KingDiamond
New member
^Oops, saying that rejecting evolution is not rejecting biology is like.....
Evolution and Coral
- Thread starter thecichlidpleco
- Start date
"Rejecting evolution does not completely reject biology"
- I agree with KD, this is a cornerstone of biological science, you get mired down to an inability to make ANY other advances in the biological sciences if you cannot understand this basic scientific fact. Kind of like saying - "I believe in all the teachings of the bible, well, except for Genesis 1:6-7"
.....oh yeah, one big difference in this comparison; note the need to use the word "believe" in the second example...hmmmmm
Jay
- I agree with KD, this is a cornerstone of biological science, you get mired down to an inability to make ANY other advances in the biological sciences if you cannot understand this basic scientific fact. Kind of like saying - "I believe in all the teachings of the bible, well, except for Genesis 1:6-7"
.....oh yeah, one big difference in this comparison; note the need to use the word "believe" in the second example...hmmmmm
Jay
cutegecko3
Member
Evolution is a fact that no one does or ever has disputed.Macro evolution is a centuries year old myth that must be beleived in dispite every scientific evidence that totally contradicts it.That requires faith and is very ironic isnt it?
KingDiamond
New member
The only big difference between "Macro and Micro" evolution is time. So if "every scientific evidence" contradicts evolution over time then I guess the only logical thing to do would be to not believe any science and return to living in caves and drawing on walls with sticks (Oh wait a minute there is no evidence that that ever happened).
cutegecko,
But without macroevolution wouldn't you still just be an uglygecko?
Seriously, "a species" is just an artificial human designation, humans always have had a strong need to put things into categories: Black or white, heaven or hell, this species or that. Turns out the animals and plants haven't a clue that we've put them in those categories.
So if microevolution is a fact as we both have asserted, then it follows that macroevolution is also a fact because the line between our definitions of the two terms are just as artificial. Think longer timelines. If 300 species of Victorian cichlids can evolve in 14,500 years through microevolution (Science magazine 1996), it takes absolutely no leap of faith on my part to understand that macroevolution takes place - but in the context of millions of years.
Jay
But without macroevolution wouldn't you still just be an uglygecko?
Seriously, "a species" is just an artificial human designation, humans always have had a strong need to put things into categories: Black or white, heaven or hell, this species or that. Turns out the animals and plants haven't a clue that we've put them in those categories.
So if microevolution is a fact as we both have asserted, then it follows that macroevolution is also a fact because the line between our definitions of the two terms are just as artificial. Think longer timelines. If 300 species of Victorian cichlids can evolve in 14,500 years through microevolution (Science magazine 1996), it takes absolutely no leap of faith on my part to understand that macroevolution takes place - but in the context of millions of years.
Jay
cutegecko3
Member
True ,But your conclusions are based on naturalism,Which cannot in any way shape or form accept that God created different kinds of animals.And in the absense of evidence to validate it naturaly,I conclude God did it.And yes i am becoming a uglygecko(hahaha).
Cutegecko,
My comments are not founded in naturalism except by coincidence, the only philosphy I've ever studied was introduction to logic and a smattering of ethical systems. True, I have no personal belief system that includes a supernatural being of any sort. On the other hand, as you alluded to, creationism cannot stand without such a belief system already well entrenched within the individual.
To be perfectly honest, I would much rather UNDERSTAND something to be true (macroevolution) than simply BELIEVE it must be (creationism). The latter seems so bleakly desperate.
Jay
My comments are not founded in naturalism except by coincidence, the only philosphy I've ever studied was introduction to logic and a smattering of ethical systems. True, I have no personal belief system that includes a supernatural being of any sort. On the other hand, as you alluded to, creationism cannot stand without such a belief system already well entrenched within the individual.
To be perfectly honest, I would much rather UNDERSTAND something to be true (macroevolution) than simply BELIEVE it must be (creationism). The latter seems so bleakly desperate.
