Religion

• O-Trap

  

  Devils Advocate;1386961 wrote:

  In my opinion, that is a perfect display of how we should evaluate our physical world, as well as the attitude we ought to have toward it.
• jmog

  sleeper;1385389 wrote:I won't even get into your offshoot of questioning evolution. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a reality. This would be akin to going into a math class and trying to argue with your teacher than 2+2 doesn't equal 4; you think the professor wouldn't get angry?
  

  Actually by scientific defintion, evolution is a theory, it is called the Theory of Evolution for a reason.
  
  Now, the 2+2=4 example is actually proven using the Peano Axioms of Arithmetic. So, 2+2=4 is a provable fact using Postulates and Axioms which in the realm of the mathematical science postulates and axioms are facts, not theories.
  
  Unfortunately I have had to do that proof (1+1=2 and then 2+2=4 is just one step farther), and it actually is not fun or easy.
  
  With the evidence we have now, evolution (at least the macro version) is not something that has been proven fact and not even close.
  
  It most certainly IS the most well accepted THEORY, that is for sure.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1387017 wrote:Actually by scientific defintion, evolution is a theory, it is called the Theory of Evolution for a reason.
  
  Now, the 2+2=4 example is actually proven using the Peano Axioms of Arithmetic. So, 2+2=4 is a provable fact using Postulates and Axioms which in the realm of the mathematical science postulates and axioms are facts, not theories.
  
  Unfortunately I have had to do that proof (1+1=2 and then 2+2=4 is just one step farther), and it actually is not fun or easy.
  
  With the evidence we have now, evolution (at least the macro version) is not something that has been proven fact and not even close.
  
  It most certainly IS the most well accepted THEORY, that is for sure.

  Would you agree that it seems to, based on available evidence, be the most CREDIBLE theory?
• jmog

  O-Trap;1387019 wrote:Would you agree that it seems to, based on available evidence, be the most CREDIBLE theory?

  Microevolution absolutely.
  Macroevolution not really, but that is for a whole different topic that would include multiple dating techniques (no, not match.com dating techniques).
• jmog

  Devils Advocate;1386961 wrote:

  This is most definitely how pure science research should be done.
  
  However, for decades politics and for other reasons, scientific research starts with someone "knowing" the answer and adjusting what evidence they take and disregard to fit their assumption.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1387022 wrote:Microevolution absolutely.
  Macroevolution not really, but that is for a whole different topic that would include multiple dating techniques (no, not match.com dating techniques).

  Not to hijack the thread but no. What creationists call "macroevolution" when they're not moving the goalposts, has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings. Yet, creationists will call any observable evolutionary change as "merely microevolution". It's not a debate being done in good faith.
  
  The only way that "macroevolution" as creationists define it is not a fact is if we're in the matrix, we're being deceived by Satan or the empirical world what we know about evolutionary biology is, in some way, a deception.
• OSH

  

  BoatShoes;1387065 wrote:Not to hijack the thread but no. What creationists call "macroevolution" when they're not moving the goalposts, has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings. Yet, creationists will call any observable evolutionary change as "merely microevolution". It's not a debate being done in good faith.
  
  The only way that "macroevolution" as creationists define it is not a fact is if we're in the matrix, we're being deceived by Satan or the empirical world what we know about evolutionary biology is, in some way, a deception.

  I'm interested in this...details?
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;1387065 wrote:Not to hijack the thread but no. What creationists call "macroevolution" when they're not moving the goalposts, has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings. Yet, creationists will call any observable evolutionary change as "merely microevolution". It's not a debate being done in good faith.
  
  The only way that "macroevolution" as creationists define it is not a fact is if we're in the matrix, we're being deceived by Satan or the empirical world what we know about evolutionary biology is, in some way, a deception.

  Hmm ... I even espouse evolution of species, but I hadn't heard of complete species variation having actually been observed. Where was this the case?
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1387022 wrote:Microevolution absolutely.
  Macroevolution not really, but that is for a whole different topic that would include multiple dating techniques (no, not match.com dating techniques).

