Comment on This Post:
Most American atheists make themselves as culturally retarded as the creationists are religiously. The pope believes in evolution.
Evolution requires no belief for it requires no faith.
You would be amazed at what people are willing to force themselves to not believe.
Perhaps you can advise me on what faith is then. There are probably about ~10% of a mutation per generation. So the percentage of an appearance of a new species in 10 million years, in 10 year intervals of generation changes, is one million to one. So the ratio of a bad mutation to a good one is 1/100000. So the bad mutations are orders of magnitudes smaller than good ones - which then demands that there's a correlation between the uncorrelated bad mutations and an evolution of a new species. If you don't have faith - this is more of a theory of degradation than evolution.
Now, let's take two groups of rabbits from central US. We'll put one group in Alaska, and one group in Florida swamps. What will happen to the ones unable to survive in the environment? They will die. Thus the ones with the qualities to survive in the environments will live to pass on their genes. Because these genes are so useful, the ones with them more prominent will continue being the ones who survive. If we continue this for enough generations, they will become so different that they won't look alike and may not even be able to breed.
This is what evolution actually says, and can be observed. Alaskan rabbits, central US rabbits, and Florida rabbits all look different. The Florida and Alaska ones can't even breed, forming a non-circular chain specie.
Galapagos explanations still don't refute what I've outlined above. What proof is there that the theory for bad and good mutations is the same, considering their occurrences are drastically smaller?
Y'all are arguing two different points really. DeathDark is talking about microevolution, that is, natural selction and change within a species. This isn't something requires any belief or faith in. Its stone cold fact at this point. Tpf is talking about macroevolution, that is a change outside of a species' expressable allels and is something that requires an assload of luck to pull off. There is a massive difference between rabits changing size and color and a bacteria evolving into a sentient being that argues about random crap on the lolbrary. And also, speaking as a Catholic, evolution isnt something that we are required to believe either way on. It's really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
To the scientifically literate, the terms microevolution and macroevolution are useless. You see, "macroevolution" is simply "microevolution" given more time. Those rabbits are now different species. They're actually further separated than Tigers and Lions, Horses and Mules, or even Horses and Zebras. Each of those I just mentioned CAN breed successfully, though usually leading to sterile offspring, but that's not the point. They can. The rabbits can't.
There is much more difference than time between micro and macro evolution. You sound like someone who understands biology pretty well. For a species to evolve into one that has a different number of chromosomes and a completely different set of expressible traits, mutation is required. That is all I'm saying.
I'm not trying to get into an argument about whether or not the theory of evolution is something sound enough to warrant having faith in it impossible. I think evolution is a good theory, there are a lot of coincidences but that's the way of the natural world.
Let's take a rock in a stream. In 10 years, the rock is roughly the same. In 100 years it's been worn down some. In 1000 years, it's been worn down to where it may be less than half of its original size and likely unrecognizable.
Since you ignored my rabbits, let me expand upon them. These two species of rabbit came from a common ancestor. What if it happens again with each of the descendent branches? And again and so on? In just 5 levels of splits we get 32 species who are each significantly genetically different such that none of them can interbreed.
Now, I try to avoid addressing the other person instead of their arguments, but you have to be in extreme denial to say that this theory (a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena) predicts certain things, but that those things happening is mere coincidence.
That's like me giving you an equation and telling you that in the equation x=4, and when you work it out and find that x=4, you say it's just a coincidence.
"In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche."
I see that. I guess what we're really arguing about here is the usage of the word coincidence. What I mean is that the theory comes after the events. The coincidences (I'm going to calling them that because it means two incidents that occurred together. This is necessary for genetic change) that lead to evolution are given a name and their rate of appearance is recorded. Being able to predict something doesn't mean it isn't a coincidence. It just means that the phenomenon occurs regularly. I wasn't trying to refute your argument. Again, about the rabbits, I ignored them because that isn't what I'm talking about. I don't care how long your rock sits in that stream, it isn't turning into glass unless it is worn down to sand, brought to the surface, and then struck by lightning. Is there a good chance this rock will become glass? Maybe. Does this happen often? Yes. But it's still a coincidence. That's all I'm saying
Yes, a theory tends to take into account the things it describes. Newton's gravitational theory was good until Einstein discovered relativity. With the new information contradicting the old theory, scientists were forced to change the theory to describe the new phenomena. Does that make gravitational theory wrong? No, it means it's kept updated and as accurate as possible. Did it ever mean gravity didn't exist? No, it meant our theory describing its mechanics was wrong.
You need to find a better word than coincidence or define your usage of it. Until then we cannot begin to discuss you opinion of evolution.
No I think I'll keep using it. You just seem to be overly sensitive to the fact that some people consider evolution something to be believed or not believed in. The word coincidence by itself doesn't have anything to do with chance or magic or whatever. Just because stupid people use it as a feeble argument against something doesn't mean that I can't use it.
And as for discussing evolution, I wasn't ever trying to do that. I try to avoid discussing these things online because, for a reason I really don't understand, it usually leads to a religious debate. Which, I assume, is the source of your understandable dislike of the word coincidence
No, my dislike for the word coincidence is how you used it there. But if you insist on using it, then I'll address your arguments with it.
coincidence n. - 1. "a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance"
So, we observe a new bacterial strain having developed the ability to digest nylon. We find it odd, so we replicate the environment, and merely by chance a different bacteria develops into yet another new strain that can also digest nylon. That sure is a strange coincidence. Maybe the sun "rising" tomorrow will also be a coincidence. Maybe the sun being "in the sky" will give light to the planet. Who knows, though? It could have just been a coincidence the previous times.
Evolutionary theory states that chimps and we share a common ancestor, but we have 23 pairs while they have 24. Evolutionary theory sure is in trouble. Oh, look, human chromosome 2 is strikingly near identical to two chimpanzee chromosomes stuck together. What a coincidence.
There are multiple ways of defining ancestry, such as morphology, DNA, and mitochondrial DNA. Sure is a coincidence that they all describe the same ancestries for any given animal or set of animals. It doesn't mean that evolutionary theory is accurate or anything.
Coincidence also means to coincide. But by all means ignore the definitionvI gave a choosenthe one that best suits your argument. Again, you're bringing up points I'm not arguing about. That nylon eating bacteria formed through coinciding environmental conditions as you said. Chance is irrelevant in this scenario. And in most others. The simmilarities between the chromosomes is not chane either. However, for an ape to have two chromosomes mutate together, and either still be able to reproduce or to have a mate in which the same mutation has occured nearby, requires a few different events to happen simultaneously. Or coincide as it were. Making this a coincidence.
Okay, so you're saying the new nylon eating bacteria developed because it was in the same types of conditions as the original situation? Thus the environments coincided? Really? I certainly hope not because that means you've been disagreeing with what you agreed with.
I think you're mixing this up with your argument with tpf. Or maybe I havent been clear in what I'm trying to say. I just mean that you cant say that because conditions can be reproduced in a lab then there was no chance involved in the real world occurence of that. Yes, every time x is under certain conditions it will become y. But several things must coincide, which requires chance outside of a lab, for those conditions to be met. If that doesnt sound like what I've been saying all along then I apologize for your wasted time lol
After I tried to find where you said some of what I was going to try against you, I realized that I'm starting to get the two confused. I'm also carrying my frustration with him over, I apologize.
Back to the actual argument at hand, you agree that organisms respond to their environment by adapting to it. That or die. In the case of the original nylonase strain, the only "chance" was that the bacteria was in a nylon rich environment and it could adapt to consumption of nylon. Thus by adapting to a large food source in its environment, it was able to assure its survival over strains that cannot evolve the capability. You may can say it was chance that it had the capability to make this evolution, but that would bring us into an argument about determinism.
Further, you said, "I think evolution is a good theory, there are a lot of coincidences but that's the way of the natural world." With how you're using coincidence here, this means that you think it's a good theory, but that the natural world coincides (agrees) with it quite often. So... what's the problem with it again? If it accurately describes the world, doesn't that make it a good theory?
Yes it does. Evolution is a very sound theory. Life adapts to its surrondings. Evolution is the documentation of that fact. What i mean by coincidences being the way of the world is that, if mothing happened simultaneously, then nothing would happen. People who say evolution is just a "coincidence" are trying to refute it with its primary argument. Again, I wasnt taking sides. I just stepped into your argument to attempt to clarify a point that tpf continued to mess up
And as for your frustration, dont worry about it. I completely understand. Arguments about these things always end up with some pulling random stuff out of the depths of the internet. And then reaulting to insults. You can always tell you've won an argument when somebody pulls out statistics.
It depends on what you mean by statistics, where their sources are from, etc. I can say 2-4% of the population of the US is the MBTI type of INTP, but I can give a source and use it to support an argument saying that INTPs are rare.
But I can see how, "well 70% of americans believe," or something of the sort would alert you to the other person falling on their last leg.
Pedantry aside (it's something I can't really help), I don't recognize your username. I've seen Tpf around here and there, but not you. Are you newer, or have we coincidentally (traditional) missed each other repeatedly?
Yeah. Over the years I've just found that people can source numbers for a lot of different sides of an argument. But I argue economics and things a lot so that explains that lol
I've been browsing the 'brary for a while but I just recently made a username. And I've only commented like one or two times before this.
I really try to stay away from arguing that stuff as I'm not really that well studied on it. I stick with science and mathematics since that's what I study, so I understand the terminology, reasoning, etc. Though there really isn't much arguing as far as mathematics goes, unless the other person isn't mathematically inclined. At that point it's very hard to explain why formal proofs are important and why giving one means that they can't argue against it.
Nothing is more fun than arguing with someone who doesn't understand logic, eh? I've never been in a math argument but I can imagine that's either just nodding in agreement or facepalming
For those who understand math, it usually goes
However, I got into an argument about .9-repeating being equal to 1. I have never seen someone be so foolhardy on a subject that they clearly didn't understand. To clarify, math is the one and only field that can reach absolute truths (albeit those truths are usually constrained to math). I had the proof, the proof being a set of direct steps of showing the claim to be true, and he still denied it. He was literally denying the undeniable. I wasn't sure how to handle the situation because he was being the definition of illogical. Worse, he was telling me I "obviously didn't understand calculus and linear algebra." Now, this is a kid who hasn't graduated high school. I have this piece of paper from a university saying I'm a mathematician. I hope I've explained enough where you can understand my feelings on the subject.
Let me break it down for you. You said the pope "believes" in evolution. I said that evolution needs no faith. You then gave an example of why evolution needs faith, and I explained how the evolution you mentioned isn't the backbone of evolution.
Mutations aren't required for new species to form. We can see that with nylonase, in which the evolutionary process into a new specie was not only observed, but they tried to get bacteria to do it under laboratory conditions, and whaddayaknow, they did the same thing. Models with accurate predictive capabilities? Why I think those are theories.
I think you are mistaken. The pro-evolutionary-teaching role of nylonase was specifically to show a single mutation of a bacteria which allowed it to digest nylon. How else do you think it got there? Craig Venture typed up the genome and threw it in the pond?
Not sure if trolling, or doesn't understand speciation.
No, I rarely resort to sarcasm.
"Mutations aren't required for new species to form. We can see that with nylonase"
The reason that the nylonase are nylonase, the fact that they can digest nylon, is because of a gene mutation that allowed them to do so. Once the trait was acquired, the rest was natural selection. I really don't see what point you're pushing here.
Sadly, you still haven't answered my question. It's my first response on top of the page. In fact, we can even look at some more numbers for illustration. Human genome is composed of 3*10^9 nucleotides, of which 10^8 are responsible for the function of the DNA. Below, I'll drop the pre-exponential factor - it's just to give us a rough idea of the orders of magnitude. The nucleotide difference between humans and chimpanzees is 1%, that is, 10^6 nucleotides. We can assume that the difference between the human and the primate, of which he had won a successful mutation, is 100 times smaller than the difference between a human and a chimpanzee - so 10^4 nucleotides. According to known data of the speed of mutation, in one generation about 1 nucleotide is mutated in the functional part of the DNA. So then calculate how many mutations will be needed so we would have at least one successful mutation from the 10^4 nucleotides? There's less atoms in the universe than the amount of generations that will be needed...the numbers do not simply not converge, but the orders of magnitude are simply insane.
You're saying that mutation is the only way to get a new specie. I'm trying to tell you that mutation is not the only way to get a new specie. Not saying that new species cannot arise through mutation, but they usually arise through other means. This is why I don't have to address your argument, because even if mutations didn't lead to new species, that wouldn't defeat evolution.
Mutations happen pretty quick, especially when life first started, there would be a whole lotta mutations when single cell bacteria were some of the only organisms.
Considering there would have been hundreds of thousands of trillions of them replicating every 15mins of so.
The precambrian explosion also helped a lot as Apex predators became present and started annihilating the weak.
Also 4.5 billion years is a long ass time for shit to happen.
Also as DeathDark said mutations aren't the only things that lead to new specie.
The reason that variation exists within populations of organisms is because of random mutation that are then passed off to the offspring. Are you proposing an alternative theory of evolution besides natural selection?
What's interesting is that most so-called evolutionists like yourself pick creationists and literal Biblical interpretors as your main opponent, which is easy, but the failure of explanation of their own theory prefer to keep quiet, or more commonly babble nonsense of an evolutionary tree - which is already agreed upon, and not the discussion taking place. The word "evolution" carries so much terminological confusion, that mostly it contributes noisy disputes of the deaf with the blind.
One of the meanings of evolution concerns itself with observation of the phenomenology of more advanced and more complex organisms that appear out of simpler forms, through changes that meet the changes of the environment - which makes sense in the notion of the evolutionary tree. However, there's another meaning to the word - a theory that describes the evolutionary tree through mutation and natural selection. These two meanings should be discerned. "The evidence of evolution", referring to the polemic writing are a proof of the facts - that evolution of Darwin's phenomenology is correct. Very well, take it as a fact - there is really enough data. But what about the second meaning of the word "evolution" - the claim that random mutation plus selection explain this observation? The thesis of this can often be sees, but only at the level of unsubstantiated allegations. But in this thesis is the crux of the matter. This issue, which really is the controversy, is does God intervene in life or not? If there is a compelling scientific theory explaining the evolution in some fundamental laws of nature - then science disproves the creative intervention of God. If such a theory does not exist - that means that there is a large claim, in which there is only one sensible answer - the continuous creation of the universe by the Creator.
