More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

You've got to be ****ing me

~D

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

Seems pretty straigth forward. Evolution theory is just that, a theory. And there is as much to be said for as against evolution.
Right now we've come to a situation is science where evolution theory is like the microsoft windows of research. you need to pose your ideas within the framework of evolution, anything else is taboo. This stops progress, especially because this fundamental evolution theory is more shakey than most people realize.

Allowing room for other ideasa might be the way to achieve progress, and maybe finally answer the question of how it all started.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

"Psychoreligionology" is my new favorite word.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Right now we've come to a situation is science where evolution theory is like the microsoft windows of research. you need to pose your ideas within the framework of evolution, anything else is taboo.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's like that with the round-Earth theory as well. Go figure.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's like that with the round-Earth theory as well. Go figure.



[/ QUOTE ]

The Earth is round lol, anyone can see with their own eyes that it is flat.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

I second that, steamboatin [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] lol

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

No you can't. Does the word horizon mean anything to you?

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

You, too, must be ****ting me.

We're not 100% sure on how the moon got to be where it is. Not every crater on its surface is accounted for.

Paul Bunyan obviously put it there. I want that taught to your kids. In school.

~D
edit: self-censoring

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

I am not a biogeneticist. I just happen to have a good friend who is.

After more than a few long nights drinking beer and taking in what he has to say on the subject, I'm pretty sure I'm right in stating that anyone who thinks that "evolution is just a theory" means "any other idea is just as good" is either intentionally or ignorantly misunderstanding how the term theory is used within the field.

Evolution is, as far as modern science can tell, a fact. It's been proven in laboratory studies, it's been documented in the field.

Not accepting evolution as the mechanism for biological differntiation can not be regarded as the act of an intellectually honest person.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

*sigh*

Only in America.... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

It's always fascinating to read a foreign columnist or statesman talk about this issue. If someone were to raise this question in Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, or any other civilized country on earth, they'd be laughed out of town. Yet here, in the U.S., there is still "debate" about whether evolution (a proven process observed many times over!!!) is a "theory"....

Sheesh....

Cris

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
evolution (a proven process observed many times over

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

I've long thought that willful ignorance was a hallmark of American politics.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is, as far as modern science can tell, a fact. It's been proven in laboratory studies, it's been documented in the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had only started this sentence with the prefix "Micro", you would be correct.

Macro evolution, at least according to what admittedly mediocre, casual research I've done, is unproven and likely to remain so. Micro evolution is an undeniable process.

Note that I'm not saying I don't believe that macro evolution is the most acceptable theory for explaining the development of species, simply that it's not exactly hard fact either.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Note that I'm not saying I don't believe that macro evolution is the most acceptable theory for explaining the development of species, simply that it's not exactly hard fact either.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not your fault, but you've been misled by creationist hucksters.

Speciation (what creationists call "macroevolution") has been directly observed many times. It is a hard fact.

See, for example:

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

"In biology classes, our students are not learning the largely mathematical facts of 21st-century science; they're imbibing the consolations of a faith-driven 19th-century materialist myth."

Darwinism is too old and faith driven, eh?


NOT AS OLD AND FAITH DRIVEN AS THE BLEEPIN BIBLE!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a joke.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/...ngs/evadap.gif

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
there is still "debate" about whether evolution (a proven process observed many times over!!!) is a "theory"....


[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. How many times has evolution been observed?

Justin A

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

A zillion, give or take . . .

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

Hi Justin and felson,

Read maurile's post for citations. Folks, the debate on both micro- and macro-evolution has been quite thorougly resolved. The scientific literature is extensive. There are disputes in the scientific community as to the details of the process, how many generations are required for any given mutation to take hold, etc., etc. But as to the core issue -- that species evolve and morph into new species in response to adaptations to their environment -- sorry, but you're arguing into the wind. You may as well argue that 2+2 really equals 5....

Cris

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

Hi toots,

I'm reminded of something the former prime minister of Canada said: "If a Canadian politician said that he felt God had called him to run for office, and that the jury was still out on evolution, his candidacy would be dead before the news cycle was over."

I'm Catholic. I attend Mass every week, and every day during Lent. I believe in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist. I believe there are miracles. I believe there is a phenomenon which we describe as ESP because we don't yet have a scientific model which predicts it. I am hardly a hard-headed realist.

However, I also believe that science is an essential and necessary tool by which we come to understand our universe, and when the scientific method produces replicable results over several studies, I take the hypothesis thus validated as a fact. If that challenges some of my other beliefs -- even my religious beliefs! -- I conclude that it's time to re-examine those beliefs in light of the new evidence.

