We can wait and see. Biologists have continued quietly working on evolution during all the year’s it’s been fought over at CAF. They continue to work and solidify the explanatory cogency of the theory of evolution. Meanwhile, not a single discovery, not an iota of new knowledge flowing from the minds of IDers and YECs. Nothing at all – just hot air…You know StA your argument from popularity is getting to me. I may just accept evolution because a lot of people claim it true…One note though - you had better get out more - this is not the only forum where this is being discussed, but you wouldn’t know that now would you. I am sure your esteemed colleagues keep you under lock and key.
Ed, I quite agree with you on this. I’d go further, and say “No God = no universe.”What are we arguing about? I guess I’ll have to blunt. No God - no evolution. Peace,Ed
Ahhhh! At last we agree on something. …but strict empirical science cannot be biased…Okay, let me put it simpler.
Evolution is based on evidence, according to the scientific method. This is also how we developed the theories for atoms, current/voltage, doping silicon to build semiconductors, etc. Both evolution and computers are based off of evidence, science, and applying that knowledge. And yes, we can apply knowledge of evolution - for instance the idea that two of our chromosomes fused was confirmed after the hypothesis/prediction.
Now, you were claiming that science was attacking faith and God in this situation. My point, is that you can’t say “science” is or that “evolution” (being science) is. Perhaps some people are, but strict empirical evidence about reality can’t really be biased.
My point is that you seem to be fine with the fruits of science as long as they don’t conflict with the way you think reality *should *be. Of course, I’m guessing that you’ll argue that evolution is just not science or something, but my point is that you’re unfairly separating out one area of science as invalid while accepting others when they are both based on the same premise of evidence and the scientific method.
Have you not been paying attention to the Altenberg 16? Saltations are a problem a big problem. That is why there is the EES.We can wait and see. Biologists have continued quietly working on evolution during all the year’s it’s been fought over at CAF. They continue to work and solidify the explanatory cogency of the theory of evolution. Meanwhile, not a single discovery, not an iota of new knowledge flowing from the minds of IDers and YECs. Nothing at all – just hot air…
So you worked in electronics (pretty scientific if you ask me), and they didn’t mention evolution. But didn’t you say that science was basically synonymous with evolution? This doesn’t make sense to me, maybe I’m missing something.Oh no, the scientific community is a political block just like any other entity. A “comedien” on TV recently commented on the ‘fact’ that Conservatives don’t believe in evolution, and no one asked me to carry a Conservative Card, but there I am, made an automatic member.
I went to college, and I went to a specialized school to pick up electronics. Never once was the word evolution used at any time. I worked in health care for almost ten years and watched as a doctor produced a breakthrough imaging technology in xeroradiography.
I study the history of technology and learned that wherever humans are involved, the temptation to manipulate and misinterpret data exists.
hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html
Peace,
Ed
Start with perfect DNA. Add mutations and the human over time becomes increasingly susceptible to disease.On another note (and this is for anyone to answer), how do you explain genetic diseases without evolution? Can you really claim to trust some areas of genetic biology (the accuracy of which I can’t really see anyone debating) while denying at least the basic principles of evolution? If evolution is false, then what is the purpose of DNA?
Not quite. Adaptation uses existing capabilites to adjust. Evolution states that happens by natural selection and mutation. Common to both is change.But adaptation IS evolution. Some may disagree with this, and I couldn’t tell you what the current theory says exactly about it, but the way I see it, genetic adaptation is change over a few generations, while evolution is much more long term. It’s really the same idea though.
Sure, but evolution is not a “fruit” of science, it is science. A better anaology would be you not being fine with germ theory because the bible says disease is caused by evil spirits. You’re not talking against a product here, you’re talking against one of the current foundations of our understanding of biology. It really is like claiming gravity is wrong because Jesus walked on water.Ahhhh! At last we agree on something. …but strict empirical science cannot be biased…
**I am not fine with some of the fruits of science where they conflict with my faith. Correct. There are areas of concern such as WMD’s, invitro fertilization, the pill, and on and on. **
Of course it has empirical evidence, it’s just not evidence reproduced in a lab so you’re rejecting it as being valid because you don’t like the fact that evidence exists. I really don’t think any amount of evidence would convince you.The scientific method requires experiment, repeatability and prediction. Macro-evolution does not satisfy empirical science. The best one can do is make an educated guess as to what transpired in the past. An a priori bias can cloud sound interpretation.