Mutation and basic adaptation lead to selection.
You seem to follow the principle if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.
Put your thesaurus away and be more concise and to the point when debating scientific facts.
Or...maybe you should expand your vocabulary (so you can at least learn to spell the words you already seem to know) so I don't have to abase myself to the lowest common denominator?
I understood your words cunt, they are just unnecessary.
As someone who doesn't believe in Science I wouldn't lecture on the lowest common denominator.
Also I don't see a spelling error unless there was a typo.
No, I guess I don't believe in science. Nor do I know how to believe in science to begin with. Which part of science do you have your faith in?
The misspelling is not a typo, it's the word "principal". If confused, consult a dictionary.
I see I used the wrong form, humblest apologies.
You said you don't believe evolution. You said there is no explanation other than a creator to explain things. Therefor you have no faith in Science.
I realize it doesn't require your faith because it just keeps doing what it does.
No need for sarcasm, I'm no spelling nazi. But I do occasionally point out hypocricy.
Did I say not to misspell words? I thought I said not to use too many...
I am just gonna call up my boy Richard Dawkins and all the Biology professors I know and tell them to switch fields. Looks like you have just blown the lid off of Biology, so they should start studying this creator you speak of.
I've read The God Delusion, and I have not seen this point addressed.
As an Ethologist I can assume that he wouldn't have covered evolution and the smallest DNA level.
Try reading Sagan, or something published by an evolutionary biologist.
No, I'm not proposing an alternative theory of evolution by natural selection, but proposing that evolution by natural selection isn't what you were talking about.
"This is why I don't have to address your argument, because even if mutations didn't lead to new species, that wouldn't defeat evolution."
You seem to have conceded your argument for mutation then, which is a key mechanism for evolution. Tell me, what other theory do you have to suggest for a change of 10^4 nucleotides over generations for evolution of chimpanzee to man?
Wait... did you really say the evolution of chimpanzees to man? Really? Should I also explain to you how you came from your first cousins? Unless your first cousins do happen to be your parents (in which case I probably won't apologize), you should be able to see the problem with what you're saying.
4.1 million years of changes from a common ancestor created the variation found in humans, not to mention the fusion of chromosome 2, creates some differences. Though I'd like to point out, the differences only actually account for a 2% difference. Say 10,000 nucleotides all you want, but that's not so big of a deal.
If it's not a big deal, do you know any works in which the author quantified the likelihood of significant evolutionary random mutations?
You: "Your stance is wrong because b."
Me: "My stance says nothing about b, but instead it claims a."
You: "Sadly you haven't answered my issue with b, so let me explain why b is wrong."
Me: "I never addressed b because I'm claiming a."
You: "Oh? You're proposing a change to a?"
Me: "No, it's always been a."
You: "Well, that's nice, but you still haven't addressed b."
Me: "Even if b were an issue it wouldn't be much of an issue."
You: "AHA!! Could you find me any authors who quantify b?"
In short? No. In a bit longer? Of course not, I already explained you're attacking something that isn't evolution. It's like trying to disprove gravity because balloons float.
You know, my big beef with God is essentially how Humans have depicted Him
He's an all powerful being who can do whatever the hell he likes, essentially.
How come people die in horrendous ways? How come children - those with innocence - are murdered and raped? And how can priest rape little boys, then insist doing such a thing is bad?
I've heard people say; "oh, it's so we can learn from our mistakes". Sorry, how does that teach us anything, except that Humans are scumbags?
So, either 1. God's a bastard and does not give a shit about us, 2. He is not all-powerful or 3. He's not real.
I chose not real.
I don't know if the Pope believes in Evolution, be it micro or macroevolution, but I do. And it does make more sense than;
"God got some wax and made stuff. He then decided to make Man, but it took a long time and a snake kept eating it. So he made a dog to protect Man so the snake wouldn't eat it. Man was made and dog became Man's best friend. God then decided to give Man a companion, so made Woman"
And yes, I did go to a very strongly Christian school. And this is taking what I learned from there, although thinning it out a bit.
Just imagine Him as a big bearded stoner in the sky, thats what I do. He cant help it man, but He's definitely there for you, you know, when He's got time or something.
good argument against religion though, "If God made the dog as men's best friend, then why is the internet filled with pictures of cats?"
<- Agnostic btw, I hope there is a God, otherwise all those poor religious people are doing all those things for nothing :(
Then he's an intellectually dishonest fukbag. But we knew that...
Stephen Hawking has three children. Human influenced Natural Selection is treating him just fine.