There are some fundamental premises (so-called "first questions") of religion which cannot be proved or disproved by science. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, for example. That's like trying to use the infield fly rule to prove that Gary Moss' last touchdown catch was illegal.

But when it comes to observable phenomena in the physical domain, science is the best tool we have. The best tool we have says that evolution is a fact. I'll take their word for it.

Cris

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi toots,

I'm reminded of something the former prime minister of Canada said: "If a Canadian politician said that he felt God had called him to run for office, and that the jury was still out on evolution, his candidacy would be dead before the news cycle was over."


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I heard her say that, too.

I find some irony in the fact that there's so much anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment in US politics.

The country's affluence of the 20th century is due in very large part to our having the finest scientists and engineers. Science has been playing a greater and greater role in how we make our money, with menial grunt work taking a lesser role. Yet there's continual pressure to dumb down our next generation of high school and college graduates.

The result of this won't be very successful for the US, but I'm sure that developing countries that aren't quite so hostile toward the sciences will very much appreciate our relinquishing our former preeminence.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not your fault, but you've been misled by creationist hucksters.

Speciation (what creationists call "macroevolution") has been directly observed many times. It is a hard fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been decieved by creationists. I don't even listen to creationists.

This is all based on high school biology and a handful of evolutionary college classes. In which, it was referred to as macroevolution (although speciation was used interchangably), and in which this larger mechanism was presented as unprovable. Certainly not that they doubted it at all, simply that they acknowledged it as unprovable.

I wouldn't know where to begin reading from your list, but can you sum up how, for example, scientists have proven macro-evolution?

It seems counterintuitive that someone could observe such a process, which, according to theory I was presented, takes place over thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years.

Again, this isn't remotely close to my area of study and I was just interjecting what little I've learned. If it's wrong, blame Wisconsin. Or my mediocre attendance record.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

There are alot of people running around defending flawed beliefs. Once you believe something, you can really cut down on your thinking.

This goes for rabid evolutionists also. Evolution happens, OK. And, many go further, and completely buy the 'evolution as ORIGIN of life' argument.

Then they get religious about it.

If you like exercising your brain, this link on the subject may be of interest to creationists and evolutionists that are NOT rabid.

Cosmic Origin

[ QUOTE ]
Cosmic Ancestry is a new theory pertaining to evolution and the origin of life on Earth. It holds that life on Earth was seeded from space, and that life's evolution to higher forms depends on genetic programs that come from space. (It accepts the Darwinian account of evolution that does not require new genetic programs.) It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating.



[/ QUOTE ]

The ability to think is a terrible thing to waste.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

Evolution, as the song teaches us, is in fact a Mystery.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com
"I See The Line In The Sand"

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

You know what. I think we should teach Creationism and Intelligent Design along with evolutionary theory. We should present the evidence for all three and let students decide which makes most sense.

There is a problem in the way we teach science to kids. They don't realize the incredible amount of evidence that needs to be gathered before a scientific theory is accepted. They don't realize the incredible scrutiny that a theory needs to undergo before it becomes as well established as evolution.

If we taught all three, many people would realize what complete nonsense creationism is and would eventually realize that everthing in the bible was complete nonsense. That would only make the world a better place in my opinion.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

Remember that when Darwin published his theory people were not pre-disposed to believe it. In fact, most scientists did not want to believe it.

There were plenty of competing ideas at the time and it took a very long time for evolutionary theory to become what it is today. The reason evolutionary theory outlasted all of those other theories is that the evidence overwhelmingly supported it compared to the other theories. Evolution did a better job of accounting for all of the observations than the competing theories did.

It seems like the intelligent design people have no evidence other than to say that certain things are too complex to be created by evolution, so there must be a designer. No one is stopping them from proving their points and revolutionizing science just as Darwin did.

The problem is that this is not a scientific theory. It is creationism masquerading as science. In fact, these guys are anti-science.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

Evolutionary theory does not purport to explain how life came to be. It does purport to explain how man came to be and that is where people have a problem with it.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

NO. If you ask most evolutionists, they take it all the way back to the origin of life. On earth.

Ask Sklansky, see what he says.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

How about a theory about the origin of life on earth?

Clearly evolution is a flawed theory along these lines.

Refining a species OK. Mutating new species, maybe, but on thin ice.

Origin of life? Sorry, it doesn't have any evidence.

