Myths of Evolution

[*YoungGuyver]

Well, I just finished reading a VERY interesting group of articles about the myths of evolution. What both People that believe in, and against have got wrong about it. It's actually very interesting.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/d...p;nsref=dn13620

Check out a few of the things. It points out such things like how half a bird's wing is actually usefully, and that since evolution is gradual, half useful traits can evolve into wings, but sudden leaps that are next to impossible will most definetely never allow zebras to develop built in machine guns. Even though the zebra's could REALLY use them against lions.

It even goes in and talks about morality, and how it is pretty useful. How cheaters and the like have been shown to cause the devastation of certain species. That survival of the fittest IS NOT survival of the most ruthless bully

This thing also got me thinking about a few things in Guyver too. For instance, Aptom. Aptom's zoanoid matrix (what I formally called his library DNA). There are some micro organisms that keep the spare DNA as coats in order to counter the immune system. To randomly use one when required. I was wondering if Aptom would use a method similar to this, instead of storing it all in his cellular nucleus. More reading required, just a quick flick of thought for a possible amendment to the theory

[soul science]

Evolutionists dont believe in God, therefore dont rely on the basis of faith...funny thing is that realistically it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God.

[Salkafar]

realistically it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God.

Can you explain that to me, my friend?

[*Jess♥]

actually i think it would be more fair to say it takes EQUAL amount of faith, since it is said there is no actual proof for either.

anything else is simply personal belief and trust in the source.

[*zeo]

actually i think it would be more fair to say it takes EQUAL amount of faith, since it is said there is no actual proof for either.

anything else is simply personal belief and trust in the source.

I believe that is referencing the general mindset of people, it's easier to believe some all powerful being created us than the idea we evolved from apes.

Simply because of our ego's tend to accept the former more readily than the later because of personal bias that we must somehow be superior...

And thus shouldn't be linked to what we think of as inferior.

The very idea was originally either laughed at or thought of as blasphemy.

It has consequently taken a very long time to be accepted.

As for the actual level of proof, there is more proof behind evolution with what we now know of DNA, history, etc.

We just don't have the missing link to complete the whole road map, the whole A to Z chain of events, and thus make it official.

[*Youngtusk]

Well im no creationist, but I admit that it could be tough to sell to someone that we evolved from a few chains of proteins into these complex machines just from drift, chance, and random genetic mutations that just happened to be beneficial once in a while depending on the enviornment. So many factors can make the odds seem kind of warped. Seeing as how complicated and intricate our bodies are, all the different systems working together, I could see how evolution may seem sketchy.

[Salkafar]

See, there is a lot of proof for evolution.

So much that there is no real debate among biologists whether it occurs, and only a little bit on how it occurs.

But, let's keep it simple, and look for "Endogenous retroviruses". That should go a long way to explain things.

[Guest Bacta5]

See, there is a lot of proof for [Darwinism]

No there isn't. We've tinkered with simple organisms for decades in the lab, and millenia under less controlled conditions. There is exactly zero evidence that there exists a natural process by which one organism can become another organism.

This is why the definition of the species of an organism includes being able to only produce viable offspring only with other organisms of the same species. This is why genetics works in those tables you should have been introduced to, as opposed to some manner of chaotic system Darwinism inherently implies. This is why adaptation theory being consistent with reality does not involve changes being permanent as Darwinism holds as a core postulate.

Darwinists create "evidence" by taking support of the above theories despite their inherently being at odds with Darwinist theory. Darwinism has no support, is unable to explain the Cambrian explosion or otherwise predict anything verifiable, hence why the "evidence" is criteriaed such that no matter the real result it argued as "evidence" inherently in contradiction to the fundamental canons of Science itself.

So much that there is no real debate among biologists whether it occurs, and only a little bit on how it occurs.

Due to the threat of the organization stomping on them if they don't hug the party line, which inherently contradicts the fundamental canons of Science. Darwinism is basically a church, and it exists for the simple reason of having a stake in the "where did we come from" debate that is convenient for various reasons to various parties. Science as a philosophy does not support this manner of behavior. Edited May 17, 2008 by Bacta5

[*zeo]

You are of course only refering to the original theory as presented by Darwin, because there is a distinction between evolution and Darwinian, like any new theory it had a lot of holes but the theory has been corrected since then.

Darwin's original theory was wrong but the concept was not.. So sorry but we do have to clarify that evidence that evolution take place does exist.

In addition to seeing beneficial mutations take hold and produce new species, as records of new species appearing indicate, we have evidence of previous species showing a family tree of how different species evolved from a common ancestor.

Like termites and coachroaches both evolved from a common ancestor. Something proven through DNA research.

Traits like having a specfic DNA that only two different species have would indicate that at some point they had a common ancestor that provided that gene to both branches of evolution.

Basically the list of proof goes like this...

1) All living things have a parent/source. Showing lineage... A basic principle of evolution... Thus proving Living creatures must come from other living creatures.

2) Every generation is not the exact clones of their parents... Showing mixing of DNA to constantly provide variation is the norm...

3) Vertebrates and Invertebrates are distinctly different but yet we share DNA in common with both types...

4) Fossil records, etc all indicate the world has been in constant change and the animals of today did not always exist. Yet they share DNA with species of the past.

5) New Species are constantly appearing over time as beneficial mutations take hold and also show DNA pattern that shows they came from a parent species.

So it is emphatically wrong to say there is zero evidence.

Even in the human race, which hasn't changed much has evidence like two new genes that effect the brain showed up in our DNA history, extracted from old bones, etc. that coincide with major changes in our culture. Like the switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture.

There is also evidence that human physical traits change over time like the common average height, etc.

We even have evidence of similar species like Neadethals or that pigmy sized race they just discovered not long ago. Showing the human race had branches as well that wouldn't exist unless evolution was truly happening.

So you may disagree with the evidence and/or the conclusions from the evidence but you can't deny the existence of the evidence. Especially since there is a lot more than I mentioned if we were going to list all the evidence.

[The Crimson Guyver]

I really can't see why People have to seperate the 2. I believe that both are combined I hate how People believe how religion is so unspecific and kindegarden to science. Why can't the "Creator" be specific in designing life? What if he planned for evolution and everything else in the universe. I hate how obnoxious and naive our species is in thinking that god only worries about us. I believe there is other life out there. There was an article saying there could be other life out on other planets descended from our dinosaurs. Stating that when the meteor/asteroid hit that it took cells, bacteria from that time on to rocks that were launched from the planet when the meteor/asteroid hit that the pieces from out planet landed on a planet suited for life and evolved once more.

[*Jess♥]

Basically the list of proof goes like this...

1) All living things have a parent/source. Showing lineage... A basic principle of evolution... Thus proving Living creatures must come from other living creatures.

2) Every generation is not the exact clones of their parents... Showing mixing of DNA to constantly provide variation is the norm...

3) Vertebrates and Invertebrates are distinctly different but yet we share DNA in common with both types...

4) Fossil records, etc all indicate the world has been in constant change and the animals of today did not always exist. Yet they share DNA with species of the past.

5) New Species are constantly appearing over time as beneficial mutations take hold and also show DNA pattern that shows they came from a parent species.

So it is emphatically wrong to say there is zero evidence.

Personally, I don't see how any of this is proof of evolution. it may be indicative of evolution in some ways, but it's not proof as far as I can tell.

I'll take each point at a time.

1) All living things have a parent/source. Showing lineage... A basic principle of evolution... Thus proving Living creatures must come from other living creatures. so what? so we have parents, so how does this prove evolution? it doesn't. it just proves that we reproduce. yes we must have come from another living creature, but that other living creature was the same species. the definition of species is that it cannot reproduce with another species? is it not?

(actually the definition of species disproves evoluition if i have that correct. because as soon as a new species exhists, it becomes extinct due to its inability to reproduce. )

2) Every generation is not the exact clones of their parents... Showing mixing of DNA to constantly provide variation is the norm...

this proves that individuals of a species are different. it doesn't prove that they evolve. it just proves that there is variation. so romans were born with different colour eyes or whatever... so are we.. it doesn't mean we evolved. there was variation then. there is variation now. it doesn't prove anything.

3) Vertebrates and Invertebrates are distinctly different but yet we share DNA in common with both types...

all this proves is that we use the same patterns of dna for supposedly similar functions or simply coincidence.

guess what. stars have hydrogen. earth has hydrogen. does that mean stars evolved from m class planets? it simply means some patterns work better than others.

4) Fossil records, etc all indicate the world has been in constant change and the animals of today did not always exist. Yet they share DNA with species of the past. fossil records indicate that modern creatures did not exhist but they do not prove that modern animals did not exhist. sharing of DNA does not prove anything as i pointed out in responce to point 3. it is likely that they did not exhist but this does not prove that they came from teh creatures back then by evolving.

5) New Species are constantly appearing over time as beneficial mutations take hold and also show DNA pattern that shows they came from a parent species.

this is not necessarily true. new species are not 'appearing' all the time, they are being discovered. right? because if they are 'appearing' then that instantly disproves evolution ;P

and anyway.. the fact of discovering a new species does not in any way prove that it did not exhist before. and it does not prove that it came from another species no matter what similarities there are. a similarity is not proof.

it's all still conjecture. right?

I'm not against evolution, I think it's a good theory but i just don't like the way that you provided this 'proof' that isn't actually proof IMO.

I realise that the guidelines we made for the Guyver science lab are not displayed in this forum, but i think it's a good idea to strive to follow those guidelines here as well.

some of your post is written in an authoritative fashion. I think you just need to be a little more careful how you write your posts , that's all.

[*zeo]

I believe you have responded with a misconception of what I had stated... Specifically I was not focussed on giving proofs, only generalization which is all I thought necessary to get my point across, and I have not made any serious effort here to give the empirical reasons that exist for the dominance of evolution in biology, but rather I was simply focussed mainly upon correcting the error and misconception that saying there is "zero evidence" implied.

I could for example have pointed out that even many religious organizations accept evolution. For example, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes evolution as an accepted scientific theory, supported by a great body of evidence (their words, not mine). Faith & Reason Ministries is another Christian organization which accepts modern science, including evolution. In 1984 the Central Conference of American Rabbis adopted a resolution against the inclusion of creationism in school science textbooks. In 1987, the same organization adopted a resolution against the teaching of creationism or other religious dogma in public schools.

Really, everyone is free to disagree with the conclusions made from the evidence but to say there is zero evidence is an insult to all the scientists who have worked on it over the last century.

You may also think I was sounding too authoritive but it is a fact there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution and I did summarize my post with the statement...

So you may disagree with the evidence and/or the conclusions from the evidence but you can't deny the existence of the evidence. Especially since there is a lot more than I mentioned if we were going to list all the evidence.

The last sentence specifically shows I believe that I was not giving the entire picture (I even said "Basically" before listing the general points,) just a hint of what the picture entaled, as it is one of my beliefs that everyone is fully capable of looking up the details themselves.

The point of the post was not to prove Evolution but just prove that there was evidence!

I could have for example pointed out that the scientific community as a whole accepts evolution as a fact, the only things in dispute is on the how it works.

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

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gou...and-theory.html

I could also make the case that someone emphatically saying there is no evidence is actually acting far more authoritarian and biased than someone pointing out that there is evidence and where you can go look for that evidence. . .

Regardless, since you seem to desire clarifications of what I actually meant then I shall endeavor to more properly explain my points to avoid confusion and misinterpretation in the attached document. I would have posted the clarification as a regular post except it would have made this a mega post and only those who desire to understand what I meant need read it to get the more complete answer...

Point_by_Point_Clarification.pdf

Incidentally, the points I was making was in reference to what the theory of evolution actually states...

What exactly does the theory of evolution state? The theory of evolution states that:

All life forms (species) have developed from other species.

All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common descent (share common ancestors).

All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.

The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.

And I only indicated a basic example of evidence for each part of the theory, which means to properly analyze each you would have to do a lot more than just go to the next step but rather several steps before you saw the validity of each but like I said there's a lot more and like any pile of evidence some will be more convincing than others.

[Salkafar]

I feel a headache coming on... as well as a desire to make an argument by authority.

Due to the threat of the organization stomping on them if they don't hug the party line, which inherently contradicts the fundamental canons of Science. Darwinism is basically a church, and it exists for the simple reason of having a stake in the "where did we come from" debate that is convenient for various reasons to various parties.

Wowwwwww....

[*zeo]

I'm sure the hundreds of scientists that debate evolution and how it works all the time probably got a good laugh from that depiction.

Though it is true there are those who don't want to debate it, this however doesn't change the fact it is debated.

It's the reason why we eventually came to the conclusion that Darwin's original theory was wrong but that the concept wasn't.

Evidence and debate have over time refined the theory to its present Neo-Darwinian form and is why it is so widely accepted. Even with competing theories like Intelligent Design. but that is more a debate of why and how evolution happens and not a debate on whether evolution happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

[*Jess♥]

no zeo, read the part i quoted please. i have made no misconception. your intent may have been different but it does not change what you posted.

I stated that your post seemed authoritative because you are stating 'facts' as if you are an expert in the field, which you are not.

for example

Like termites and coachroaches both evolved from a common ancestor. Something proven through DNA research.

can be rephrased to something like

"I think that termites and cockroaches were shown to be evolved from a common ancestor."

or if you want to put weight behind it, provide a link.

I guess the biggest issue i have spotted is that you have used all this in your post to debunk what bacta5 said.

I asked you to be careful, but I guess that was an error on my part, I apologise i should have cut to the chase better.

So it is emphatically wrong to say there is zero evidence.

because herein lies the problem. you disprespect bacta5's point of view by not asking him for his reasoning and by basically debunking what he has said.

when as far as I am aware you actually have no academic or professional authority to do so.

if you want to challenge his views then fine, you can ask him questions and ask him to explain something in relation to what you have read, but your manner is basically aggressive in attempting to totally discredit his viewpoint.

I apologise if you feel I should not write this here, but I feel it is important for other members to see my reasooning behind this. so that they can also judge how to better debate in future. I hope you can understand my good intentions.

I shall just explain just to avoid any confusion. the reason why we are asking for People not to debunk without relevant authority is that it has not been verified that you or anyone else in your position has an appropriate understanding of the field and has access to the most up to date information. in the past we have operated on trust, but since some things have found to be in error or there have been misuinderstandings, we felt we needed to change that.

perhaps i should write that in the guidelines thread that we made, if you wish to discuss it, feel freee to copy that as a quote and post in that thread.

[*Jess♥]

I could also make the case that someone emphatically saying there is no evidence is actually acting far more authoritarian and biased than someone pointing out that there is evidence and where you can go look for that evidence. . .

I apologise for missing this part.

I did read it and I can understand how you might feel I am being unfair in my judgement.

It is my view that the statements made by bacta5 were purely a product of his own personal views and opinions.

nowhere in his post was he trying to back up his views with any evidence and claim that it was widely accepted fact.

in my judgement, the entire feeling i got from his psot was that he was simply stating his opinion.

personal opinion is not authoritative. the actual grammar used may be blunt and straight forward and stated as though fact, but this is why the guidelines are just guidelines, they are there to help us make judgement calls.

I hope this explains my thoughts adequately enough.

note: if you do see any problems in other people's posts related to what i have described, and you feel i have overlooked them, please feel free to PM me and i will look into it carefully.

[*zeo]

Okay, will do, but just to show why I responded as I did...

He did say

No there isn't. We've tinkered with simple organisms for decades in the lab, and millenia under less controlled conditions.

Would you tell me that this doesn't sound like he was stating facts?

Virtually every point he made was a standard anti-evolution argument based on the flaws of Darwin's original theory and did not take into account that the theory has been corrected and updated. This in my opinion was not just stating opinion but an attempt to disprove a theory based on outdated facts.

Like the

Darwinists create "evidence"

jab, which ignores all work scientists have put into research to prove fact from theory.

The "Zero Evidence", was the just too much part for me that pushed this beyond any simple misunderstanding.

Like the point about the Cambrian Explosion (another example of the specific examples he used), only applied to Darwin's original assertian that evolution was based solely on natural selection, Darwin himself expressed concern about the Cambrian Explosion for just that reason, but this is no longer the case as the modern theory is based on molecular biology and takes into account a variety of factors like environment, etc.

or if you want to put weight behind it, provide a link.

Uhm, okay... http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/ap...news_11364.html

Recent DNA evidence has supported the nearly 120 year-old hypothesis, originally based on morphology, that termites are most closely related to the wood-eating cockroaches (genus Cryptocercus), to which the singular and very primitive Mastotermes darwiniensis shows some tell-tale similarities. Most recently this has led some authors to propose that termites be reclassified as a single family, Termitidae, within the order Blattaria, which contains cockroaches. However, most researchers advocate the less drastic measure of retaining the termites as Isoptera but as a group subordinate to true roaches, preserving the internal classification of termites.

[*Jess♥]

Would you tell me that this doesn't sound like he was stating facts?

why don't you ask him?

I don't have an issue with what he said, because as far as i am aware, what he said is general knowledge. or based on it.

I know that scientists tinker with organisms in labs. and i know that dogs have been bred for a long time (i don't know about millennia)

I think the point that he was trying to make was perhaps a reference to the breeding of dogs and the fact that a dog is still a dog.

[*Jess♥]

just to clarify, guys, I did notice the tone of bacta5 post, and while it is a very aggressive stance, I don't want to make issue of it since it is the first instacne of such a thing.

also we have not put those guidelines here just yet so bacta5 may not have been aware, when i knew for a fact that the People who have visited the Guyver science section would be aware of it.

I will make sure these guidelines are in this debate forum now.

[*Jess♥]

................................

................................

I'm not against evolution, I think it's a good theory but i just don't like the way that you provided this 'proof' that isn't actually proof IMO.

I realise that the guidelines we made for the Guyver science lab are not displayed in this forum, but i think it's a good idea to strive to follow those guidelines here as well.

some of your post is written in an authoritative fashion. I think you just need to be a little more careful how you write your posts , that's all.

I realised that the way i wrote this makes it seem as if I had a problem with hte way zeo posted his list.

It was careless of me and i apologise for giving this impression. my last paragraph was in fact intended to be referring to other parts of the post.