You really don’t understand the significance of the fused chromosomes do you? And you’re just making up numbers there, don’t be silly. For instance, a species having only a couple hundred thousand generations over the course of it’s 4 billion year evolution is being either dishonest with your claim or ignorant of what the scientific consensus is. Besides that mutations don’t happen one base pair at a time… seriously just use google for once before posting strawmen.Fusing of the chromosomes means nothing as other species share these banding patterns too but are not descended from each other. What is important is to look at the coded information contained and that shows marked differences between chimps and humans. There is something like 35 million DNA bases that are different, requiring 40 million distinct mutations in a couple hundred thousand generations.
And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller’s Cold (Chromosomal) FusionSure, but evolution is not a “fruit” of science, it is science. A better anaology would be you not being fine with germ theory because the bible says disease is caused by evil spirits. You’re not talking against a product here, you’re talking against one of the current foundations of our understanding of biology. It really is like claiming gravity is wrong because Jesus walked on water.
Of course it has empirical evidence, it’s just not evidence reproduced in a lab so you’re rejecting it as being valid because you don’t like the fact that evidence exists. I really don’t think any amount of evidence would convince you.
Here’s a basic site on the evidence though.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
You really don’t understand the significance of the fused chromosomes do you? And you’re just making up numbers there, don’t be silly. For instance, a species having only a couple hundred thousand generations over the course of it’s 4 billion year evolution is being either dishonest with your claim or ignorant of what the scientific consensus is.
You can try to explain anything with any crackpot theory you like, but currently evolution fits the bill perfectly, as well as explains ridiculous amounts of other questions about human development and physiology. It’s quite a well proven and powerful scientific theory, and while I’m sure it does have limitations and there is still more to discover, it’s quite unreasonable in this day and age with all the current evidence and knowledge to claim a 2000+ year old twice translated story with a talking snake and women being made from a rib is more trustworthy than 200 years of empirical evidence and careful scientific analysis across a variety of fields included palaeontology, geology, cosmology, anthropology, biology, virology, pathology all of which have brought benefits.On another note (and this is for anyone to answer), how do you explain genetic diseases without evolution? Can you really claim to trust some areas of genetic biology (the accuracy of which I can’t really see anyone debating) while denying at least the basic principles of evolution? If evolution is false, then what is the purpose of DNA?
You’re ignoring the fact that the chromosomes between apes and humans are nearly identical. The chromosome fusion was the answer to “why do we have a different number of chromosomes if we’re supposed to be so similar”. The fusion itself does not mean we’re related, the genetic similarity does, the fusion simply then acts as further evidence because it’s exactly what we would expect to see if we were in fact related given the genomes of the two species.And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller’s Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion
…
So I am more than willing to acknowledge and affirm that Miller did provide some very good direct empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. But I’m more interested in two other questions: if we accept Miller’s chromosomal fusion evidence as accurate, then (1) is his chromosome fusion story good evidence for Neo-Darwinian common ancestry between humans and apes? Or (2) does it perhaps pose great problems for a Neo-Darwinian account?
The answer to question (1) is “NO” and the answer to question (2) is “YES!”
Figure 1. This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The “Separate Ancestry” slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The “Common Ancestry” slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.
DNA is the master blueprint for building life. It did not come into existence out of thin air.So you worked in electronics (pretty scientific if you ask me), and they didn’t mention evolution. But didn’t you say that science was basically synonymous with evolution? This doesn’t make sense to me, maybe I’m missing something.
I think I’m starting to understand what you mean about the scientific community as a whole having an agenda, although I still disagree. I think a more accurate statement would be that biologists have an agenda (evolution) to push, which they do, sometimes too aggressively. Tell me if this makes any sense. If someone outspokenly advocates evolution (A), they are usually part of the scientific community (B). A implies B, but the most basic rules of logic say that the converse is not necessarily true. Are there people in the scientific community, aside from biologists, who push evolution publicly? Probably, although I can’t name one off the top of my head. But most people in science would rather pursue other areas more related to their field. There are the few “representatives” (horrible word choice, but by this I mean they are more outspoken in the media) in the scientific community, and then there are the rest of the scientists who, if given the chance, will probably talk about evolution, but by no means make a campaign of it.
