontaneously.

To the relatively meta response of the universe not having a beginning on the basis of time being an element derived from the universe. I've heard this one before, it's a reversed arrow paradox, and no less false. Though there was no time before the universe, there was still a point in which time and the universe simultaneously began, if there is an arrow in the air, it must have been fired, even if we could infintely regress to that point, it fails to be eternity in a true sense. Motion, energy and matter have a beginning.

Time also is an observed not intrinsic element of the universe, it is relative to the observer. And thus to a potential being outside the universe, time can exist before the universe could.

Time is a dimension of space. This is not up for debate unless you think yourself up to overthrowing relativity. Dimensions of space originate with the big bang. You are essentially arguing for space without space.

I also note you just conveniently failed to address the largest single failing of your argument, which is that it in no way carries you to evolution.

[Metaphysics]

Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but slightly misplaced. A theory is supported by factual evidence, but it is not supposed to be an indisputable fact. Theories are still subject to sceptical evaluation, because that's how we progress.

There is no such thing as an undisputed fact in science. The best you get his asymptotic to certain. Theories are the highest (closest to indisputably true) form of knowledge in science.

What of Math?

[Sociobiology]

There is no such thing as an undisputed fact in science. The best you get his asymptotic to certain. Theories are the highest (closest to indisputably true) form of knowledge in science.

What of Math?

what of it?
math is constructed based on the how the universe operates.
If we discovered a whole number between six and seven tomorrow math would be turned on its head, It is so incredibly unlikely that this will happen that we can safely treat it as impossible, but it is not.
for something more likely we could discover that other universes don't behave in a way consistent with our math, there very well may be universes where 2+2=5.

[Metaphysics]

What of Math?

what of it?
math is constructed based on the how the universe operates.
If we discovered a whole number between six and seven tomorrow math would be turned on its head, It is so incredibly unlikely that this will happen that we can safely treat it as impossible, but it is not.
for something more likely we could discover that other universes don't behave in a way consistent with our math, there very well may be universes where 2+2=5.

Point Taken.

[Sociobiology]

I'm still waiting for Question Everything to tell me which of the four principles of evolution is false. Because if he can't he must admit evolution happens.

1. more organisms are born than survive
2. traits vary among organisms
3. some of those traits are heritable
4. thus by the laws of probability those with traits that make them better able to survive and reproduce will be more likely to pass those traits on to the next generation.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=11573109#p11573109

[Socialdemokraterne]

I don't "believe" in the correctness of evolutionary theory any more than I "believe" in the correctness of the laws of gravity. Evolutionary theory is substantiated by an overwhelming amount of data and testing, and so I accept it as factual until a hypothesis with an even greater grounding in evidence and testing comes along. It's not about what I believe, it's about what the data suggest.

[Xathranaar]

I don't "believe" in the correctness of evolutionary theory any more than I "believe" in the correctness of the laws of gravity. Evolutionary theory is substantiated by an overwhelming amount of data and testing, and so I accept it as factual until a hypothesis with an even greater grounding in evidence and testing comes along. It's not about what I believe, it's about what the data suggest.

How is it you always manage to say exactly what I'm thinking?

I may be in love.

EDIT: Hey, and reading your sig it turns out you are female. Even better, though now I fear coming off as creepy.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I don't "believe" in the correctness of evolutionary theory any more than I "believe" in the correctness of the laws of gravity. Evolutionary theory is substantiated by an overwhelming amount of data and testing, and so I accept it as factual until a hypothesis with an even greater grounding in evidence and testing comes along. It's not about what I believe, it's about what the data suggest.

How is it you always manage to say exactly what I'm thinking?

I may be in love.

Don't worry, it'll pass once I tell you that I'm also a Christian Universalist. I have religion and spirituality in my life, but I don't go the next step and argue that my scientific life must adapt to them. For me, it's the other way around.

[Xathranaar]

How is it you always manage to say exactly what I'm thinking?

I may be in love.

Don't worry, it'll pass once I tell you that I'm also a Christian Universalist. I have religion and spirituality in my life, but I don't go the next step and argue that my scientific life must adapt to them. For me, it's the other way around.

Well nobody's perfect.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Don't worry, it'll pass once I tell you that I'm also a Christian Universalist. I have religion and spirituality in my life, but I don't go the next step and argue that my scientific life must adapt to them. For me, it's the other way around.

Well nobody's perfect.

That movie is hilarious! It's been so---o long since I've seen it, though. Jack Lemmon was one of my favorite actors, a comical genius.

[Thama]

THAT'S WHAT A THEORY IS! IT'S SCIENTIFIC FACT!

Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but slightly misplaced. A theory is supported by factual evidence, but it is not supposed to be an indisputable fact. Theories are still subject to sceptical evaluation, because that's how we progress.

Yet there are still idiots called Y.E. Creationists who say there is no evidence at all. And they all live in the USA and the Middle East. The one thing those two have in common that isn't guns pointed at eachother.

[Ostroeuropa]

Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but slightly misplaced. A theory is supported by factual evidence, but it is not supposed to be an indisputable fact. Theories are still subject to sceptical evaluation, because that's how we progress.