Citing evolutionary evidence within a species, or the spawning of new species via mutation to support that same theory for explaining the origin of life is faulty logic on bad premises.

This makes more sense to me, as it is logical.

Cosmic Ancestry as a LOGICAL theory of life-origin on Earth

Come on people. Evolution is a kind of religion. Sheesh.

Can't we all just get along?

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
NO. If you ask most evolutionists, they take it all the way back to the origin of life. On earth.

Ask Sklansky, see what he says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course evolution does stretch back to the origin of life - that is when evolution began.

But it does not explain what caused life to originate. In fact, some people criticize evolutionary theory for this.

There is still no theory that adequately explains how life originated. Even if the first organisms were brought to eart by space aliens, evolution has still ocurrred.

Just because the mechanism of evolution is proven, it does not mean that other mechanisms that might affect life on earth are ruled out.

If anyone is interested:
15 answers to creationsit nonsense

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about a theory about the origin of life on earth?

Clearly evolution is a flawed theory along these lines.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can it be flawed when it does not have anything to say about the issue?

That's like saying Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker is flawed because it doesn't explain how poker originated.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't know where to begin reading from your list, but can you sum up how, for example, scientists have proven macro-evolution?

It seems counterintuitive that someone could observe such a process, which, according to theory I was presented, takes place over thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it usually takes a long time. Current theories indicate that it generally takes about 3 million years, on average. Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition.

But certain organisms have very brief lifecycles, and for them, speciation has been directly observed (in nature and in labs): fruit flies, houseflies, flour beetles, worms, mosquitos, green algae, bacteria, and many more.

In fact, we've even directly observed speciation in mammals. Six instances of speciation have occurred in house mice within the past 500 years. Britton-Davidian, J., J. Catalan, et al. (2000) "Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice." Nature 403: 158.

See the "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ from Talk.Origins for more on this subject.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

Creationists come in different brands:

Some are literalists regarding the Bible accounts.

Some consider the Bible stories to be allegorical and not literal.

I think all of them believe life was created by 'God' and that the spark of life was not some random event, but rather a creative event from a Creator.

Not all 'creationists' take the Bible literally. These guys certainly dont:

Cosmic Ancestry

Note that the origin of life and the origin of existence and matter are completely separate topics. It's somewhat sloppy to consider both at the same time.

The origin of life on earth in certainly something to ponder.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The theory that we evolved from a specific creature is theoritically based. Evolution patterns can be seen before your eyes, how much more evidence do you need?

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about a theory about the origin of life on earth?

[/ QUOTE ]
How about one? The origin of life on earth is generally referred to as "abiogenesis." I don't know that we have anything that qualifies as a theory yet, but there's some interesting speculation supported by experiments involving the the formation of amino acids.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly evolution is a flawed theory along these lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly gravity is a flawed theory along these lines as well. So?

[ QUOTE ]
Refining a species OK. Mutating new species, maybe, but on thin ice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutations resulting in the formation of new species have been directly obvserved many times. To say that it's on thin ice is to betray your ignorance on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
Citing evolutionary evidence within a species, or the spawning of new species via mutation to support that same theory for explaining the origin of life is faulty logic on bad premises.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good thing nobody's done that, then.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a kind of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are using an extremely non-standard (and non-sensical) definition of religion.

Re: More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is both.

<font color="blue">"Evolution" is like "gravity." It refers both to a) a fact, directly observable, and b) a number of theories to describe how it happens.

Evolution is a fact, directly observable. Even speciation events have happened within a recent human lifetime. Furthermore, evolution by artificial selection is entirely uncontroversial; nobody sane doubts that sweet corn, cauliflower, and broccoli are the products of a long time of selective breeding by humans.

Evolution by natural selection is a highly successful theory to explain the observed fact that it occurs without humans to guide it.

All theories are models, or guesses if you like. But the observed fact of evolution is not based on models, assumptions, or guesses. Rather, people invent the models in an attempt to explain the observed facts. All of them are approximations; the best you can say about a theory is that it is consistent with observation to the accuracy and precision of your measurement.

Gravity, like evolution, is an observed fact. Things fall; you can try this at home. People invent theories to describe these observed facts. Aristotle came up with a theory that was truly bogus but probably sufficient for people who didn't think too hard. Kepler came up with three laws that were a good theory for a while. Newton came up with a much better theory that explained Kepler's 3 laws in terms of 2 laws. Einstein came up with an even better theory. People have been trying to come up with still better ones but so far haven't had a lot of stellar success.

