Evolution - Let's discuss!! (Kingdom, verse, philosophy, science)

[ParkTwain]

This guy is a hand-waver. Do you have any documentation for your assertions?

[nebulous1]

Life is self-replicating organic chemistry that evolves.


That's just the way it is, how the universe "works" and some want to put someone behind it. But there is no one there behind it.

[4Pillars]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

This guy is a hand-waver. Do you have any documentation for your assertions?

Here, for your reading pleasure...

Over 400 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient

CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise

Dissent From Darwin “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory. The list is now located at the website, CSC - Center for Science and Culture

SEATTLE — Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at CSC - Center for Science and Culture, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Moderator cut: copyright violation

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by 4Pillars

Here, for your reading pleasure...

Over 400 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence That Darwinian Evolution is Deficient

CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise

Two things I noticed about that article:

1.) The source is THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE & CULTURE, which is the big organization pushing Intelligent Design.

2.) The article says that some scientists are questioning random mutation and natural selection as sufficient explanation for evolution. But it never elaborates on that point. If random mutation and natural selection don't adquately explain evolution, then what does in their current thinking?

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Two things I noticed about that article:

1.) The source is THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE & CULTURE, which is the big organization pushing Intelligent Design.

2.) The article says that some scientists are questioning random mutation and natural selection as sufficient explanation for evolution. But it never elaborates on that point. If random mutation and natural selection don't adquately explain evolution, then what does in their current thinking?

Good point. This kind of reminds me of Project Steve...

Check it out:
Project Steve: Humorous Test of Scientists' Attitudes Towards Intelligent Design

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by malcolan

The reason why there are debates about evolutionary topics is because the things being discussed are matters of opinion, not scientific facts. Somebody finds a part of a jaw and thinks it came from a human ancestor. A second scientist (who usually has also discovered a part of a jaw, which he claims came from a human ancestor) says the first scientist is wrong. There is more ego involved than evidence. Objectivity is distorted by the desire (perhaps even the need) to have bragging rights.
.

Look, I'm all about arguing and debating but I ask that you please don't cite something as if you wrote it. That's all I'll say on this for now unless you'd like to push the issue.

Regardless, dispute within the scientific community is what makes science so special. It shows that science doesn't settle for the first guy's opinion. It builds upon the disagreements and tests to see who is right. As I've said before, I could dig up a bone in my backyard and say "Look! Egads! This proves birds came from dinosaurs" and a scientist, at first glance, or perhaps not as educated as others in the community, may agree with me. However, it's only until extensive testing is done that a determination is made. No one digs up a jaw bone and says "We've done it!" based on their first impression. To do so would not be called science, it'd be called speculation.

[ian6479]

There is very little (if any) argument withint the scientific community about evolution as a fact. What they are not certain about, and what is up for debate/change is the 'mechanism' of how evolution works exactly.

[Capt. Dan]

Isnt religion [creation] justb speculation also? Just a guess on where to place your faith?

[bily4]

Undisputable proof of evolution with new study -Male Monkeys Pay for Sex.


Discovery News : Discovery Channel

[MontanaGuy]

Malcolan wrote:

If evolution were true, one would expect to find fossils of just a few kinds of simple creatures in the lowest rock layers. As one goes higher in the rock layers, there should be more and more different kinds, similar to those below, but slightly more complex.

This is a common mistake that people who are unfamiliar with evolution make. Evolution is not necessarily an accumulation of complexity but rather an adaptation to the existing environment that increases the chances for survival. We have records of mass extinctions of plants and animals that were quite complex and it's a mistake to think of them as more primitive than organisms living today. Evolution involves a number of dynamic processes that are interacting and it's simplistic and inaccurate to state for example that man is the pinnacle of evolution because of the complexity of our large brains. It's very likely that insects have a much better chance of surviving far longer than human beings despite our large egos and self centered view of the universe.