  There is no difference.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1387198 wrote:There is no difference.

  So, suppose you have a species that develops into multiple sub-species through environmental adaptation, but which still retain the genetic similarity necessary to be the same species. Has that species undergone evolution or not?
  
  Again, I believe in both, but I can see a difference. Even if one suggests that one is a precursor to another, that can be a difference, I would think.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1387203 wrote:So, suppose you have a species that develops into multiple sub-species through environmental adaptation, but which still retain the genetic similarity necessary to be the same species. Has that species undergone evolution or not?
  
  Again, I believe in both, but I can see a difference. Even if one suggests that one is a precursor to another, that can be a difference, I would think.

  It's the same thing just given more time.
  
  That's like saying a small snowball being made is a different thing to a larger one being made. Just takes more time.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1387219 wrote:It's the same thing just given more time.
  
  That's like saying a small snowball being made is a different thing to a larger one being made. Just takes more time.

  To my knowledge, though, only one has been observed. That was the distinction I saw. If, however, that is incorrect, then I'd love to read about it, as I'd think it would be quite a fascinating happening.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1387232 wrote:To my knowledge, though, only one has been observed. That was the distinction I saw. If, however, that is incorrect, then I'd love to read about it, as I'd think it would be quite a fascinating happening.

  What the hell does that even mean? Anyone who understands evolution knows that there isn't micro and macro evolution. Just evolution. They're literally the same thing. And what would you even count as evidence of "macro" evolution? Because usually this is the part where someone drops in a study or evidence and then the evolution denier keeps explaining why it isn't so, repeat ad infinitum.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1387239 wrote:What the hell does that even mean? Anyone who understands evolution knows that there isn't micro and macro evolution. Just evolution. They're literally the same thing. And what would you even count as evidence of "macro" evolution? Because usually this is the part where someone drops in a study or evidence and then the evolution denier keeps explaining why it isn't so, repeat ad infinitum.

  Well, that won't be me, since I don't deny it. As I said earlier, I believe that evolution has indeed been the cause of species diversification. My question was whether or not we've actually seen two species develop from one (or one develop into a completely new one). Granted even on a small scale, it would take an obscenely long time. Didn't know if we'd seen it get to that point. That's all.
  
  As I recall, we've observed species adapt to their environment to the degree that particular traits became virtually nonexistent. However, I just hadn't heard of any instance in which a single species (of single-celled organism, perhaps) was split up between two different environments and the changes were such that they were eventually no longer the same species as one another.
  
  I tried to express that I recognize that evolution is more of a slope than a staircase, but I apparently did a poor job.
  
  Again, I think that species variation was the result of natural selection and environmental adaptation over millions of years. I just didn't know if it had ever been able to be observed in a laboratory with one of the more basic organisms known to exist.
  
  It was a genuine question, and I'm pretty sure you and I agree on it.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1387248 wrote:Well, that won't be me, since I don't deny it. As I said earlier, I believe that evolution has indeed been the cause of species diversification. My question was whether or not we've actually seen two species develop from one (or one develop into a completely new one). Granted even on a small scale, it would take an obscenely long time. Didn't know if we'd seen it get to that point. That's all.
  
  As I recall, we've observed species adapt to their environment to the degree that particular traits became virtually nonexistent. However, I just hadn't heard of any instance in which a single species (of single-celled organism, perhaps) was split up between two different environments and the changes were such that they were eventually no longer the same species as one another.
  
  I tried to express that I recognize that evolution is more of a slope than a staircase, but I apparently did a poor job.
  
  Again, I think that species variation was the result of natural selection and environmental adaptation over millions of years. I just didn't know if it had ever been able to be observed in a laboratory with one of the more basic organisms known to exist.
  
  It was a genuine question, and I'm pretty sure you and I agree on it.

