A calm debate

[Gobalopper]

What about macroevolution? Has that been proven?

Personally I can see how a species can adapt to different conditions and hence change some features of their anatomy, but not go from say a fish to a bird even if there are billions of years to do it. There are lots of fossils out there but there still hasn't been any that can show the progress from ape to man. Have you ever thought about how slim the chances of human life being completely random are? Even if I wasn't a Christian I would have a hard time believing that life just happened from some jumble of chemicals that had just the right conditions and its not just Christians who think that way.

I don't mind if they teach evolution in high school but they should also point out the flaws or other possibilities. Evolution is never going to go away unless someone comes up with a better theory and ID will never get the scientific attention because it is given the label as being religious so it can't be true.

I'm not sure what you mean by it not being scientific? It is still looking at how we got here, just because it says there was some other force that started life doesn't mean it can't be argued from a scientific viewpoint.

And you can't make generalizations like "ask any biologist", I highly doubt every biologist agrees with evolution.

[Acriku]

Macroevolution is very hard to prove, we simply haven't been here long enough. But do you see my point when I describe what should happen with microevolution happening over a long time?

Well think about it Gob. Each niche is being filled (natural selection), a fish might develop very simple or slightly effective lungs along with the same gills, and then slowly (very slowly) each gene alteration that actually benefitted the organism (and a lot of mutations, such as insertion/deletion of nucleotides messing up the reading frame of the codon, and definitely if a nucleotide is inserted/deleted early enough after the initiation of translation, it can screw the rest of the codon up, out of order, but some are beneficial) that live on through the offspring one after the other (maybe some simulataneously) they add up, and the differences were so great that the organism wouldn't be able to mate with the previous species. Try not to think of it as how can bunch of amino acids can turn into polypeptides then proteins giving us the phenotypes into an ape to a man, think of it as amino acids randomly mutating, and going into a direction complentary with the mutations, and becoming man. It isn't so unbelievable when you think about it this way. The mutations could have come out to a very different phenotypically and genetically organism, but it mutated into us based on those mutations.

And it is required, to understand biology, that evolution is shown in the light of truth, like the quote I previously said. If we put evolution into serious question in the books, and in the teachings of the teachers, then a lot of things will go awry IMO.

One thing I have to say right now, that I've just thought of, is that when kids grow up into highschool, I think it would be alright to involve creationism or ID theory because then their minds would not be as so impressionable and will take consideration of all of them from a reasonable mind, not an impressionable mind. But there are probably exceptions with some feeling intimidated or teachers abusing that privilege, so it might just be best that they stay out of the curriculum.

And sorry you are right about the generalization, but I must stress that an overwhelming majority would say the aforementioned answers.

[emprworm]

I will not judge Acriku because he has not explained to me how evolution is proven.

I will not judge Acriku because he has not explained to me how evolution is proven.

I will not judge Acriku because he has not explained to me how evolution is proven.

I will not judge Acriku because he has not explained to me how evolution is proven.

I will not judge Acriku because he has not explained to me how evolution is proven.

I will not judge Acriku because he has not explained to me how evolution is proven.

wow, Acriku. Looks like this debate is really getting 'beefed up' on the substance side of things.

[Acriku]

Well I was joking there, trying to get a laugh in these tense threads, but hey I tried. And I did explain how evolution is proven, say do you read my threads at all? I say it about 3 times.

Edit: Yeah I learned a lot since the religion thread from my college biology class (but taught in highschool, AP it is called) and online research, so I have a bit to say ;)

[emprworm]

The Myth:

"Anyways, the reason I don't want ID theory taught in a science class is because nothing I have read or heard tells me it is scientific"

The Truth:

"Anyways, the reason I don't want ID theory taught in a science class is because my atheist bias prevents me from seeing anything outside my personal convictions as having scientific credibility. If it implies non-atheism, then by default it MUST be non-scientific. We all know, of course, that NO TRUE SCIENTIFIC theory would not imply atheism. And NO TRUE SCIENTIST would think such would be the case."

[emprworm]

Each niche is being filled (natural selection), a fish might develop very simple or slightly effective lungs along with the same gills,

no evidence. unproven.

and then slowly (very slowly) each gene alteration that actually benefitted the organism

nice fairy tale. too bad you cannot explain "irreducible complexity" a term that evolutionists like to just dismiss. You want scientific evidence for ID? That is some right there.

Try not to think of it as how can bunch of amino acids can turn into polypeptides then proteins giving us the phenotypes into an ape to a man, think of it as amino acids randomly mutating, and going into a direction complentary with the mutations, and becoming man.

lol. ok, i'll also try to think of a great sky pixie, pink in its brilliance, granting me three wishes.

It isn't so unbelievable when you think about it this way.

there is just no evidence for it- thats all. It is very simple to think that information requires intelligence as well. Thus, ID.

The mutations could have come out to a very different phenotypically and genetically organism, but it mutated into us based on those mutations.

beneficial mutations? huh?

[sneezer3]

Macroevolution is very hard to prove, we simply haven't been here long enough. But do you see my point when I describe what should happen with microevolution happening over a long time?

Well think about it Gob. Each niche is being filled (natural selection), a fish might develop very simple or slightly effective lungs along with the same gills, and then slowly (very slowly) each gene alteration that actually benefitted the organism (and a lot of mutations, such as insertion/deletion of nucleotides messing up the reading frame of the codon, and definitely if a nucleotide is inserted/deleted early enough after the initiation of translation, it can screw the rest of the codon up, out of order, but some are beneficial) that live on through the offspring one after the other (maybe some simulataneously) they add up, and the differences were so great that the organism wouldn't be able to mate with the previous species. Try not to think of it as how can bunch of amino acids can turn into polypeptides then proteins giving us the phenotypes into an ape to a man, think of it as amino acids randomly mutating, and going into a direction complentary with the mutations, and becoming man. It isn't so unbelievable when you think about it this way. The mutations could have come out to a very different phenotypically and genetically organism, but it mutated into us based on those mutations.

These are 6 Baseic Consepts of Evolution.

1. Cosmic Evolution -

Big Bang makes hydrogen

2. Chemical Evolution -

higher elements evolve

3. Evolution of stars

and plants from gas

4. Organic evolution -

life from rocks

5. Macro-evolution -

Changes between kinds of plants and animales

6. Micro-evolution

Changes within kinds

However. the first 5 are belived by faith. only the sixeth has been observerd<what you where saying here>. and can be called a proven fact.

[Gobalopper]

Well think about it Gob. Each niche is being filled (natural selection), a fish might develop very simple or slightly effective lungs along with the same gills, and then slowly (very slowly) each gene alteration that actually benefitted the organism (and a lot of mutations, such as insertion/deletion of nucleotides messing up the reading frame of the codon, and definitely if a nucleotide is inserted/deleted early enough after the initiation of translation, it can screw the rest of the codon up, out of order, but some are beneficial) that live on through the offspring one after the other (maybe some simulataneously) they add up, and the differences were so great that the organism wouldn't be able to mate with the previous species. Try not to think of it as how can bunch of amino acids can turn into polypeptides then proteins giving us the phenotypes into an ape to a man, think of it as amino acids randomly mutating, and going into a direction complentary with the mutations, and becoming man. It isn't so unbelievable when you think about it this way. The mutations could have come out to a very different phenotypically and genetically organism, but it mutated into us based on those mutations.

Ok sure there is going to be some changes but to go from a fish that breaths under water to something that can walk on the land? Why would it evolve like that? What is the point of a fish learning to breath air and grow legs? The only case I can think of would be if it somehow runs out of water but then it is likely to die before it could "evolve" into anything that would help. I just find it hard to believe that there could be so much mutation that an animal could completely change like that. I don't see humans growing extra limbs or such, even the basic beginnings of it, which would be expected wouldn't it?

And why do humans have such large brains if we don't even use most of them? Why evolve with such a large brain if we don't even need it? I don't know, evolution just seems to have to many questions without answers for me to believe it. Sure ID has questions too but at least I can answer them and still have it make sense.

[sneezer3]

And why do humans have such large brains if we don't even use most of them? Why evolve with such a large brain if we don't even need it? I don't know evolution just seems to have to many questions without answers for me. Sure ID has questions too but at least I can answer them.

Also note that a humans Brain i heard. is only at 10% effenctcy

Just don't tell me "speak for yourself". ;D lol.

[emprworm]

1 Piece of Evidence of Intelligent Design

No matter what you atheists say, this IS evidence. It IS scientific. And you can dismiss it if you want. But kids in High School should be taught this. They should be allowed to make up their own minds.

Quoted From Michael Behe, PhD

BLOOD CLOTTING

Now let's talk about a different biochemical system of blood clotting. Amusingly, the way in which the blood clotting system works is reminiscent of a Rube Goldberg machine.

The name of Rube Goldberg; the great cartoonist who entertained America with his silly machines, lives on in our culture, but the man himself has pretty much faded from view. Here's a typical example of his humor. In this cartoon Goldberg imagined a system where water from a drain-pipe fills a flask, causing a cork with attached needle to rise and puncture a paper cup containing beer, which sprinkles on a bird. The intoxicated bird falls onto a spring, bounces up to a platform, and pulls a string thinking it's a worm. The string triggers a cannon which frightens a dog. The dog flips over, and his rapid breathing raises and lowers a scratcher over a mosquito bite, causing no embarrassment while talking to a lady.

When you think about it for a moment you realize that the Rube Goldberg machine is irreducibly complex. It is a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to break down. If the dog is missing the machine doesn't work; if the needle hasn't been put on the cork, the whole system is useless.

It turns out that we all have Rube Goldberg in our blood. Here's a picture of a cell trapped in a clot. The meshwork is formed from a protein called fibrin. But what controls blood clotting? Why does blood clot when you cut yourself, but not at other times when a clot would cause a stroke or heart attack? Here's a diagram of what's called the blood clotting cascade. Let's go through just some of the reactions of clotting.

When an animal is cut a protein called Hageman factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hageman factor. Immediately the activated Hageman factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. Kallikrein helps HMK speed up the conversion of more Hageman factor to its active form. Activated Hageman factor and HMK then together transform another protein, called PTA, to its active form. Activated PTA in turn, together with the activated form of another protein (discussed below) called convertin, switch a protein called Christmas factor to its active form. Activated Christmas factor, together with antihemophilic factor (which is itself activated by thrombin in a manner similar to that of proaccelerin) changes Stuart factor to its active form. Stuart factor,working with accelerin, converts prothrombin to thrombin. Finally thrombin cuts fibrinogen to give fibrin, which aggregates with other fibrin molecules to form the meshwork clot you saw in the last picture.

Blood clotting requires extreme precision. When a pressurized blood circulation system is punctured, a clot must form quickly or the animal will bleed to death. On the other hand, if blood congeals at the wrong time or place, then the clot may block circulation as it does in heart attacks and strokes. Furthermore, a clot has to stop bleeding all along the length of the cut, sealing it completely. Yet blood clotting must be confined to the cut or the entire blood system of the animal might solidify, killing it. Consequently, clotting requires this enormously complex system so that the clot forms only when and only where it is required. Blood clotting is the ultimate Rube Goldberg machine.

It is not only artificial mechanical systems for which design can easily be concluded. Systems made entirely from natural components can also evince design. For example, suppose you are walking with a friend in the woods. All of a sudden your friend is pulled high in the air and left dangling by his foot from a vine attached to a tree branch. After cutting him down you reconstruct the trap. You see that the vine was wrapped around the tree branch, and the end pulled tightly down to the ground. It was securely anchored to the ground by a forked branch. The branch was attached to another vine, hidden by leaves so that, when the trigger-vine was disturbed, it would pull down the forked stick, releasing the spring-vine. The end of the vine formed a loop with a slipknot to grab an appendage and snap it up into the air. Even though the trap was made completely of natural materials you would quickly conclude that it was the product of intelligent design.

a system that is irreducibly complex by definition cannot evolve over time. it must exist completely and fully functional at its intial inception. biological life is loaded with irreducible complex systems, one of the biggest holes in the evolutionary theory. Kids need to be taught this glaring weakness in Darwinism.

[Acriku]

I will ignore Empr's post as it does not keep this thread calm, and collected, as sneezer and Gobalopper are doing. Calm down that post and I will look at it and reply to it at the best of my ability.

Gob I don't think I can tell you why exactly, since I obviously don't have complete knowledge of what went on back then. But read this:

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/Philsviews/TreeEssay.html

It shows a very good analogy to what I talked about earlier, about looking at it in the other direction. Perhaps this will make my point clearer?

Also, remember that mutations are random. So if they somehow benefit the organism, it will live on through the offspring over a grand scale. They don't decide to go up onto land, the conditions and environment involved affected this, and many other factors.

The brain question, well human beings use different percentages of their brains, so it might just be that we aren't developed enough to attain the ability to use it all. Remember, a rat with a peanut-sized brain does not use all of that brain, it uses a percentage, likely small if it's consistent. So in millions of years, if we are still here, we might use more. But who knows till it happens?

[sneezer3]

What about those protons?

and before you say anything. read my post on page two. here i'l quote.

"

physicists call the force that brings them together "the strong force".

Could you please go into some more detail? i mean. of course theres something holding them togather. no matter what its called. so tell me. if that isn't it what is the binding force of an atom?

"

[Gobalopper]

Well you just contradict yourself there. You say that the mutations are random and stick around if they are beneficial but in the next paragraph say that the human brain still isn't used fully. Why bother mutating to such a large brain that isn't used much, as sneezer said it is a very low percentage, when you could argue that a smaller brain is actually better?

And the tree thing doesn't really help, to me that doesn't prove evolution at all. Evolution is more then just a tree growing a larger leaf, his comparison is too simple.

[emprworm]

ok, lets look at some of Acriku's terms that he has been using in his posts (some of them multiple times)

"might develop"

"Just might be"

"could have come"

"if they somehow"

Does this sound like something that is empirically proven? Of course not.

Earlier, Acriku said:

"I will not judge empr because he has not explained to me how ID is scientific.

I will not judge empr because he has not explained to me how ID is scientific.

I will not judge empr because he has not explained to me how ID is scientific.

I will not judge empr because he has not explained to me how ID is scientific. "

To which I replied:

Scientific Evidence for ID

To which Acriku replied

I will ignore Empr's post as it does not keep this thread calm

lol. the ole' ad-hominem scape goat eh? Nice excuse to avoid ID evidence. I think my point about letting kids make up their own minds is clear. Teach both theories, let them decide- not acriku- not some atheist, but themselves

[Acriku]

Sneezer, I can't, because I don't have a degree in physics. It would take someone who has a large understanding of electromagnetism and a lot of other stuff to explain it (and mind you it isn't a two sentence explanation, it can get long)

Gob, I actually found a very interesting fact, that the little usage of the brain is actually a myth. Learn all about it here:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

Basically it's a myth, and we use a very large percentage of our brain, if not 100%. Read all about it up there ^^^

[emprworm]

no, Acriku. no one knows how much we really use. those people that say 100% are speculating as much as those who say 10%

it would put someone in a difficult position to say he uses 100% of his brain and then try to learn some new information, would it not?

[Acriku]

Empr, I beg to differ. We use 100% of our brain, all of it (as far as I know) to acquire knowledge of our surroundings, using deductive and inductive reasoning. Broken into different parts, each working laterally and for different things. Your argument is lacking, because if we take out any small piece of the brain, it will show a defect, no matter how small that defect is. Therefore all of it is used.

Check this quote out from

http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html

:

Today the entire brain is mapped in extensive detail, and a specific function has been found for each part of the brain. Most brain functions are lateralized, meaning that they exist on only one side of the brain. The notable exception to this is the frontal lobes, which possess many redundant structures. Neuroanatomy is a highly advanced discipline, to the extent that the complex connections within the brain, between its various structures, have also been mapped out in detail. For this reason clinical neurologists can often localize a lesion within the brain with precision based solely upon a patient

[Gobalopper]

Interesting point I didn't know about that either, well I knew we used all areas of our brain, I always figured it was that we didn't use all the potential power it had.

[Gobalopper]

Here is one on ID and scientific theory for you Acriku. :)

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html'>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

The rest of the site:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/

Oh here is another myth broken ;)

"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

[emprworm]

lol, that was funny acriku. that link you gave me was the exact window I already had open on my screen. what a funny coincidence.