On another note (and this is for anyone to answer), how do you explain genetic diseases without evolution? Can you really claim to trust some areas of genetic biology (the accuracy of which I can’t really see anyone debating) while denying at least the basic principles of evolution? If evolution is false, then what is the purpose of DNA?
How Scientific Evidence is Changing the Tide of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design DebateYou’re ignoring the fact that the chromosomes between apes and humans are nearly identical. The chromosome fusion was the answer to “why do we have a different number of chromosomes if we’re supposed to be so similar”. The fusion itself does not mean we’re related, the genetic similarity does, the fusion simply then acts as further evidence because it’s exactly what we would expect to see if we were in fact related given the genomes of the two species.
But you admit that genetic mutations do occur. This is obviously a fact. Evolution as a whole is not random, it is governed by a (non sentient) set of rules known as natural selection. All it takes is one positive mutation to change a population; one member of the population gains the positive mutation and then spreads it via sexual reproduction. I don’t see any problem with this at all. Is it unlikely? Yes, that’s why it takes billions of years and millions of generations to produce significant changes within a population. Over a long enough timescale, it is not unreasonable to imagine that sweeping changes may occur.DNA is the master blueprint for building life. It did not come into existence out of thin air.
Genetic diseases? What’s to explain? A lot of mutations are neutral, some are harmful. And the tiny number of possibly helpful mutations have little chance of being passed on yet they receive credit for doing so. The science of biology, at present, has a fragmentary, biased and partly fictional idea of how things may have happened some years back.
The suggestion is that in the mists of time, not unlike a curtain, magical things just happened to happen. The explanation and reason these things supposedly happened is millions of years. That’s all you need, millions of years and you get increasing, specified and functional genetic information, once again, out of thin air. That’s why scientists tried to prove evolution using fruit flies – short life span, expose them to some radiation and see what happens. In that case, nothing new. Sure, the flies’ genetic material was mixed around but nothing new.
I hope you can see that the gradual assembly of a pair of eyeballs is nonsensical when explained in purely ‘random mutation and natural selection’ terms. Things like eyeballs are not metal parts that go into a machine. They need eye sockets spaced apart at the correct distance for binocular vision. They need optic nerves and they need to be connected to the correct part of the brain.
Here’s a scientist that may interest you. He may help you to understand my point of view:
youtube.com/watch?v=EczOQ1mV5aU
Peace,
Ed
But over a long enough timeline, the changes in DNA compound and produce new species which can’t mate with each other. I realize that adaptation is defined differently than evolution in the ways you mentioned, but really they describe the same process.Not quite. Adaptation uses existing capabilites to adjust. Evolution states that happens by natural selection and mutation. Common to both is change.
Adaptation claims that changes occur within the same species, Evolution claims that new species are created.
No one disagrees with observed change.
Really? You mean like the CCR5 mutation that prevents HIV? Where do you get this nonsense form?Start with perfect DNA. Add mutations and the human over time becomes increasingly susceptible to disease.
Adaptation.
Seriously, perhaps if you looked at information not from creationist/ID websites you might learn something.How Scientific Evidence is Changing the Tide of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate
…So, here we have DNA that is so important in brain development that it is nearly identical in all other animals tested, but radically different in humans. In this particular area, chimps are much more closely “related” to chickens and rodents than to humans. Look at the ridiculous statements this forces those committed to evolution to make – “the most extremely accelerated regions of the human genome may have switched from negative to positive (and possibly back to negative) some time in the last 5−6 million years.” Said another way, the only evolutionary explanation is that there was DNA so important to the brain that any change in it was not tolerated in any other species, but somehow in the line leading to humans change was beneficial. Then, once it reached a certain point, the changes to humans stopped again. A much more straightforward interpretation of the evidence is that the DNA code that specifies the human brain was uniquely created.
For additional accumulating evidence that humans are unique compared to other species, read on: