Do you believe in Evolution? - Page 12

Rebellion · #**111** (**permalink**) 12-20-2004, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

It's hard to believe there are 7 pages of discussion on evolution here, but no understanding of the scientific terms and methods at issue here.

Evolution is a fact. We can observe it directly today. We also find overwhelming evidence of evolution in the historical record. That evolution exists is not in dispute. It is fact.

A theory is a cohesive explanation of "why" or "how" the facts and observations relate to each other. It is also "predictive". The explanations generated by the theory must be testable.

A theory is NOT a "guess" (neither a "wild" guess nor an "educated" guess). A theory is not an hypothesis. Hypotheses are generated to test the theory, to try to prove it "false". The longer a theory remains "not disproved", the stronger and more accepted it becomes.

Again, evolution is a fact.

When we speak of the Theory of Evolution, we are referring to the various possible processes and mechanisms by which Evolution occurs. Probably the most recognized theory of evolution is the Theory of Natural Selection.

The theories of evolution - natural selection and other potential means by which the fact of evolution occurs - are being actively tested, studied, observed, refined, supported, dismissed and debated in the scientific community. It's quite an exciting process, really. But what you won't find in the scientific community is any discussion or doubt over the existence of evolution itself.

Nobody with a modicum of scientific knowledge and understanding is going around asking, "Do you believe in evolution?" any more than they would ask, "Do you believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun?".

than natural creation. It is what you and some believe versus what others believe. There is no definitive proof that man decended from apes or salamanders or anything else. 2+2=4 is a fact. Evolution is a scientific theory that many scientists believe in. Nothing more.

ThereseM · #**112** (**permalink**) 12-20-2004, 12:46 PM

Deathby · #**113** (**permalink**) 12-20-2004, 03:32 PM

I realise that you haven't given any alternatives, and I agree a good discussion is healthy, which is why I'm still in this thread and haven't just said "ha ha look at those christian fanatics."

I find it fascinating how many holes in evolution there seem to be. The most important points you have are that we don't know many of the smaller mechanisms such as the introduction of new genes on the molecular level and how life began in the first place. I accept all these points. There are many things we don't know about evolution. And we could be wrong about evolution. It could be that natural selection tends towards self-moderation, rather than progression.

But there is one point that I really disagree with you on. There are many transitional fossils discovered and many new species. Whilst there are many similar animals there are also many wacky dissimilar animals, such as trilobites which have no living relatives. Those "virtually identical" fossils you talk about are generally different species. I don't think we've found a fossil of a species which as existed for longer than a few hundred million years. Cockroaches have existed for a very long time, but it hasn't been the same species, its only this order (or genus?) of insects that has lasted this long. It has changed over time. They've grown smaller for one thing.

And I still disagree that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. There are plenty, such as archaeopteryx.

Rebellion, I disagree with you. There is plenty of evidence for evolution if you choose not to ignore it. A few examples- the transitional forms in both fossils and living specimens. (amphibians for example and lungfish). Natural selection has been shown to work, I don't think there was much doubt about that even in this thread. Its just a matter of whether or not natural selection works on the long term.

MerlinX · #**114** (**permalink**) 12-20-2004, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deathby";p=&quot

And I still disagree that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. There are plenty, such as archaeopteryx.

Fair enough. I suppose then, we'll have to agree to disagree. But I would like to point out why a growing number of scientists are re-thinking archaeopteryx as a transitional form...

1) Fossils of normal birds have been found in older rock strata than that which contained archaeopteryx. That means either there is a problem with how rock strata are dated, or archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil (since normal birds were already a contemporary, there was nothing to "transition" into.)

2) Archaeopteryx had feathers. Feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology. That is, the feathers were not an evolutionary modification of scales, but rather had to appear all on their own. This would be like seeing a human baby born with feathers or scales.

3) Each of the “reptilian characteristics” in archaeopteryx is either found to exist in true birds, or is absent in many reptiles. For example, one of the characteristics of archaeopteryx that make it reptilian are hooks on its wings. Today, both the young Hoatzin bird and the young Ostrich have a hook on their wings similar to that of Archaeopteryx.

glowdog · #**115** (**permalink**) 12-20-2004, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

It's hard to believe there are 7 pages of discussion on evolution here, but no understanding of the scientific terms and methods at issue here.

Evolution is a fact. We can observe it directly today. We also find overwhelming evidence of evolution in the historical record. That evolution exists is not in dispute. It is fact.

A theory is a cohesive explanation of "why" or "how" the facts and observations relate to each other. It is also "predictive". The explanations generated by the theory must be testable.

A theory is NOT a "guess" (neither a "wild" guess nor an "educated" guess). A theory is not an hypothesis. Hypotheses are generated to test the theory, to try to prove it "false". The longer a theory remains "not disproved", the stronger and more accepted it becomes.

Again, evolution is a fact.

When we speak of the Theory of Evolution, we are referring to the various possible processes and mechanisms by which Evolution occurs. Probably the most recognized theory of evolution is the Theory of Natural Selection.

The theories of evolution - natural selection and other potential means by which the fact of evolution occurs - are being actively tested, studied, observed, refined, supported, dismissed and debated in the scientific community. It's quite an exciting process, really. But what you won't find in the scientific community is any discussion or doubt over the existence of evolution itself.

Nobody with a modicum of scientific knowledge and understanding is going around asking, "Do you believe in evolution?" any more than they would ask, "Do you believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun?".

That is the same kind of stultified thinking which you claim to hate...and you overstate things...there is nothing unanimous in the scientific community about it...

Oh, yes. The view that evolution exists is virtually unanimous among scientists in the relevant fields. Overwhelming evidence exists in the earth's historical record. And it is observed directly, in living species, in nature and in the laboratory. The fact of evolution is not remotely controversial, any more so than the fact of gravity.

There is "controversy", or rather, debate, among scientists regarding the various theories of evolution --- not the fact that evolution occurs (basically, that changes in the genetic composition of a population occur over time) --- but how it occurs, by what mechanisms and processes, the details.

This was understood by Darwin:

Darwin, The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...descent02.html

Quote:

I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change,..... Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.

..... and it is understood now:

Was Darwin Wrong? [NG's answer was "no", btw]
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...re1/index.html

Quote:

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

...even Darwin said if you don't find transitional fossils, no evolution (at least not as he defined it)...

One, I'm not sure how you believe Darwin "defined" evolution. Are you referring to his theory of natural selection? If so, that is not how he "defined" evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism that Darwin proposed drove evolution. Even if the theory of natural selection were proved false (which it hasn't been), that would not affect the truth of evolution itself.

Two, Darwin did not say what you are claiming he said. Have you read Darwin? Here are some links to the primary source itself that are relevant to your mischaracterization of Darwin's words.

Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_10.html
Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_06.html
Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_11.html
Darwin, On the origin of species. London, John Murray, 1859.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char.../origin06.html

Three, over 130 years have passed since The Origen of Species was published. While there were certainly transitional species found in Darwin's time, there are even more so found since then. The "lack of transitional fossils" claim of anti-evolutionists is a myth. Here is an excellent run-down of the issue of transitional fossils, including an extensive list of what has been discovered so far:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

From what I understand, many astronomers believe there is a divine beginning...Einstein did too...so much for unanimous...

Those who understand and accept evolution are not automatically atheists! How absurd! Evolution only conflicts with extremely literal young-earth and 7-day creation Christian beliefs. Don't try and create a conflict where there is none.

Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._religion.html

Quote:

The notion that science and religion are irreconcilable centers in large part on the issue of evolution. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, explained that the myriad species inhabiting Earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors.

One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully formed, with no previous related species.

But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

If all you can do is "appeal to authority" by stating that everyone in the scientific community (which presumably you aren't a part of) agrees with you, then perhaps you aren't really all that convinced once one gets past the surface...

I am not an evolutionary biologist, or in any other directly related field, no. But as I mentioned earlier, I am a science educator. I understand the nature of this debate. I understand scientific method and how to evaluate evidence. I have read much literature, both popular and peer-reviewed, on this topic.

If you are implying that I am making a fallacious argument because I have "appealed to authority", you are wrong. There is nothing fallacious about referring to expert opinion, provided that the experts are truly experts in the relevant topic of debate, and provided there is not significant disagreement between experts. This is the case with the evolution issue.

After all, most of are not evolutionary biologists. In this specialized world we live in, we must look to experts in relevant fields for an understanding of many issues. That is the heart of education.

pinniped · #**116** (**permalink**) 12-20-2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

.

Evolution is a fact. We can observe it directly today. We also find overwhelming evidence of evolution in the historical record. That evolution exists is not in dispute. It is fact.

Really? So, like any day now, all the fish are going to get pissed off, sprout little half stub arms, and beginning mouth breathing their way out of the ocean?

Did this happen to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

The longer a theory remains "not disproved", the stronger and more accepted it becomes.

By that logic, we should believe in a whole lot of things such as flat earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

.

Again, evolution is a fact.

Really? Where's your analysis. So far you've said that a bunch of times, purely conclusory reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

.

When we speak of the Theory of Evolution, we are referring to the various possible processes and mechanisms by which Evolution occurs. Probably the most recognized theory of evolution is the Theory of Natural Selection.

Really? Wow! Still no analysis though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

The theories of evolution - natural selection and other potential means by which the fact of evolution occurs - are being actively tested, studied, observed, refined, supported, dismissed and debated in the scientific community. It's quite an exciting process, really. But what you won't find in the scientific community is any discussion or doubt over the existence of evolution itself.

Well, some form of evolution may occur. That is pretty clear, natural selection occurs. No (*)(*)(*)(*) sherlock. Can I call you sherlock?

Where it falls apart is in inanimate ooze becoming living due to some UNEXPLAINED AND SCIENTIFICALLY UNFOUNDED AND UNKNOWN process, followed by single cell amoebas morphing into fish into lizards into birds, who then listen to motivational tapes and become bears or wolves, who then occasionally relapse to become a platypus, until you get to the missing link which is, uh, still PRETTY (*)(*)(*)(*)ED MISSING despite all the hoaxes which discovered it - and then you end up with man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

.

Nobody with a modicum of scientific knowledge and understanding is going around asking, "Do you believe in evolution?" any more than they would ask, "Do you believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun?".

Maybe they should ask whether people believe in evolution, because the kind of evolution that we are discussing here, the whole origin of the species macroevolution morphing animal species type of evolution is so full of holes it can't hold water and falls firmly within the realm of things we DON'T KNOW A (*)(*)(*)(*)ED THING ABOUT.

That is the same kind of stultified thinking which you claim to hate...and you overstate things...there is nothing unanimous in the scientific community about it... [/quote]

Oh, yes. The view that evolution exists is virtually unanimous among scientists in the relevant fields. Overwhelming evidence exists in the earth's historical record. And it is observed directly, in living species, in nature and in the laboratory. The fact of evolution is not remotely controversial, any more so than the fact of gravity.

There is "controversy", or rather, debate, among scientists regarding the various theories of evolution --- not the fact that evolution occurs (basically, that changes in the genetic composition of a population occur over time) --- but how it occurs, by what mechanisms and processes, the details.

This was understood by Darwin:

Darwin, The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...descent02.html

Quote:

I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change,..... Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.

..... and it is understood now:

Was Darwin Wrong? [NG's answer was "no", btw]
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...re1/index.html

Quote:

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

...even Darwin said if you don't find transitional fossils, no evolution (at least not as he defined it)...

One, I'm not sure how you believe Darwin "defined" evolution. Are you referring to his theory of natural selection? If so, that is not how he "defined" evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism that Darwin proposed drove evolution. Even if the theory of natural selection were proved false (which it hasn't been), that would not affect the truth of evolution itself.

Two, Darwin did not say what you are claiming he said. Have you read Darwin? Here are some links to the primary source itself that are relevant to your mischaracterization of Darwin's words.

Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_10.html
Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_06.html
Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_11.html
Darwin, On the origin of species. London, John Murray, 1859.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char.../origin06.html

Three, over 130 years have passed since The Origen of Species was published. While there were certainly transitional species found in Darwin's time, there are even more so found since then. The "lack of transitional fossils" claim of anti-evolutionists is a myth. Here is an excellent run-down of the issue of transitional fossils, including an extensive list of what has been discovered so far:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

From what I understand, many astronomers believe there is a divine beginning...Einstein did too...so much for unanimous...

Those who understand and accept evolution are not automatically atheists! How absurd! Evolution only conflicts with extremely literal young-earth and 7-day creation Christian beliefs. Don't try and create a conflict where there is none.

Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._religion.html

Quote:

The notion that science and religion are irreconcilable centers in large part on the issue of evolution. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, explained that the myriad species inhabiting Earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors.

One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully formed, with no previous related species.

But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

If all you can do is "appeal to authority" by stating that everyone in the scientific community (which presumably you aren't a part of) agrees with you, then perhaps you aren't really all that convinced once one gets past the surface...

I am not an evolutionary biologist, or in any other directly related field, no. But as I mentioned earlier, I am a science educator. I understand the nature of this debate. I understand scientific method and how to evaluate evidence. I have read much literature, both popular and peer-reviewed, on this topic.

If you are implying that I am making a fallacious argument because I have "appealed to authority", you are wrong. There is nothing fallacious about referring to expert opinion, provided that the experts are truly experts in the relevant topic of debate, and provided there is not significant disagreement between experts. This is the case with the evolution issue.

After all, most of are not evolutionary biologists. In this specialized world we live in, we must look to experts in relevant fields for an understanding of many issues. That is the heart of education.[/quote]

pinniped · #**117** (**permalink**) 12-20-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

.

Evolution is a fact. We can observe it directly today. We also find overwhelming evidence of evolution in the historical record. That evolution exists is not in dispute. It is fact.

Really? So, like any day now, all the fish are going to get pissed off, sprout little half stub arms, and beginning mouth breathing their way out of the ocean?

Did this happen to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

The longer a theory remains "not disproved", the stronger and more accepted it becomes.

By that logic, we should believe in a whole lot of things such as flat earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

.

Again, evolution is a fact.

Really? Where's your analysis. So far you've said that a bunch of times, purely conclusory reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

.

When we speak of the Theory of Evolution, we are referring to the various possible processes and mechanisms by which Evolution occurs. Probably the most recognized theory of evolution is the Theory of Natural Selection.

Really? Wow! Still no analysis though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

The theories of evolution - natural selection and other potential means by which the fact of evolution occurs - are being actively tested, studied, observed, refined, supported, dismissed and debated in the scientific community. It's quite an exciting process, really. But what you won't find in the scientific community is any discussion or doubt over the existence of evolution itself.

Well, some form of evolution may occur. That is pretty clear, natural selection occurs. No (*)(*)(*)(*) sherlock. Can I call you sherlock?

Where it falls apart is in inanimate ooze becoming living due to some UNEXPLAINED AND SCIENTIFICALLY UNFOUNDED AND UNKNOWN process, followed by single cell amoebas morphing into fish into lizards into birds, who then listen to motivational tapes and become bears or wolves, who then occasionally relapse to become a platypus, until you get to the missing link which is, uh, still PRETTY (*)(*)(*)(*)ED MISSING despite all the hoaxes which discovered it - and then you end up with man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowdog";p=&quot

.

Nobody with a modicum of scientific knowledge and understanding is going around asking, "Do you believe in evolution?" any more than they would ask, "Do you believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun?".

Maybe they should ask whether people believe in evolution, because the kind of evolution that we are discussing here, the whole origin of the species macroevolution morphing animal species type of evolution is so full of holes it can't hold water and falls firmly within the realm of things we DON'T KNOW A (*)(*)(*)(*)ED THING ABOUT.

That is the same kind of stultified thinking which you claim to hate...and you overstate things...there is nothing unanimous in the scientific community about it... [/quote]

Oh, yes. The view that evolution exists is virtually unanimous among scientists in the relevant fields. Overwhelming evidence exists in the earth's historical record. And it is observed directly, in living species, in nature and in the laboratory. The fact of evolution is not remotely controversial, any more so than the fact of gravity.

There is "controversy", or rather, debate, among scientists regarding the various theories of evolution --- not the fact that evolution occurs (basically, that changes in the genetic composition of a population occur over time) --- but how it occurs, by what mechanisms and processes, the details.

This was understood by Darwin:

Darwin, The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...descent02.html

Quote:

I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change,..... Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.

..... and it is understood now:

Was Darwin Wrong? [NG's answer was "no", btw]
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...re1/index.html

Quote:

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

...even Darwin said if you don't find transitional fossils, no evolution (at least not as he defined it)...

One, I'm not sure how you believe Darwin "defined" evolution. Are you referring to his theory of natural selection? If so, that is not how he "defined" evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism that Darwin proposed drove evolution. Even if the theory of natural selection were proved false (which it hasn't been), that would not affect the truth of evolution itself.

Two, Darwin did not say what you are claiming he said. Have you read Darwin? Here are some links to the primary source itself that are relevant to your mischaracterization of Darwin's words.

Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_10.html
Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_06.html
Darwin, The origin of species. 6th edn 1872.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...gin6th_11.html
Darwin, On the origin of species. London, John Murray, 1859.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char.../origin06.html

Three, over 130 years have passed since The Origen of Species was published. While there were certainly transitional species found in Darwin's time, there are even more so found since then. The "lack of transitional fossils" claim of anti-evolutionists is a myth. Here is an excellent run-down of the issue of transitional fossils, including an extensive list of what has been discovered so far:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

From what I understand, many astronomers believe there is a divine beginning...Einstein did too...so much for unanimous...

Those who understand and accept evolution are not automatically atheists! How absurd! Evolution only conflicts with extremely literal young-earth and 7-day creation Christian beliefs. Don't try and create a conflict where there is none.

Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._religion.html

Quote:

The notion that science and religion are irreconcilable centers in large part on the issue of evolution. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, explained that the myriad species inhabiting Earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors.

One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully formed, with no previous related species.

But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinniped";p=&quot

If all you can do is "appeal to authority" by stating that everyone in the scientific community (which presumably you aren't a part of) agrees with you, then perhaps you aren't really all that convinced once one gets past the surface...

I am not an evolutionary biologist, or in any other directly related field, no. But as I mentioned earlier, I am a science educator. I understand the nature of this debate. I understand scientific method and how to evaluate evidence. I have read much literature, both popular and peer-reviewed, on this topic.

If you are implying that I am making a fallacious argument because I have "appealed to authority", you are wrong. There is nothing fallacious about referring to expert opinion, provided that the experts are truly experts in the relevant topic of debate, and provided there is not significant disagreement between experts. This is the case with the evolution issue.

After all, most of are not evolutionary biologists. In this specialized world we live in, we must look to experts in relevant fields for an understanding of many issues. That is the heart of education.[/quote]

FlackBait · #**118** (**permalink**) 12-26-2004, 12:36 AM

that god created all of us?

To tell you the truth, I’m leaning more toward Darwinism considering the lack of evidence backing the “god created us all” point of view.

ThereseM · #**119** (**permalink**) 12-26-2004, 06:52 AM

I believe that God created all mankind. How he did it is of no real consequence to me because I have faith. I believe that all beings are continuously evolving so whether God started the evolution or not, for religions, what they believe is a matter of faith that can neither be proven or disproven. Same holds true for any scientists theory.

JP5 · #**120** (**permalink**) 12-26-2004, 09:21 AM

I don't beleive that evolution and creationism are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think there can be both. I believe that we did "evolve," but I also believe that it was a higher being.....God......who began the entire process.