  We have observed things changing pretty drastically. Hell look at our fruits and vegetables now. And things like the dark fly experiment and any number of other things.
  
  I'm just saying that even if we haven't seen "macro" evolution (which I contend we have because it's the exact same thing as "micro" evolution) that it isn't important. If one understands even the most basic ideas of evolution then they would understand why it wouldn't be necessary to directly observe an ape transforming into a human (not that that happens but you get the point) because the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. Probably more so than for almost any other scientific theory.
• sleeper

  

  We have 50% of the same genes as bananas. We have 99.9999% of the same genes as a monkey. Yet only micro evolution exists. :rolleyes:
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1387261 wrote:We have observed things changing pretty drastically. Hell look at our fruits and vegetables now. And things like the dark fly experiment and any number of other things.
  
  I'm just saying that even if we haven't seen "macro" evolution (which I contend we have because it's the exact same thing as "micro" evolution) that it isn't important. If one understands even the most basic ideas of evolution then they would understand why it wouldn't be necessary to directly observe an ape transforming into a human (not that that happens but you get the point) because the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. Probably more so than for almost any other scientific theory.

  As I stated, I'm convinced. I was just curious.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1387270 wrote:As I stated, I'm convinced. I was just curious.

  The dark fly thing is pretty convincing to me. I have a hard time thinking how someone could deny it after reading that.
  
  But really when talking about this anymore the first thing I do is instead of saying "do you believe in evolution?" I say "do you understand evolution?". Because 99.999% of people who don't believe in evolution couldn't give you an explanation that would be acceptable in a middle school science course. (O-Trap, I know you're not one of these people I'm just babbling here)
• sleeper

  

  sleeper;1387266 wrote:We have 50% of the same genes as bananas. We have 99.9999% of the same genes as a monkey. Yet only micro evolution exists. :rolleyes:

  But sleeper, please show me the fossil of a banana-monkey-man. The denial of the existence of evolution by believers is almost as pathetic as their beliefs in and of themselves. I also find it highly ironic that creationists want evidence of scientific theory but hold no such concern that their entire belief system which they suscribe to has never, can never, and will never produce a solid piece of any evidence.
  
  Delusional.
• sleeper

  

  Look at the evolution of computers. It all started with a simple Apple II and now equals laptops, desktops, tablets, smartphones, ipods. Hell there are computers that fit on thumb drives and look absolutely nothing like the Apple II. The creationist will try to convene a tablet is nothing more than microevolution while reality states there is no difference between micro or macro evolution. The computer evolved into many different "things" and now no longer resembles anything like the the first iteration.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1387302 wrote:Look at the evolution of computers. It all started with a simple Apple II and now equals laptops, desktops, tablets, smartphones, ipods. Hell there are computers that fit on thumb drives and look absolutely nothing like the Apple II. The creationist will try to convene a tablet is nothing more than microevolution while reality states there is no difference between micro or macro evolution. The computer evolved into many different "things" and now no longer resembles anything like the the first iteration.

  Careful where you go with THAT analogy, though. The evolution of computers was by "design."
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1387304 wrote:Careful where you go with THAT analogy, though. The evolution of computers was by "design."

  Well there's evidence of that.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1387306 wrote:Well there's evidence of that.

  Eventually, that evidence might just be an ancient book written about how it happened. Who's going to believe that just based on the theory that it's possible?
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1387307 wrote:Eventually, that evidence might just be an ancient book written about how it happened. Who's going to believe that just based on the theory that it's possible?

  I get you're joking but that's not at all similar. Even without knowledge of their history we could study them scientifically. Not so with the magic sky man.
• ThePatriot

  Wow, I'm a non believer myself who has listened to and been part of this same discussion during a thousand drunken nights in my life and I've never seen the position argued as poorly and irresponsibly as Sleeper has done.
  
  Heck, I think I might go to mass on Sunday now. SMH. Thanks a lot sleeper.