Yet there are still idiots called Y.E. Creationists who say there is no evidence at all. And they all live in the USA and the Middle East. The one thing those two have in common that isn't guns pointed at eachother.

There are a few Y.E. Creationists in every country.

[Post War America]

Things fall to the ground, this phenomena is called gravity.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

/run math and do tests
/Create theory of gravity




Things evolve, this phenomena is called evolution.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

/find fossils, look at DNA, do tests
/Create theory of evolution by natural selection/punctuated equilibrium

For once I am inclined to agree with you.

[Wind in the Willows]

Yes.

[Dyakovo]

At this point, to deny the theory of evolution is like to deny that the Earth is round.
It's been scientifically proven.

I'm a Christian though.

And?

[Farnhamia]

I'm a Christian though.

And?

So he feels guilty about accepting evolution.

[Kubrath]

And?

So he feels guilty about accepting evolution.

He shouldn't feel guilty about not being an ignoramus.

[Samuraikoku]

I don't need to believe in evolution, I've seen it.



Evolution is your solution.

[Everbeek]

I'll use the imaginary buckfish again.
There exists an imaginary buckfish in this scenario.
The entire species exists in a salt water lake, and is very well adapted to it.
It is the same colour as the vegetation to match it's background, and is an omnivore, preying on smaller fish that try to eat it's stuff, and plants. It's relatively medium sized, but there are no predators above it on the food chain.

One day, erosion causes the lake to be connected to a river nearby, and some of the buckfish decide to go down river, which eventually leads to the ocean.
The ones who stayed in the lakes will over time suffer evolutionary pressure, the ones most able to adapt to fresh water being added over time will survive, until we reach a point where those who can survive easily in fresh water are all that are left. After a while, the trait that allows them to survive in salt water will be discarded since if they lose it, they don't suffer any negative consequences. (MOST evolutionary changes are totally neutral in nature, like this. They neither harm nor benefit the species in it's habitat.)
The ones who ended up in the sea had none of this pressure, and will be salt-water adapted.
The ones who stayed in the initial lake don't really need to adapt further.
They will remain vegetation coloured etc.

The ones who moved into the ocean go down into the depths, to a state of almost total darkness.
They have no need of eyes, and small eyes are a good thing here, since having two soft vulnerable spots on your face is a Bad Idea if they don't have any use. Eventually eyes get small enough to be negligible, and cease to exist at all. In the state of darkness, the pressure placed on blending in with vegetation is relaxed, allowing their colour to drift around into new hues, eventually settling on a neutral grey colour since this requires less energy than to colour ones skin.
There is little vegetation in the depths, and their diet consists almost entirely of smaller fish that they track by sensing movement. Pressure is applied to be quick enough to catch the prey, now that their usual tactic of ambush is no longer viable. As such, their fins will become more powerful, and their bodies more streamlined over time, with those unable to keep up with these changes dying off.
We may see pressure placed on becomming like a snake, where sensing vibration in the water is crucial to survival.
Due to the increased pressure in the depths, bone structure is selected for to be stronger, and size can increase proportionally, which is useful for a predator, and since they work by sensing movement, increasing the surface area of their body acts like increasing the size of their eardrum.

Now, suppose I grab one from each specimen and compare them.
One is green, the other grey.
One has eyes, the other does not.
One lives in fresh water, the other salt water.
etc.

They are both evolved/descended from:
The Imaginary Saltwater Buckfish
but have now become
The Imaginary Freshwater Buckfish
and
The Imaginary Deep-Sea Buckfish
(Though the chances of us naming them this is highly unlikely. You'll notice that we tend to name shit randomly and only later discover how it is related to other things in the tree. We're far more likely to call them: The Imaginary Freshwater Lurker, and the Imaginary Deep-sea Seeker, then discover "Hey, these are both descended from the imaginary Saltwater Buckfish! At which points creationists bitch about different kinds not producing etc etc. Humans are just "Hairless apes." If we'd been called that, the "Different kinds hurp durp!" wouldn't work now would it. But we called ourselves humans, and so you complain we can't be apes.)

Just change the enviromental pressures on two groups of the same species, and you'll see evolution happen. (Or hell, don't do that and just dump two species into geologically isolated, environmentally identical areas and you might see some noticable changes, there is no one size fits all solution.)
Over time, enough drift has occured as to make them radically different and unable to interbreed. At this point, they are a new species.

What part of that scenario do creationists disagree is possible and why?
If you agree it's all possible, you accept evolution is possible. And at that point, why don't you think it's LIKELY or even DEFINATELY occuring?

(if my fellow evolutionists like this post they are welcome to take it and use it later. I find that providing a definate example tends to make them unable to come up with any objection except cattle noises. An example of every change I described is available, i simply piled them all onto one creature to make the contrast between old and new as quick as possible to forgo it being a 100 page long post.)

In a sane community, this would be "[/thread]".




Sadly, this is NSG.

[Kubrath]

He can't... He's just copying and pasting from Conservapedia...

Fair enough I did copy and paste. But I'll stop if you guys stop posting things that make no sense, or which do not provide an adequately detailed explanation. For example, I asked how did the DNA originate and the response I got was RNA. Bloody useful that is!

"But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools..." - The Eagles