Jay
Poorcollegereef
Future Doc
Ok, well I do know something about biology... and my 4.0 in the biological sciences department suggests that I am not making up lies. Secondly, I study the effects of maritime shipping on the marine biota and for the most part, I really do not deal with evolution. I do believe that evolution is the best answer at the moment of understanding how life has progressed. I do not believe in the typical creationist theory for it lacks any really scientific merit.
Biology can be studied without evolution, but evolution does enlighten certain observations. Evolution, as it remains, is still only a theory (and as much as some of use depend on it, we must realize that it has yet to be perfected or 100% proven and this does not discredit it either). There is considerable evidence but there is still some debate (and not with creationalism) to exactly how genetic mutation, exchange and inheritance progress over time. And while is has been incorporated into must biological theories as well, biology does NOT depend on the acceptance of evolution in general.
Now, I must agree with JHemdal in the fact that classification is an artificial human designation. Our classification change depending on how our perceptions change.
Gecko: the lack of evidence does not validate anything. It is an appeal to ignorance and logically flawed. Your perception of how the world exist is strictly your own however, it is not accepted by the peer reviewed scientific community, sorry. However, I wish you luck on your personal journey, but try not to needle those who are serious about their work.
cutegecko3
Member
Falsifiying evolution doesnt validate creationism.There may be an as of yet undiscovered source of origins.Some things are beyond the scope of science.Before we all get carried away again,I guess we should be discussing corals.
MCsaxmaster
New member
1) Understanding how and why evolution occurs is the underlying principle for understanding all of biology.
Yes, of course some aspects of biology can be performed without an understanding of evolution (Darwin was a naturalist, for example), but so can you prepare food without the ability to cook any of it, so can you run chemistry experiments without any understanding of the structure or matter, so can you study aspects of physics without ever taking into account any force besides gravity.
Of course, if you do that you don't have anything but chopped raw food, or you end up developing ideas about alchemy, or you conclude that the universe does not have any matter in it.
One can work on biological problems without an understanding of evolution, but one cannot begin to explain biology without it. Trying to do biology without an appreciation of evolution is akin to doing chemistry without any understanding of the nature of matter: we get such gems as alchemy, which explains absolutely nothing and has no application whatsoever.
To say that one accepts biology but rejects evolution would be rather like saying that one is a Christian but rejects the idea that Jesus Christ ever existed. It is antithetical, and nonsensical.
True ,But your conclusions are based on naturalism,Which cannot in any way shape or form accept that God created different kinds of animals.And in the absense of evidence to validate it naturaly,I conclude God did it.And yes i am becoming a uglygecko(hahaha).
Naturalism? Science seeks to explain the nature of the universe. It can only investigate natural mechanisms, therefore only attempts to explain what can be explained through natural mechanisms. Science cannot use supernatural mechanisms as an explanation because they are, by definition, beyond manipulation and not subject to falsification. Those ideas are, by definition, non-scientific, therefore there's no reason to even think about them in a scientific context. Science cannot be applied to investigate the supernatural, by definition, and therefore the supernatural cannot be envoked as an explanation in science.
Evolution is a fact that no one does or ever has disputed.Macro evolution is a centuries year old myth that must be beleived in dispite every scientific evidence that totally contradicts it.That requires faith and is very ironic isnt it?
Oye vey. As mentioned, "macroevolution" is not qualitatively any different from "microevolution"--there is simply evolution. Evolutionary biologists envoke those terms just to give a general idea of the order of magnitude of the issues they are addressing. Likewise, "microalgae" is not qualitately different from "macroalgae"--if you relieve an algal turf from grazing pressue, most of those "microalgae" that make up the turf become "macroalgae" when they aren't cropped.
There are no observations that suggest that species have not evolved and do not continue to do so. There are countless observations that demonstrate both. There is no distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" except as a semantic convenience when discussing evolution.
If you honestly believe there is any sort of qualitative difference, please provide definitions for both, so as to demonstrate the difference.
Evolution, as it remains, is still only a theory (and as much as some of use depend on it, we must realize that it has yet to be perfected or 100% proven and this does not discredit it either).
Oh come now. Such a statment smacks of confusion on what science is at all
In science, a theory is the highest form of thought. It is a coherent explanation that unites facts and laws and allows for the generation of testable hypotheses. A theory is the PINNACLE of science. There is no higher point to which an idea can be elevated (laws, facts, hypotheses, etc. are all subordinate). To call something "only" a theory is to immediately shoot oneself in the proverbial foot. A scientific theory is the best insight into reality that is available, and to misunderstand that shows a complete misunderstanding of not just evolution, but of science.
To say that it has not been proven 100% is simply to acknowledge that the idea exists, since nothing can EVER be proven 100%. The existence of gravity has not been proven 100%, nor the existence of electrons, nor my existence, nor your existence, nor existence itself for that matter
Best,
Chris
Yes, of course some aspects of biology can be performed without an understanding of evolution (Darwin was a naturalist, for example), but so can you prepare food without the ability to cook any of it, so can you run chemistry experiments without any understanding of the structure or matter, so can you study aspects of physics without ever taking into account any force besides gravity.
Of course, if you do that you don't have anything but chopped raw food, or you end up developing ideas about alchemy, or you conclude that the universe does not have any matter in it.
One can work on biological problems without an understanding of evolution, but one cannot begin to explain biology without it. Trying to do biology without an appreciation of evolution is akin to doing chemistry without any understanding of the nature of matter: we get such gems as alchemy, which explains absolutely nothing and has no application whatsoever.
To say that one accepts biology but rejects evolution would be rather like saying that one is a Christian but rejects the idea that Jesus Christ ever existed. It is antithetical, and nonsensical.
True ,But your conclusions are based on naturalism,Which cannot in any way shape or form accept that God created different kinds of animals.And in the absense of evidence to validate it naturaly,I conclude God did it.And yes i am becoming a uglygecko(hahaha).
Naturalism? Science seeks to explain the nature of the universe. It can only investigate natural mechanisms, therefore only attempts to explain what can be explained through natural mechanisms. Science cannot use supernatural mechanisms as an explanation because they are, by definition, beyond manipulation and not subject to falsification. Those ideas are, by definition, non-scientific, therefore there's no reason to even think about them in a scientific context. Science cannot be applied to investigate the supernatural, by definition, and therefore the supernatural cannot be envoked as an explanation in science.
Evolution is a fact that no one does or ever has disputed.Macro evolution is a centuries year old myth that must be beleived in dispite every scientific evidence that totally contradicts it.That requires faith and is very ironic isnt it?
Oye vey. As mentioned, "macroevolution" is not qualitatively any different from "microevolution"--there is simply evolution. Evolutionary biologists envoke those terms just to give a general idea of the order of magnitude of the issues they are addressing. Likewise, "microalgae" is not qualitately different from "macroalgae"--if you relieve an algal turf from grazing pressue, most of those "microalgae" that make up the turf become "macroalgae" when they aren't cropped.
There are no observations that suggest that species have not evolved and do not continue to do so. There are countless observations that demonstrate both. There is no distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" except as a semantic convenience when discussing evolution.
If you honestly believe there is any sort of qualitative difference, please provide definitions for both, so as to demonstrate the difference.
Evolution, as it remains, is still only a theory (and as much as some of use depend on it, we must realize that it has yet to be perfected or 100% proven and this does not discredit it either).
Oh come now. Such a statment smacks of confusion on what science is at all
In science, a theory is the highest form of thought. It is a coherent explanation that unites facts and laws and allows for the generation of testable hypotheses. A theory is the PINNACLE of science. There is no higher point to which an idea can be elevated (laws, facts, hypotheses, etc. are all subordinate). To call something "only" a theory is to immediately shoot oneself in the proverbial foot. A scientific theory is the best insight into reality that is available, and to misunderstand that shows a complete misunderstanding of not just evolution, but of science.