Saying that Einstein's theory of gravitation may not be the last word does not imply in any way that gravity isn't a fact.

-- Eric Pepke</font>

St. Augustine\'s Advice for Creationists
 

These paragraphs from St. Augustine are still eerily relevant today.

<font color="blue">Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.' (1 Timothy 1.7)

St. Augustine (ca 400AD)</font>

Sixteen centuries later, this same theme is expressed more colorfully, if less politely, in the following form letter Lenny Flank sends to people who email him with their religious views in response to his website on evolution.

<font color="blue">I apologize for the form letter. I get emails from so many fundamentalist wackos that I simply don't have time to respond to them all individually.

I am an ordained minister with a doctoral degree in divinity. Despite that, I have no interest at all in debating theology with you, for two reasons: (1) theology is simply not relevant to the scientific question of whether or not life evolves over time, and (2) since your pipeline to God isn't any more direct than mine or anyone else's, your religious opinion doesn't mean any more than mine or anyone else's.

You do, though, seem to be under the ignorant delusion that evolutionary biology is somehow anti-god or anti-religion. It isn't. Evolutionary biology is no more "atheistic" than is mathematics, economics, or the rules of baseball. That's why most biologists in the US identify themselves as Christians. That's why all but two of the 14 plaintiffs who filed suit in Arkansas to have creation "science" kicked out of public schools were ministers, clergymen and representatives of religious orders and denominations. That's why every mainstream Protestant denomination on earth accepts all of modern science, including evolutionary biology, and sees no conflict between it and Christian faith. In fact, the vast majority of Christians view creationists as doing tremendous harm to Christianity, by making Christianity look silly, stupid, backwards, ignorant, uneducated and simple-minded. Every time some fundamentalist fruitcake screams "science is atheistic!!!!" at the top of his lungs, he merely reinforces the popular stereotype that people have of Christians as half-educated backwoods redneck hicks who live in trailer parks in small southern towns and who probably married a close relative in a ceremony led by Reverend Billy Joe Bob.

If your religion says life doesn't evolve, then your religion is wrong. Just as it was wrong when it said the earth doesn't move. Of course, there are still Christians who refuse to accept that the earth does move, since their idol-worship of the Bible compels them to reject all of modern science. Just as you make the claim that a True Christian(tm) can't accept evolution because it conflicts with the Bible, they make the claim that a True Christian(tm) can't accept a moving earth because THAT conflicts with the Bible. Both creationists and geocentrists do nothing more than make Christianity look stupid and silly.

I do not know anybody who was won to Christianity as a result of creation "science". But I do know personally at least six educated people who were driven away from Christianity as a result of the silly things that creationists try to pass off on people. If "the tree is known by its fruits", then it must be said that creationism seems to be one of the most effective tools that Satan has to drive educated people away from Christianity.

It took some Christians four centuries to accept the fact that Copernicus and Galileo were right, and the earth moves around the sun. Apparently, it will take another four centuries for certain "Christians" to accept that Darwin was right too, and life evolves.

Stop making Christianity look silly and stupid. Stop driving educated people away from Christianity.

I am asking this as an ordained minister.

Lenny Flank</font>

I wonder what the 3600 A.D. version will look like?

Re: St. Augustine\'s Advice for Creationists
 

Thank you, Maurile, thank you! (I couldn't have said it better myself...)

Re: St. Augustine\'s Advice for Creationists
 

That really was a wonderful pair of quotes.

Thank you.

Re: St. Augustine\'s Advice for Creationists
 

maurile,

I will join the chorus of "thank you's" for your having done the work of finding and posting those quotes. It's nice to see the argument framed so eloquently.

Cris

Re: St. Augustine\'s Advice for Creationists
 

Dear Maurile,
That in no way places Augustine in your or any other corner. It is certainly not a justification for the"science of evolution". Augustine as a thinker from a Manichean background took the jump to the church on faith in a total act of acceptance. In early Christianity there were those who were there and every man could refer to someone who had been there and could testify to the Christ apperance on the earth. This of course ran its course with traditon,belief, etc. following. This was carried on by the Catholic Church which of course was the Christian Church until the reformation. Make no mistake about it, Augustine was no scientific materialist by any stretch of the imagination.

To place Augustine and Flank on the same page is an egregious error and displays a total lack of understanding of Augustine or even what Flank is saying.

The only connection is that Augustine is counseling his brothers and sisters in the Church whereas Flank is displaying a one sided belief in his " religion of scientific materialism" under the guise of a frock.

regards,

carlo