To respond: it is one thing to say we use all 'areas' of our brain, it is quite another to say we use all our brain cells- and use it to capacity.

If you took your actual knowledge and subtracted it from your brain's potential knowledge, you would most certainly have a very very large number remaining. Of course, those who dispute that can't prove it anyway. just more theories without proof. maybe we use 10%...maybe we don't. But 100%???? Cmon.

good links, Gob.

ID is a scientific theory, one that is as valid as any theory. it should be taught in high school along side evolution. let kids make up their own minds.

[emprworm]

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

that link is excellent. I might also add that state supreme courts are now ruling favorably on the veracity of ID as a scientific theory.

whether or not an atheist approves of this: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html does not by any means make it non-scientific. Being a "scientific theory" does not mean it must be actually true. Many theories are proven false, but they were still scientific theories.

Evolution is a scientific theory

ID is a is a scientific theory

Both should be taught.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

[sneezer3]

Good links guys. :)

Sneezer, I can't, because I don't have a degree in physics. It would take someone who has a large understanding of electromagnetism and a lot of other stuff to explain it (and mind you it isn't a two sentence explanation, it can get long)

If you say so. but i don't think it would have to be that large. i mean its a simple question. whats the binding force of an atom.

Also see this link : http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Now let me ask you something. What if your wrong? What would the result be? what if that really. that is a big lie? well. i'l keep you in my prayers. And if you ever one me to take a bible and show you how God died for you. you know where to find me.

[emprworm]

sneezer, lol, you are a funny guy. i actually like you. you even quote your scientific resources from J Chick. He is your theologian, astronomer, biologist, archaelogist, historian, mathematician, sports forecaster(?) all in one! I love it. lol ;)

[Acriku]

I read half of the page, I'll read the rest later, but what I am getting from it is that the ID theory is found to be used in science, but not including a supernatural designer. It is when some involve supernatural designers with the theory that scientists start to refute it. And I believe some of the proof they say supports the bible model is that we will rarely, if at all, any other rocky planet such as earth. Now correct me if I am wrong, as that sentence is from memory, how can this be used as proof? They are speculating, rather predicting based on speculation, that among the planets we do find, very rarely will one be a rocky planet such as earth. Well when we come close to discovering the whole universe, I'll get back to you on that one, and test it, until then I say we sit back and search, instead of predict what the probability of finding another "earth" will be.

That's my take on it atleast.

I see I'm being ganged up on, but that's alright Jesus will walk with me through this journey.

Sneezer it may be a simple question, but by no means is the answer simple. If I'm wrong? I asked myself that a few times before, and this I had to reply to myself: Burn baby burn-burn-burn!

Empr what proof do you have of the supreme courts now ruling favorably towards ID? I would like to see proof, as it's easy to get things misunderstood and well I can't rely on hearsay for something as big as that :)

Does ID go through the same qualifications and pass the same test that evolution passed, the test that qualifies whether or not something is a scientific theory? Check back in the previous posts to see how evolution does.

I see you still do not accept the fallacy of the myth Empr, very well, that is your choice.

And I do not consider an author saying that a survey says 40% of all American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God. First of all it's hearsay, so bring out da survey I say! ;) And also a survey can also say many things, it is up to the surveyor to interpret the data in his or her own ways. It is very easy to interpret the data to match one's objective, and common in fact. And no one surveys everybody, in fact some surveyors choose select people, and take their data from them, but how were the surveyee's picked? That is why I am skeptical about any survey :)

And also note the fact that the survey only includes America, a worldwide survey, no matter how easy to interpret one way where the data shows another way and hard it is to survey everyone, would be interesting. And see the percentage then.

And empr, putting in ID theory involving supernatural can create lotsa problems, most still debated among supreme courts.

[emprworm]

ahhh but Acriku, ID does not necessitate supernatural anymore than you seeing a computer lying in the woods would necessitate supernatural. It only says that "Hey, something INTELLIGENT created this."

If you saw a computer lying in the woods, you would immediately identify it as of intelligent origin. Same with life on earth. We could have been designed by aliens (panspermia) or the product of a Star Trek hologram. No one says "God" in this. ID only denounces random chance, and says "Designer", it does not by any means identify the designer.