To say that it has not been proven 100% is simply to acknowledge that the idea exists, since nothing can EVER be proven 100%. The existence of gravity has not been proven 100%, nor the existence of electrons, nor my existence, nor your existence, nor existence itself for that matter
Best,
Chris
Poorcollegereef
Future Doc
Hey Chris, nice to have you back in this conversation. How has your semester been?
I will avoid the skepticism argument with you for the moment, but I guess I will try to clarify my position a bit better.
When I tried to explain that evolution is a theory, I am not attempting to discredit it, but I am (at a philosophical level) questioning evolution. Constantly questioning a theory, regardless of the current consensus should be encouraged. I am trying to avoid using evolution in the same 'truth' since as some creationists use similar arguments for their own cause and lack evidence.
I would like an epistemological analysis of evolution. Actually, it worries me that one cannot remove the theory evolution from the framework of biology as a science and not have some legitimate product, even if it only concerned with the present function of an ecosystem. After all, even the most scientific (Social, behavioral, biological, or pure (mathematics/physics) has some fallacy built into the initial assumption.
Now my 100% comment may have been a bit of generalist statement, but all fields should question the basic assumptions regularly. However, some fields, ranging from civil engineering to even philosophy must constantly reanalyze the basic principles in which we operate.
Now, about that skepticism comment. I think you would prefer Hume in the fact that we should not doubt of sensory inputs, but then there is the classical dream scenario with Descartes. But our senses can validate the other senses when working properly/ For example we see a fish, then we could touch a fish, taste a fish, smell the fish, and hear the fishes movements and so on… constantly questioning that yours, my or anyone else’s perception and that we can’t really prove that perception is accurate, then you begging the question… a fallacy. (Not saying that you are using this argument but just introducing the fallacy to others here) However, science is a system of applying logic to observation in the hope to be able to identify and recreate various actions and reactions based on independent and dependent variables.
Ironically, most of the arguments questioning the validity of evolution do form some type of logical fallacy and those stressing any other point normally use faith or other belief system to fill in the gaps. I am trying to question the epistemology of evolution and the role in which it plays within modern biology.
Just trying to raise the argument beyond the tired science v faith bickering.
Forgive me if I generalized anything but I just do not want to write another thesis this month.
(Edit) Hahaha, I think I just realized a probelm! The term "theory" is used differently within the various fields. From my understanding, a theory is a framework that links observations, data and other forms of evidence, but it has yet to be recreated or validated to a higher level such as a proof. Hmmm funny, I need to do some more reading. Science uses the terms "theory" and "fact" potentially the as the same meaning. While phiosophy and other fields use the term theory as a speculation that may or may not have supporting evidence.
Lets all agress to blame the use of the term "theory" and all the problems associated with it on the English and Linguistics folks...(man... is my fiance going to kill me for saying that)
I will avoid the skepticism argument with you for the moment, but I guess I will try to clarify my position a bit better.
When I tried to explain that evolution is a theory, I am not attempting to discredit it, but I am (at a philosophical level) questioning evolution. Constantly questioning a theory, regardless of the current consensus should be encouraged. I am trying to avoid using evolution in the same 'truth' since as some creationists use similar arguments for their own cause and lack evidence.
I would like an epistemological analysis of evolution. Actually, it worries me that one cannot remove the theory evolution from the framework of biology as a science and not have some legitimate product, even if it only concerned with the present function of an ecosystem. After all, even the most scientific (Social, behavioral, biological, or pure (mathematics/physics) has some fallacy built into the initial assumption.
Now my 100% comment may have been a bit of generalist statement, but all fields should question the basic assumptions regularly. However, some fields, ranging from civil engineering to even philosophy must constantly reanalyze the basic principles in which we operate.
Now, about that skepticism comment. I think you would prefer Hume in the fact that we should not doubt of sensory inputs, but then there is the classical dream scenario with Descartes. But our senses can validate the other senses when working properly/ For example we see a fish, then we could touch a fish, taste a fish, smell the fish, and hear the fishes movements and so on… constantly questioning that yours, my or anyone else’s perception and that we can’t really prove that perception is accurate, then you begging the question… a fallacy. (Not saying that you are using this argument but just introducing the fallacy to others here) However, science is a system of applying logic to observation in the hope to be able to identify and recreate various actions and reactions based on independent and dependent variables.
Ironically, most of the arguments questioning the validity of evolution do form some type of logical fallacy and those stressing any other point normally use faith or other belief system to fill in the gaps. I am trying to question the epistemology of evolution and the role in which it plays within modern biology.
Just trying to raise the argument beyond the tired science v faith bickering.
Forgive me if I generalized anything but I just do not want to write another thesis this month.
(Edit) Hahaha, I think I just realized a probelm! The term "theory" is used differently within the various fields. From my understanding, a theory is a framework that links observations, data and other forms of evidence, but it has yet to be recreated or validated to a higher level such as a proof. Hmmm funny, I need to do some more reading. Science uses the terms "theory" and "fact" potentially the as the same meaning. While phiosophy and other fields use the term theory as a speculation that may or may not have supporting evidence.
Lets all agress to blame the use of the term "theory" and all the problems associated with it on the English and Linguistics folks...(man... is my fiance going to kill me for saying that)
Last edited:
KingDiamond
New member
Poorcollegereef,
My statement above was about the people you were talking about not you. I am glad you clarified what you were saying because my eyebrow raised as high as Mcsaxmasters did at your "only a theory" comment.
My statement above was about the people you were talking about not you. I am glad you clarified what you were saying because my eyebrow raised as high as Mcsaxmasters did at your "only a theory" comment.
cutegecko3
Member
Starfish,Jellyfish,Snails etc. show up suddenly in the fossil record and show no evolutionary change in 500 million years.Since science makes predictions,How long do you predict we have to wait to see at least some evolutionary change.Instead of changing the subject and saying "It must represent an evolutioary sequence because there is no reptile,birds,or mammals present."Any 3 year old can tell you those animals dont live on the bottom of the ocean.Just curious,Is there a scientific theory here or are you just making up stories to explain the evidence?
MCsaxmaster
New member
No, they don’t.
Yes, they do.
Why waitâ€"there are whole books dedicated to the very subject (see a recommendation below).
…..that’s why people don’t look for and don’t find terrestrial fossils in marine sediments. People look for and find terrestrial fossils in TERRESTRIAL sediments.
Let me make a book recommendation to you: On the Origin of Phyla by James Valentine. It is very thick (and by this I mean technical, though it’s pretty long as well) but is absolutely astounding. Valentine is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (effectively, the top scientists in the US and some foreign countries) and this book is seminal. The evidence you deny exists is laid out beautifully in this work, and I’d encourage you to pick up a copy at a local library.
Best,
Chris
thecichlidpleco
New member
Just wanted to point out that if you go on a creationist tour of a museum of natural history, you will be told that dinosaurs were on earth for one day with man and then God decided to get rid of them. I am fine if you believe the creation of the Universe by some unknown being, and natural processes went on without the direct will of that being, but just because a certain animal isnt placed in an all important book, doesnt mean that it wasnt around for an exponentially longer time than our ever important species.
gecko maybe even do a little research on trilobites, an animal that didnt just show up and shows many dramatic changes in its features over the course of its history.
Also if you think that things just showed up in the fossil record, maybe you just got info wrong or from bad source, most hard shelled creatures didnt develop until late precambrain, and early cambrian, so it would be difficult to find creatures such as snails, but they were out there. The shell along with other factors are reasons why you believe they just showed up when in fact they were just poorly preserved.
gecko maybe even do a little research on trilobites, an animal that didnt just show up and shows many dramatic changes in its features over the course of its history.
Also if you think that things just showed up in the fossil record, maybe you just got info wrong or from bad source, most hard shelled creatures didnt develop until late precambrain, and early cambrian, so it would be difficult to find creatures such as snails, but they were out there. The shell along with other factors are reasons why you believe they just showed up when in fact they were just poorly preserved.
If this is what it says, That they "where only on earth for one day". I don't agree to their statement as well.
The book I read ( funny I cannot name a book. Funny world. Kinda telling in its self) Does talk about LARGE animals with legs the size of cedar trees. I'm at cabin with dial up so it is hard to look up references right now.
sabbath,
You might want to re-read "the book you cannot name" in the KJ version, Job 40 the actual quote is far less imposing than your rendition: "He moves his tail like a cedar". Other interpretations say that it is "curved" like a cedar branch.
More telling, the book goes on to say: "The shady trees cover him with their shadow". If this was a huge dinosaur, wouldn't it be the other way around? HIS shadow covering the trees?
J
You might want to re-read "the book you cannot name" in the KJ version, Job 40 the actual quote is far less imposing than your rendition: "He moves his tail like a cedar". Other interpretations say that it is "curved" like a cedar branch.
More telling, the book goes on to say: "The shady trees cover him with their shadow". If this was a huge dinosaur, wouldn't it be the other way around? HIS shadow covering the trees?
J
Ok. I may have read it wrong. Good point, Thanks.
It still don't agree on the dinos here one day deal. And if Dinosaurs are not talk about. Does not mean they where not here for some time IMO. So I'm trying to say, I think they where here for a period of time.
But yes, I apologize for getting a little off topic .
MCsaxmaster
New member
Sabbath,
Please consider: If we assume that the biblical god exists, we are left with two options as to the history of not just life, but of Earth, the solar, system, our galaxy, and indeed the entire universe.
Either 1) the biologists, physicists, geologists, etc. have more or less got it right (the universe experienced a big bang ~14 billion years ago, Earth and the rest of the solar system formed ~4.6 billion years ago, life emerged ~3.5 billion years ago and evolved into what we have today).
OR
2) God is a deceptive charlattan that purposefully created fossils of extinct things, even though they never actually existed, OR he compltely altered their chemical and physical structure to give the appearance of age when, thousands of years in the future, people would discover dating methods. He created photons already travelling to the Earth from stars billions of light years away, even though those stars could never have existed. He created cosmic background radiation and a host of other evidence just to fool us into coming to the conclusion that the Earth billions of years old while the universe is billions more.
So, if you believe in the biblical god (which presumably you do), then you are left with either the option of saying, 1) yes, God appears to be honest and the world is as it appears, or 2) God is a lying charlattan that has planted false evidence to fool us.
I'm not sure why anyone would ever choose to worship a charalattan.
Chris
Please consider: If we assume that the biblical god exists, we are left with two options as to the history of not just life, but of Earth, the solar, system, our galaxy, and indeed the entire universe.
Either 1) the biologists, physicists, geologists, etc. have more or less got it right (the universe experienced a big bang ~14 billion years ago, Earth and the rest of the solar system formed ~4.6 billion years ago, life emerged ~3.5 billion years ago and evolved into what we have today).
OR
2) God is a deceptive charlattan that purposefully created fossils of extinct things, even though they never actually existed, OR he compltely altered their chemical and physical structure to give the appearance of age when, thousands of years in the future, people would discover dating methods. He created photons already travelling to the Earth from stars billions of light years away, even though those stars could never have existed. He created cosmic background radiation and a host of other evidence just to fool us into coming to the conclusion that the Earth billions of years old while the universe is billions more.
So, if you believe in the biblical god (which presumably you do), then you are left with either the option of saying, 1) yes, God appears to be honest and the world is as it appears, or 2) God is a lying charlattan that has planted false evidence to fool us.
I'm not sure why anyone would ever choose to worship a charalattan.
Chris
